Commons Sitting of 18 February 1897

PRITATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY BUILDINGS BILL.
  *MR. C. A. WHITMOREsaid that, in the unavoidable absence of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) it fell to him to move "That this Bill be now read a Second time." He knew that the Motion would be met with vigorous opposition—[Ministerial cheers]—and that that opposition would come mainly from those with whom he generally had the pleasure of working. As he believed that a great deal of the opposition of his hon. Friends arose out of vague and general prejudices, and as he was certain their opposition to this particular proposal had been inflamed by statements which were misleading and estimates which were exaggerated, he hoped he would be pardoned if he, at no excessive length, stated the case of the London County Council. The proposal in the Bill was that the County Council should have power to acquire a site to the east of their present buildings which would run over that area of land which was bounded by Cockspur Street, Charing Cross, and the Mall, and which would in future be bounded by the extended Mall, assuming that the Government carried out the plan to extend the Mall into Charing Cross. The necessity of a great extension of the site for the County Council buildings was no new question. From the first it had been generally admitted that the present offices were quite insufficient for the satisfactory discharge of the duties which had been delegated to that Council. In 1890 a special committee of the Council carefully viewed 11 different sites which were then available for new offices; but now every one of those sites had ceased to be available. At the present moment, as he was instructed, there was only one site available, and that was the one which it was the object of this Bill to
  672
  enable the Council to acquire. The staff of the Council numbered 500 persons, and two-fifths of that staff were housed away from the central offices. The cost of housing those who were away amounted to £6,000 a year. To give an idea of the necessity for new buildings he might state that there were 24 standing committees of the Council, and it was not unusual for the committees and sub-committees to hold as many as 50 meetings a week. Yet there were only five rooms in the present buildings available for their accommodation, including the so-called library, and there was no sort of separate room in which a deputation could be received. The necessity for new buildings being admitted, the main question left to be considered was whether the proposed site was an extravagantly expensive one. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended that it was not, and expressed surprise that certain irresponsible statements of an exaggerated character as to the cost should have been put forward publicly. The figures which he should give to the House, on the other hand, were based on estimates made by experts responsible to the County Council. It was calculated that the cost of acquiring the site would be £813,000. It was intended that the ground floor of the buildings should be utilised for bank offices, insurance offices, and other business premises, and the value of letting those premises would amount to the capital sum of £300,000, as against the £813,000 for the site; and the annual interest would be £20,000, which meant an addition to the rates of one-seventh of a penny in the pound. The probable cost of the buildings would be £500,000, which meant another one-seventh of a penny in the pound. The freehold would be acquired in 60 years. What the ratepayers had to consider was whether it was worth their while, in order to obtain new buildings in a central and convenient position, to sacrifice the difference in rates between two-sevenths of a penny in the pound and one-fourteenth of a penny in the pound now paid for leasehold interest.
  SIR J. B. MAPLE: Does that include compensation in respect of the new street contemplated?
  *MR. WHITMORE: Yes, I think so.
  SIR J. B. MAPLE: I do not think so. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. WHITMORE: At any rate, the making of the new street has nothing to do with this Bill nor the County Council. That matter rested entirely with the Government, and he hoped the Government would carry out the scheme. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished to impress upon the House that this scheme was not promoted by one party or the other in the County Council—it was neither a Progressive nor a Moderate scheme. [Cheers.] And the composition of the majority of the Council who voted for the present proposal was very significant, and bore out his statement that the scheme was not at all one of a party character. In that majority there voted 10 present chairmen of committees of the Council, equally divided between Moderates and Progressives; 15 ex-chairmen of committees, and two ex-chairmen of the Council. So that it might fairly be said that the proposal was backed up by the authoritative voice of those in the Council who had most experience and responsibility. [''Hear, hear!"] It was dictated by absolute administrative necessity. The site proposed was not only a good one, but it was really the only available site, and the price was not an extravagantly expensive one. [Ironical cheers.] He knew it would be stated and reiterated that the object of the Bill was to erect a palace for the pleasure and pride of the Progressives of the County Council. ["Hear, hear!"] No such idea had entered into the minds of those who were supporting the proposal. What they wanted was simply to meet the absolute administrative necessities of the Council. He did not think it would be necessary to rebuild the present Council Chamber; the new buildings would be strictly allocated to the staff and proper housing of the several committees of the Council. It would also be said by the opponents of the Bill that any extension of buildings for the County Council at the present moment was premature—["hear, hear!"]—that there was likely to be a reconstruction of the system of London local government, and that there was likely to be a great devolution of authority and powers from the County Council to local authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no good mincing words on this matter, no good in cherishing false hopes and
  674
  indulging in vain dreams. He was perfectly convinced himself that they never would be able to make any very large or very material subtraction from the powers the County Council now had. There were many small powers, no doubt, which could be transferred from the County Council to local authorities, and for his part he thought the sooner those powers were transferred the better it would be for the local authorities and for the London County Council. But it was vain to suppose that the settlement which was arrived at by the great Act of 1888 could be fundamentally or essentially varied. The County Council must remain the central administrative authority for London. [Opposition cheers.] Even when these smaller duties were transferred to the local authorities they must not suppose that the volume of the work of the Council would not continue to increase. The natural growth of the population and the tendency of all modern legislation must very quickly redress the balance. Therefore, be said that any hopes that might be raised on the plea that it was premature now to erect buildings of this kind were false hopes, founded on expectations which never could be realised. In the last place, no doubt the opponents of the Bill would rest their opposition on a feeling which, though they might not express it, was deeply felt, of, "Oh, bother the Council and all its works." It was not for him to eulogise the County Council, but he did say that all of them, Radical and Conservative, Progressive and Moderate, were interested in making that body as good an administrative body as they could make it. ["Hear, hear!"] The way to attract good Londoners to its service was not by constantly depreciating it, by constantly carping at everything it did, was not by harassing it, and not by preventing the further progress of any Measure which it thought was necessary at the Second Reading stage. After all this was not a matter of politics. It was not a matter even of municipal politics. It seemed to him to be esentially a question of cost, which ought primarily to be decided between the ratepayers and their duly-constituted representatives. This Bill came before the House with a respectable majority, irrespective of party, of the Council at its back, and he asked the House to look at the real merits of this particular

  675
  Bill and not lightly or hurriedly to arrest its further progress. [Cheers.]
  MR. E. BOULNOISsaid he rose to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." [Cheers.] He claimed on this occasion to represent a large minority on the London County Council, and also the vast body of the ratepayers of London, who were opposed to this scheme. Unfortunately in a Bill of this kind, if it went to a committee, the ratepayers per se had no locus, and the opinions of London could not be expressed before an ordinary Select Committee of that House. The only opportunity the ratepayers had of being heard was in that Chamber itself. The Bill was introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for the London University, his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, and the hon. Member for Batter-sea. It was rather significant that the first two Gentlemen were Aldermen of the County Council—["hear, hear!"]—and, though he desired to speak with every respect of the Aldermen, he ventured to suggest that they represented no one but themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the hon. Member for Battersea, it could hardly be maintained that he represented the whole of the ratepayers of London. ["Hear, hear!"] Then he objected to the title of the Bill. The title, the London County Buildings Bill, had misled members of the County Council, the public, and, he said without hesitation, a certain number of Members of that House. The Bill was originally called the London County Hall Bill, but at the instigation of the right hon. Member for the London University it was altered to its present title, and it thus secured the support of some weak-kneed members of the Council, who, he understood, had since become rather lukewarm in their praise of the scheme. The scheme was hastily considered, and it was ill judged. The site, in the first place, was a great deal larger than was really required for the purposes of the Council. He supposed the House could hardly conceive the fact, but he was told that the site was as large as that upon which the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the India Office, the Colonial Office, and the Local Government Board Office altogether stood. [Laughter.] His next objection was that it was probably the most expensive site that could be chosen
  676
  in London. He imagined that, with the exception of the Bank of England, they would not find a more expensive site than that on the south side of Trafalgar Square. It was said there was no other site; but, in the opinion of those who had taken a deep interest in this matter, there were several very available sites for this purpose. The Council let slip the very good site that was offered to them in the Hotel Cecil, and the equally good site in the Haymarket where Her Majesty's Theatre stood. But there were still available the site of Christ's Hospital in the City; of Clare Market—a site which the Council had in its own hands practically; of the Aquarium; the site now occupied by Morley's Hotel and the Golden Cross Hotel; and, there was also a site on the Thames Embankment. ["Hear, hear!"] In addition to these it was quite clear that, sooner or later, the County Council would have to make a wide street from Holborn to the Strand, where they might get any number of sites. He maintained that no proper inquiry had been made as to sites, those who supported this scheme having set their minds upon Trafalgar Square. It was necessary to say a word on the cost, because his hon. Friend had stated he had mentioned figures which were not accurate. In the statement circulated the cost was set down at 1½ millions. This figure was taken from the London County Council statement. In their Bill they named the sum of £851,000 for the site alone.
  *MR. WHITMOREexplained that the cost of acquisition of site was £850,000, but it was practically concluded that there should be a transfer of part of the land to the Government, which accounted for the difference between £850,000 and £830,000.
  MR. BOULNOISsaid in addition to the sum for the acquisition of land there was an estimate of £500,000 for building, so that taking the £500,000 and the £851,000 named in the Bill the total was not very far short of 1½ millions. This total, his hon. Friend said, would be greatly reduced by shops and business offices; which would be placed on the ground floor of the contemplated building. But the Council had not pledged themselves to build shops, they only mentioned that this could be done, but they went on to say it, would be premature to suggest any conclusion as to this part of

  677
  the scheme, and as a matter of fact this had never been agreed to by the Council. The amount of £500,000 for the building was admitted to be simply a loose estimate on the part of the architect, not based on plans, elevations and details, the architect was simply asked "What do you think the building would cost?" and he named the sum of £500,000. But did any hon. Gentleman imagine for an instant that a building could be put on a site of 84,000 square feet for £500,000? He would undertake to say that anyone with experience in such matters would estimate the cost at at least a million of money. On the question of site and building he would like to allude to the much abused London "School Board. That body was not usually credited by the people with any strong disposition in favour of economy, but they had a very line and suitable building on the Embankment good enough for any municipality, including even the London County Council, and he found that the total sum expended upon the site, building, and all charges was £201,024. The building accommodated 300 clerks, and his hon. Friend said the Council required accommodation for 500, say double the number of the London School Board, or treble or quadruple it, and it did not come to anything like the sum the London County Council proposed to spend in Trafalgar Square. ["Hear, hear!"] But the London School Board did not go there, they were content with a modest, site on the Thames Embankment which the London County Council could have if they chose. The ratepayers had never been consulted in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend said two or three times, what the ratepayers had to decide was this or that, but if the Bill passed the ratepayers would have no voice in the matter, and certainly they could not decide. This was essentially a ratepayers' question which had never been put before the ratepayers in any shape. He challenged the hon. Member for Battersea or any Member of the London County Council to say if there was any allusion made to this gigantic proposal at the last, Council election in addresses or speeches of candidates. There were plenty of matters that did engage attention, water supply, tramways and matters of that sort, which, of course, they might very well deal with, but the idea of spending 1½ millions of money
  678
  on a magnificent Hôtel de Ville was never presented to the ratepayers. ["Hear, hear!"] Until the ratepayers were consulted on this matter it was not right that Parliament or the Council should give assent, to such a scheme. He admitted that there was a, necessity for more accommodation, and larger premises for the London County Council, and no doubt the House would be told by the hon. Member for Battersea that the Council were "cabined, cribbed, confined," but it was not quite so bad as that. There was a necessity for larger premises, but this did not justify the London County Council in going to the most expensive site they could find in London, and spending 1½ millions of money. ["Hear, hear!"] He appealed to the House on behalf of the ratepayers, who were unable to protect themselves. There was no urgency in the matter, the delay of another year, what was all the throwing out of the Bill would mean, would not seriously hurt the Council, and for 25 years their predecessors, the Metropolitan Board of Works, had managed to get on pretty well in their building, and with the utmost confidence he asked the House to reject this costly, ambitious, and unnecessary scheme. [Cheers.] He formally moved that the Bill be Read a Second time this day six months.
  MR. C. E. TRITTONsaid be begged to second the Amendment. The House would agree that it, had been treated to an interesting and edifying spectacle, two hon. Members who sat on the same side, both in the House and in the London County Council Chamber, being diametrically opposed in their views upon this Bill. As an independent London Member having nothing to do with the County Council, he would briefly give his reasons for supporting the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who had moved the Second Reading told the House very plainly, and in no, hesitating language, of the feelings that animated those who were going to oppose the Bill, they were actuated, he said, by a vague and general prejudice and deep disgust, of the London County Council, which he summed up in the expression "Bother the London Comity Council and all its works." He objected to have his feelings represented in that way by one who could know very little of those feelings. He acted on this

  679
  occasion out of no spirit of general opposition to the London County Council, and he was not aware that he had ever said a word against the Council. As a Londoner, he recognised the immense good the County Council had done in a great many directions, more especially in relation to parks and open spaces, a subject in which he took great interest. Having put himself right with his hon. Friend he would first justify his action in the interest of the London County Council itself, and he was not without hope that the promoters of the Bill would even yet see that they had been rather premature in bringing this Bill forward. In the interest of the London County Council he was sorry to sec the unpopularity of the Council in some parts of London. He would like to see the Council thoroughly popular among all London people, and ventured to suggest that this move of the Council would not add to its popularity. He had been in conversation with a good many ratepayers in the last few days, and had found amongst them nothing but a feeling of absolute horror at this scheme in the Bill. He earnestly hoped the Council would reconsider its position. It was a young and vigorous body and its parent sitting below (Mr. Ritchie) must be surprised to find what a lusty young Council it had become, and how far it had exceeded the hopes with which it started on its career. Its position, however, was not yet clearly defined, and the Council might well wait before embarking upon expenditure of this kind. There was a great want of space it was said, and Members of the Conservative Party had every sympathy with overcrowding, seeing how they were crowded in the House and its precincts. Still, overcrowded as they were, they went diligently on striving to do their duty to the State without murmur or complaint. The County Councillors might well do the same. The ratepayers looked with great anxiety on the ever-increasing debt of the Loudon County Council. The debt of the County Council amounted to £19,250,000 and was constantly increasing. In face of these facts he did not wonder that many thoughtful citizens and ratepayers of the great Metropolis were seriously pondering in their mind how much further this ever-growing expenditure of the London County Council was to be allowed to go. ["Hear, hear!"]
  680
  As one of the representatives of a division of poor parishes in Lambeth, where great suffering was entailed owing to the rates, he hoped the House would not pass a Bill which would considerably increase the local burdens. ["Hear, hear!"] There were many improvements which they earnestly desired to see carried out, but which, for want of money, could not be pushed forward, and whilst that was the case, the London County Council were not justified in asking for £1,500,000 for the purpose of the erection of a new county hall. They wanted in the Metropolis more street improvements, the removal of insanitary spots, and better dwellings for the toiling masses, rather than such a building as the London County Council proposed to erect for themselves, and of which the ratepayers had hitherto heard little. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOHN BURNSdesired to say that a large minority of men who shared the views of the hon. Member for Marylebone in the County Council disagreed very strongly indeed with the views he had expressed that afternoon. As to the ratepayers, there had not been an election since 1889 at which the necessity for this new building had not been dwelt upon, the opponents of the Council's policy using the county hall argument as a reason why the Progressives should be defeated. From the point of view of the cost, he submitted that was not a matter for the House of Commons, but for the ratepayers electing the Council, who only wanted that opportunity of doing for the London ratepayers what Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, and Bradford had done in relation to similar schemes for their municipalities. ["Hear, hear!"] He denied that this was a hasty project, for the sub-committees of the Council, in consequence of the present lack of accommodation, had often been compelled to meet in rooms which, if they had done their duty as a sanitary authority, they ought to have scheduled as insanitary areas. The question had been before the Council for eight years. The hon. Member for Marylebone had said the site proposed was too large. Its measurement was 84,000ft., or about two-thirds of the area occupied by the two adjoining Admiralty buildings together. Then it was said that sites could be obtained elsewhere. He would ask where?

  681
  Take the Victoria Embankment site. The hon. Member knew that the bulk of the site opposite the Thames Conservancy offices had already been acquired for newspaper offices, and he ventured to say if it had been offered at one-fourth of the price that had been paid for it by the two newspapers that were erecting buildings upon it, such was the character of the ground that they could not have put upon it any building which they expected to last 200 or 300 years. On account of the nature of the subsoil it had been found necessary to put down a blanket of concrete 8ft. thick before building operations could be commenced. As to the Hotel Cecil, which had been spoken of, that building was unsuitable for the work of the London County Council. Then they were told about the Hay-market site. It was not the fault of the London County Council that they could not get it, and when it was mentioned it was met with the same kind of opposition that was offered to the present proposal. It was suggested that they should pull down Christ's Hospital. That was the suggestion of a vandal and a Philistine. [Laughter.] He objected to either the House of Commons or the County Council, or Progressives or Moderates, identifying themselves with the cheap and nasty policy of getting rid of old buildings that made up the history and traditions of their great city. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] That was a worthy Conservative sentiment. [Laughter.]
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLANDwished to point out, that the site of Christ's Hospital had been condemned and a new site bought in the country, so that the present building had to be pulled down. The building was a comparatively modern one, so that it was not necessary it should be kept by reason of its antiquity.
  MR. BURNSsaid that the condemnation of the site of Christ's Hospital came long after it was possible for the County Council to consider the question.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: It is now open. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BURNS: But it is too late, and it is unsuitable for us even if it had not been condemned.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: It is not too late.
  MR. BURNS,in continuation, traversed the argument that the building could not be erected on the proposed site for £500,000, expressing his conviction that it could be entirely constructed for from £350,000 to £400,000. The County Council did not want a palace, or Hôtel de Ville, but what they did want was a workshop in which they could do their municipal work. ["Hear, hear!"] Above all, if they were to have such a building it must be of either brick or stone, sufficiently solid to justify the intended outlay upon it, and architecturally and artistically blend with the splendid Government offices which were to be built in close proximity. The County Council were green with envy of the London School Board's offices. The tea room of the London School Board office has a floor space equal to that of three of the five Committee rooms that the County Council were imprisoned in. The hon. Member for Norwood wanted the County Council to trouble less about the overcrowding of its own members and more about overcrowding in the dwellings of the poor. The Council had eleven rehousing schemes, on which alone it was spending £400,000, in the East End of London. It was not to be expected that men of all shades of politics, who devotedly gave their time to the service of the ratepayers would spend six, eight, or ten hours a day, live days a week, in offices lit only for a slum and in an atmosphere not so good as that of the stable in which hon. Members put their horses. [Ministerial crien of "Oh!"] Eleven sites had been suggested and abandoned, either because they were too dear or inappropriate. The conditions on which they held them tied them to their present offices. There was a 62 years' lease to run, for one thing. Several of the Council's officials' offices were scattered about the neighbourhood—as in Craven Street and Cranbourne Street, a quarter of a mile away. When the Main Drainage Committee, that had purified the river and done excellent work the last eight years, were sitting, and they wanted the engineer and the chemist, the engineer would be in the building at Charing Cross and the chemist half-a-mile away. Frequently they had to delay or postpone work for want of time to find their officials. The Council had fourteen departments and a staff or 500 persons.

  683
  The Technical Education and Metropolitan Asylums Boards held their meetings at the Council's offices, and other similar bodies would be able to do so if they had more room. The hon. Member for Chelsea said the scheme would only represent a rate of one-seventh—he believed it would only be one-twelfth or one fourteenth of a penny in the pound. He himself believed that, even if it represented one fourth of a penny, the London ratepayers would grant it, and the Council would have a right to demand it. Glasgow, with a population one eighth that of London, spent £700,000 on its town hall; Manchester spent £400,000 on the site, and £600,000 more on the building. Leeds and Bradford also had fine town halls, and what great provincial towns like these had, should not be denied to London. The Pall Mall Gazette, which had been heading the agitation against the Bill, urged that the site proposed would be costly, the plan extravagant, and the hall ought not to be located where it was proposed to place it. The Pall Mall had persistently attacked the project, and asked hon. Members to rally, not on the side of economy, efficiency, or the appropriateness of site, but to rescue the dustbin of the proprietor of the Pall Mall, whose residence was next door to the offices of the County Council, from having its ventilation and access to light and air interfered with. Let the House contrast this niggardly petty policy with the splendid behaviour of the hon. Member for Greenwich, their next door neighbour. The Council were prepared to deal with him in a neighbourly spirit. It was an abuse of London hospitality, it was not fair or gentlemanly for a new millionaire from America to dump his city offices next those of the London School Board and prevent their extension, and his own house next to the offices of the London County Council, and to complain because the Council came "between the wind and his ability." His appeals to hon. Members were based on selfish, personal reasons, by which he himself hoped they would not be deceived. He could stand a decent duke—[loud laughter]—or a militant marquess—[renewed laughter]—but here was a new millionaire enjoying the hospitality of London, in whose ground rents he was investing heavily, and whose sanitation he was partaking of
  684
  —[laayhter]—sanitation which he could not get in Fifth Avenue or Broadway. Why did not his public spirit rise to the level of that of the city of which he was a citizen, and propitiate those who scorned delights and lived laborious days in the service of the people of London. Why should they be herded together in rooms that the House of Commons would not kennel a dog in? ["Hear, hear! "and cries of "Question!"] The Council did not want a palatial building, but one in which they could meet and do their work properly. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. W. F. D. SMITHsaid that on that side of the House they were not opposed to the idea that London should have a proper Hall in which to carry on municipal affairs. He had been approached in regard to this matter, however, by numerous ratepayers of the Strand, whom he represented, and at least one of the public bodies in the Strand borough, who believed that there was, at any rate, a good case for the postponement of this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been objected that the scheme was for a site larger and more valuable than was needed, and he thought that the admission that the London County Council intended to use the lower floor for shops was proof that the site was too big. He did not know whether that use of a part of the buildings would add to the dignity of the new County Hall. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it would give the Hall a rather similar appearance to that of the hotel on, the opposite side of the square. Something had been said with regard to the cost of the site, and he could not help fearing that the estimated price for the site was lower than the County Council could reasonably expect to get it for. The offices there were particularly valuable to those who used them. He knew certainly of one case of a large firm which had been disturbed no less than three times within a comparatively short period. He thought they would agree that in such a case there would be a strong case for considerable compensation. There were some exceptionally hard cases of that sort. He did not think either that it would be found that the premises on the lowest floor, which it was proposed to let, would be useful to such firms as those he referred to. He thought therefore that the estimated revenue which was expected from the letting of

  685
  the premises on the ground-floor had been very considerably exaggerated. They did not think that there was no case to be made out for the County Council, but they thought that this was a site which the County Council need not acquire.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid that the opposition to this Bill was founded very much on a misapprehension, and the expense contemplated had been much exaggerated. Hon. Members who opposed this Bill did not seem to appreciate the great difficulties under which the business of the Council was carried on. It was no question of the Council Chamber. That was simple but convenient. The staff, however, were scattered in 14 different houses. Some were working in attics and rooms intended for bedrooms. It was impossible, however, to rearrange them, because the tenancies were so short, in some cases only yearly tenancies. Under these circumstances the heads of departments could not exercise any proper supervision. Moreover, the houses were much scattered, in one case half a mile away. This was very inconvenient. Sometimes a committee telephoned for a particular officer, and when he came a paper was wanted, which had to be sent for, involving great loss of time. There were 24 committees, and eight to ten meetings a day, but there were only five committee rooms. There was only one waiting-room, and, when deputations came from Vestries and other bodies, there was no proper room for them, and they had to stand about waiting in passages. The Committee had been considering sites for some years, and were of opinion that this was the best, and, everything considered, the most economical. They had a sixty years' lease of their main building, and if they went elsewhere it would be unsuited for other purposes. He had been Chairman for two years, and could assure the House that additional space was urgently required. When the Bill was before the Council it was supported by sixteen Chairmen of Committees, and not one voted against it. The Bill did not raise the question of the building, it merely enabled the Council to acquire a proper site. If it were thought necessary, the expense might be greatly reduced by letting off the frontage towards Trafalgar Square. The present was an opportunity
  686
  which ought not to be lost. If the Motion were passed the Bill would be rejected. If the Second Reading was passed the Council would still have to satisfy the Committee upstairs. The Bill was supported by all those who knew most of the work of the Council—by the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Deputy Chairman, and sixteen Chairmen of Committees. He hoped, therefore, that it would not be summarily rejected on ex parte and exaggerated statements, but that the House would at least give them the opportunity of proving their case before a Committee upstairs. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. CHARLES HARRISONsaid that, as a member of the London County Council since it was originally instituted, and as the representative on the Council of South West Bethnal Green, one of the poorest districts of East London, he ventured to make some remarks on the Bill. Parliament had protected the ratepayer in London over and beyond ratepayers in all other municipalities. It had placed the control of all capital expenditure and finance under the absolute veto of the Treasury, who control the public finance. They were also further protected by the Standing Order of this House, which required all Bills relating to the finance of the London County Council to be introduced as public Bills, so as to give the whole House control over capital expenditure. But in assuming control and giving this protection in regard to capital expenditure it had not hitherto been suggested that Parliament should extend its control beyond capital expenditure and exercise it as regards rate. On all measures the Council was left answerable to the electors, the ratepayers, and the question was whether Parliament should now extend the doctrine of control, and apply it to rate. This particular scheme was adopted by the Council, upon the report of a special committee. That report dealt with the rejected proposals for acquiring eight different sites. Amongst them that of Christ's Hospital, alluded to in this Debate, and the Victoria Embankment site; as to Christ's Hospital site the report stated that
  "inasmuch as the land had only a small frontage to Newgate Street, the remainder being back land over which there were several rights of light, it was considered that the site would

  687
  be worthless, unless valuable property, including valuable property fronting Newgate Street, were included."
  As to the Embankment site the report found that only 53,043 square feet were available, of which 7,300 were over the Metropolitan District Railway. Under these circumstances the present site was recommended and adopted, and in favour of that scheme on the division there voted the three City representatives on the Council. They knew what was wanted. There was a staff required to be housed of 500, but the Council administered and had a staff of 2,097 yearly contract men, and 5,795 weekly wages men. A point had been raised that the powers of the Council were likely to be affected by the transfer to local bodies of some of those bodies, and that, in consequence, the requirements of the Council would not necessitate such a large scheme as that proposed by the Bill. But there was now a common consensus between the Council and the local authorities that any powers which might be transferred would be of a limited nature, and would not affect the staff and organisation. It was never suggested that the administration of the 12,000 or 13,000 pauper lunatics in the different asylums, the 830 men of the Fire Brigade, the 1,040 acres of parks and gardens, the 2,626 acres of open spaces, all distributed in every conceivable part of London, north, south, east and west; the powers over the action of local authorities in reference to health, the licensing in reference to the storage of petroleum, the licensing of slaughter houses, and of infant reception houses, should be transferred to local authorities. It was admitted on all hands these would have to be retained, and, if so, the Council required the scheme put forward, which involved a cost on rate of less than ¼d. in the pound, and after the most careful examination by the Council was approved of by members representing both parties as being necessary and the only reasonable plan to carry out.
  MR. C. T. MURDOCHsaid he desired to speak on behalf of those who would be dispossessed of their places of business if the scheme of the London County Council was carried out. In the opinion of those most qualified to give a decision on the point, the estimate of the cost of acquiring this site at which the County Council had arrived was greatly underrated. Those who had seen
  688
  the plans would notice the enormous frontage on Trafalgar Square—a frontage entirely disproportionate to the size of the whole area. That frontage was occupied by some of the most expensively constructed and highly rented buildings in England. He might mention that amongst the buildings were one of the leading banks, four of the leading insurance offices, the offices of four or five of the principal steamship companies, and a great many shops well known to many Members of the House, especially the shop of Messrs. Stanford, the map sellers, in which they all took an interest. To acquire all these premises would cost the London County Council an enormous amount of money. His right hon. Friend the Member for the London University seemed to throw upon those who opposed the Bill the onus of trying to prevent the London County Council from erecting such offices as they required. He was sure they had no wish to do anything of the kind. All they wanted was that when the County Council decided upon having new offices they should not expend an unnecessary amount in taking an immense frontage on one of the most expensive sites in London. A question of this kind in which the expenditure of an enormous sum of money was concerned ought to be laid for decision before the ratepayers who elected the London County Council. It was idle for his right hon. Friend the Member for the London University to say that the ratepayers could appear before the Committee of the House. He was not aware that the ratepayers would have any locus standi before the Committee; but even if they could appear it would be a very expensive business for them; and, what was more, they could not arrive by such a process at the opinion of more than a fraction of the electorate. He did not believe that there was a strong feeling against the London County Council in the House. On the contrary there was a great wish that the London County Council should be able to do its work properly. He was sure also that the ratepayers would not object to the County Council being properly housed. But the ratepayer should have a voice in the decision of the question. If the Bill were passed the control of the ratepayers was gone for ever, the expenditure would have been sanctioned, and the ratepayers could have nothing further to do with

  689
  the matter. There was no doubt that other sites might be procured by the London County Council. Indeed, he would have thought that the County Council instead of attempting to get one of the most expensive sites in the Metropolis would have cleared away some slum, erected houses for the working classes, and put up their offices there.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid he approached the question solely from the point of view of the interests of the London ratepayers. The question was not whether the London County Council was properly housed, but whether the House was going to sanction an enormous expenditure which would place a heavy burden on the ratepayers of the poor districts of London. It was said that the buildings would cost about £1,300,000. That estimate was quite inadequate. He believed the cost would be at least £2,000,000 sterling. Anyone who knew the site and was acquainted with the value of property would know that the scheme would at least cost that amount. The House was told that the London County Council had 500 clerks to house. That meant that each clerk would cost about £4,000, capital sum. That capital sum at 4 per cent. would produce about £120 a year. The cost was absurdly extravagant. An office could be built for all the necessary purposes for a sum immensely less. London ought to know that an estimate had been prepared by the London County Council and sent to that House for an outlay of something like £3,000 or £4,000 per clerk. The expenditure of £2,000,000 upon the site and buildings would involve every constituency in London in an expenditure of almost £25,000. He invited metropolitan Members to go to their constituents and ask them whether they were prepared to provide £25,000 for a house for the London County Council. He felt certain that scarcely a single constituency would give an affirmative answer. In Islington they would have to pay considerably over £100,000. If the London County Council wanted a site let it go to the East End or the South of London, where the cost would be a mere fraction of the sum now contemplated, and where a building could be built which would be an improvement to the district. He should resist in every pos-
  690
  sible way this project to burden the ratepayers with an extravagant expenditure.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)did not think that the details of this scheme could be considered properly in the House. On more than one occasion he had protested, without much effect unfortunately, against the practice of discussing the details of private Bills at the stage of Second Heading. He intended to vote for the Second Reading of the Measure on broad grounds. Here was a body which governed the metropolis, and which had made up its mind that it was not adequately housed. The representatives of the ratepayers accordingly came to that House with a scheme for providing the accommodation which they wanted. If that scheme involved too large an expenditure out of the rates, that was a matter in which that House was not primarily concerned. Those who were chiefly concerned were the electors of the County Council, and their representatives who were responsible for this scheme must answer to their constituents for any large increase of expenditure that it involved. Then the question of an alternative site was one which the House at the present stage could not properly go into. Statements were made on the one side and contradicted on the other; sites were suggested only to be dismissed from consideration at once. Those were questions which could be raised with advantage when the Bill came before a Committee upstairs. The House was not the proper place in which to discuss them. The present occasion was the time for taking objection to the general principle of the proposal. If hon Members objected to a majority of the representatives of a municipality coming to the House and asking for leave to purchase a site on which to erect buildings for their official purposes, let them vote against and reject the Measure. But he would point out that in the case of no other municipality in the Kingdom would the House think for a moment of taking such a course. [Opposition cheers.] If Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, or any other big municipality were to come to the House with a similar scheme, no matter how extravagant it might be considered, no matter how large the area proposed to be purchased—that House

  691
  on the Second Reading of the Bill would not venture to reject it. The scheme would be sent to a Committee. He asked the House to do now in the case of London what it would do in the case of any other great municipality. Whether the scheme was a very extravagant one; whether it was proposed to acquire too costly a site; whether the area to be occupied was too large—were questions which could only be decided upon evidence taken before a Select Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] He urged the House to come to a decision now and to hesitate before it rejected the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR J. B. MAPLEwas surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have spoken in such a decided way in depreciation of the opposition to this Bill. What were they sent to Parliament for if it was not to express their opinions. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill was supported in the London County Council by a very small majority, and some Members of that majority had voted in error, whilst others had since changed their views upon this subject. The Bill was only carried in the County Council by 54 against 46. The proposed site was in his opinion one of the worst in London for the purpose, in addition to being most expensive. The noise in the neighbourhood would be great. It had been said that there could be shops on the ground floor of the building. That certainly would not be convenient. The building would not cost less than £2,000,000, possibly £2,500,000. As to the construction of the new street to which the introducer of the Bill had referred, it ought to be clearly understood that the Government had not consented to allow the street to be made except on the condition of payment by the ratepayers, the burden on whom would be enormous. Just over Westminster Bridge there were many sites available. They could be purchased for less than £200,000, and the neighbourhood was quieter. The proposed new street, he was told by the police, would increase the dangers attending the traffic in the locality. He objected to the hon. Gentleman's addressing hon. Members as if they were a lot of schoolboys, and he hoped that the result of the Division would show that the House disapproved of these plans of the extravagant Members of
  692
  the London County Council. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. B. L. COHENobserved that the Chairman of Committees had said that this Bill ought to be sent to a Committee upstairs, because what was done by the representatives of ratepayers did not concern that House. There would be something in that argument if the ratepayers had had an opportunity of pronouncing upon this scheme. He asked the House not to allow this Bill to pass until the ratepayers should have had an opportunity of pronouncing upon the issue which was now sought to be raised prematurely. There would be an election next year, when County Councillors would be able to advocate this scheme before their constituents, if they were courageous enough to do so. The hon. Member for Battersea had said that he had put this issue before his constituents at the time of the last election. Perhaps that accounted for the enormous reduction of his majority. ["Hear, hear!"] The necessity for larger offices, and the urgency for them, could not be disputed by anyone who had served on the County Council; but that was not a reason why a site should be selected in the most expensive, instead of the most economical, part of London. He had never attacked the County Council, but he said that the worst enemy of that body was the County Council itself. ["Hear, hear!"] If it wished to become popular and to impress the ratepayers with the good work it had done, the County Council should show Londoners that it went about its work in an economical, businesslike, regular fashion.
  MR. C. J. DARLINGprotested against the doctrine which had been laid down for the guidance of London Members by the Chairman of Committees. London Members looked upon the Second Reading stage of Bills intended to lay a burden on the ratepayers as a very important period. [Cheers.] It should be remembered, also, in considering the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman that there were other Bills before the House introduced by the London County Council. There were the Water Bills. Were the London Members not to debate those Bills on the Second Reading? [Cheers.] Were they to be told that, because the ratepayers elected

  693
  the London County Council, and that if this body by a majority of one, two, three, or half-a-dozen, should bring in any number of Bills, the House was obediently and humbly to read them a second time, and that then the Council might instruct counsel and adopt expensive methods before the Select Committees, whereas they had ready to their hands the opinion of those who were also interested in the ratepayers of London, and who were capable of scotching the evil at a very early period?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: What I said was, that if any hon. Member dissented from the principle of the Bill this is the proper time to deal with it; but surely this is not the proper time to consider the details? When the Water Bills come on I shall say the same thing. This is not the proper stage to consider details.
  MR. DARLINGsaid that the principle here was that the ratepayers had not been consulted. When it was proposed in the County Council that the matter should be deferred for a year it would have come before the newly elected Council; and this proposal was only carried by a majority of six. Was it not a principle, moreover, that when they were proposing to spend the money of the ratepayers, and when they asked on what it was to be spent, or what necessity there was for spending it? was it not a principle to urge in opposition to the Trafalgar Square site that there were other sites equally good and cheaper? If the House passed the Second Reading of this Bill it would authorise the acquisition of the Trafalgar Square site. [Cheers.] His belief was, that the site had not been fixed upon because it was convenient for those who came from the cast or the south of London; it, was fixed upon for political motives. ["No, no!"] There was another question of principle involved. If they authorised the building of this hall for the London County Council who was going to build it? ft was one of the rooted principles of the County Council that they would not employ anyone to build for them. Were they to sanction the expenditure of a million or a million and a half of the ratepayers' money, and then hand the work over to be dealt with by the Works Committee
  694
  of the London County Council? [Cheers.] Surely when the Council's Building Department was on its trial, almost on a criminal charge, they were entitled to ask whether the ratepayers were prepared to entrust the building of this new palace to those who had shown so little regard for the money of the ratepayers and to the keeping of their accounts. [Cheers.] They believed that the ratepayers had a right to be consulted, and the London Members thought that they were acting in their best interests in postponing this question. The Bill should not be sent to a Committee, but should be thrown out, in order that the ratepayers might express their opinion whether the County Council really needed a house like that proposed.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANNas an independent ratepayer of London, heartily supported and approved this proposal. In his judgment the Debate had been carried on in a pettifogging spirit, and it was absurd that a large Municipal Council like that of London should be housed in a back slum. In Manchester they had placed the Town Hall in the finest and best site that could be found in the city; in Birmingham and Glasgow it was the same; and they ought to be ashamed in London to descend to the mean arguments that had been used in respect to the Council proposal. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member for the Strand, and the hon. Member for the Dulwich Division were interested in huge industrial undertakings. Did the House find these hon. Gentlemen housing their workpeople in 15 or 16 small buildings? No; they had concentrated their business undertakings under one roof. It was unworthy to attempt to limit the Municipal Council of the metropolis so as to prevent it from having all the employees within reach, and to show a desire to relegate that body to some mean portion of the metropolis. They had equalised the rates throughout the metropolis, so that they did not rest on one special division. It would be a good piece of economy, as well as an act of justice to London, to provide a proper building for transacting the business of the County Council. In his opinion, therefore, the Bill should be read a Second time, and sent to a Committee upstairs.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Member, who called himself a "free and independent" ratepayer, was "free" with other people's money and "independent" of the arguments addressed to him.
  MR. SCHWANN: I am a ratepayer of London.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, but the hon. Member docs not pay all the rates of London.
  MR. SCHWANN: No, but I pay my share.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESwent on to say that those who meant to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill must have derived great encouragement from the speech of the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland. The hon. Gentleman was one of the Members of the Front Bench, one of those secondary pillars of the Government, who had not yet appointed themselves Ministers of the Crown. [Laughter.] When those Gentlemen recommended the House to take a certain course the House was apt to take the contrary one—[Opposition cheers]—and the speech in question might be regarded as a good omen for the division which was to follow. He was surprised, considering the position of the hon. Gentleman, that he should have said this matter had been too fully discussed. Why, what was the Second Reading stage for? Did he wish them to swallow the Bill whole without any discussion at all? What did the First Lord of the Admiralty think of this precious scheme? And, still more, what was the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade about it? For he was the inventor of this new system, full of new rates and new debts. He submitted that the proper course for the promoters of this stupendous undertaking to have pursued was, first of all, to consult the ratepayers as to whether they desired it; and, secondly, to put prepared plans and detailed estimates before the House. The hon. Member for Battersea put it quite properly when he said the County Council wanted workshops in order to do their business. But Trafalgar Square was the last place in the world where workshops should be set up. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Workshops should be in a quiet place; Trafalgar Square was one of the least quiet places in London, as the hon. Member must well know. [Laughter.]
  696
  Did the House realise what the frontage was? The whole of the south side of Trafalgar Square was to be taken, a frontage of 183 yards, or as long as many a rifle range. [Laughter.] For aught he knew, the next thing they might be asked to do might be to establish a rifle range in front of the County Council palace.[Laughter.] There was another conclusive argument against this scheme at the present time. They could not tell how long the County Council was going to last in its present situation and condition—how long it might be before a considerable change took place in the government of this great metropolis; and if, in the meantime, they allowed the County Council to blossom out into a "palace lifting to eternal summer," the result might be that the County Council palace would be tenanted by the owl and the bittern. [Laughter.] In an adjoining country, as everybody knew, the Hôtel de Ville had been the centre of every kind of revolutionary idea, and in every time of disorder there had been conflict between the Hôtel de Ville and the Chamber of Deputies, often coming to fighting. If the House of Commons allowed a County Council palace to be built close to this House they might one day have great reason to regret it.
  ADMIRAL FIELDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put "; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question:—Debate resumed.
  MR. EVELYN HUBBARDsaid he voted for this Measure in the County Council, but he proposed to vote against it in this House, because he had since then come to the conclusion that the alternative sites had not been as exhaustively inquired into as was represented at the time. At the same time, he entirely dissociated himself from the suggestion that the Charing Cross site had been selected from any political or sinister motive, a suggestion which was at once unwise, impolitic, and unjust. He considered this simply as a business matter, and, as a business man, he had been much struck during the two years he had been a member of the Council with the practical value of the work done there. No doubt as a young body it had a tendency towards recklessness and extravagance, but its members generally showed

  697
  a zeal for the public service and a devotion to hard work which he had seldom seen equalled in any other assembly. But it appeared to him that the Charing Cross site was an unnecessarily costly one, and, while he recognised that an extension of premises was absolutely necessary, no harm would be done by delaying the Mea-sure for a year and giving the ratepayers an opportunity of pronouncing upon it at the next elections.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that it would not be dealing with the subject in the pettifogging spirit mentioned by an hon. Gentleman opposite if he expressed his strong dissent from the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench, and who said that if great Corporations like Manchester and Liverpool were to send up a Bill like this to the House of Commons, no. Member would think of opposing its principle. The deduction from that argument was clear—that London Members had no right to oppose a principle decided upon by a majority of the London County Council. He, for one, a d, he believed, every one of his Friends on that side of the House at least, indignantly rejected a doctrine which would exclude them from the consideration of any proposal, be it of principle or detail, which came before that House, and which affected the interests of the London ratepayers whom they represented. He opposed the Bill also because there was in the municipal atmosphere a very strong movement towards the decentralisation of London government, and he thought it would be extremely foolish for this House or for London Members to assent to an expenditure, which, once assented to, could not be recalled, before they knew how the respective relations and the different functions of the County Council and the separate municipalities, which, no doubt, would come into being, were to be settled and established. His own constituency had taken a leading part in the movement referred to, and he thought that it was premature and wasteful to erect, as was proposed by that Bill, an enormous framework before they knew the proportions or the functions of the machinery which would be placed in it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdeclared his entire concurrence in the opinion expressed by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The right hon. Member for London University and the hon. Member for Chelsea put before the House the opinion of the greatest municipality in the country as to what was proper to be done for the convenient administration of the municipality's affairs. Thereupon the hon. Member who moved the Amendment called upon the House to consider whether the site chosen was the best, and suggested a number of other sites. The members of the County Council were responsible to their constituents, and they represented them just as much as hon. Members represented the constituents by whom they were elected. Of course, the House of Commons would not think of treating the proposals of Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham as they were asked to treat those of the London County Council. What would the Colonial Secretary say if the House attempted to decide what site the municipality of Birmingham should choose, or what the expenditure should be? The spirit of this extraordinary attempt had been condensed into a single sentence; it was the spirit of "Bother the London County Council." It was well known that among certain people there was a dislike of the County Council; but the proper course for such persons was to alter the Council's constitution by an appeal to the ratepayers. The present question was of such purely domestic interest that the House could not possibly decide it; the House could not judge as to the accommodation necessary for transacting the business of 5,000,000 people; and the House ought not to set aside the opinion of a municipality invested with proper authority and created by hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cheers.] If the Bill were read a Second time all the objections which had been urged by the Mover of the Amendment could be considered in Committee.
  MR. BOULNOIS: My objection is that the ratepayer cannot be heard before a Select Committee. He has no locus standi. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURTasked what would be said if the House were dealing with the site of a public office and objection were raised to the Bill going to a Committee because the constituencies had not been consulted on the subject. If ever there were a question which a municipal authority had a right to determine it was that before the House. No Party
  which professed to respect the principles of local self-government would reject the Bill on such a pleading as had been made. [Cheers.]
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 227.—(Division List—No. 33—appended.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gold, Charles

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Arch, Joseph

  Gordon, John Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morton, Edward John Chalmers

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  O'Connor, T. B. (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Kelly, James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bethell, Captain

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Harrison, Charles

  Brice, Robert John

  Bond, Edward

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Brigg, John

  Hazell, Walter

  Randell, David

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Burt, Thomas

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Hogan, James Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Holburn, J. G.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Holden, Angus

  Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Round, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

  Sinclair, Captain John (Forfar)

  Colville, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Spicer, Albert

  Crombie, John William

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Strachey, Edward

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N.(Lanc. S. W.)

  Labouehere, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land.)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Leng, Sir John

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Davitt, Michael

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wayman, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Lockwood, Sir Frank (York)

  Webster, Sir R. E.(Isle of Wight)

  Donelan Captain A.

  Lough, Thomas

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowther, Jas. W. (Cumberland)

  Williams, Joscph Powell-(Birm.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Woodall, William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  McArthur, William

  Woods, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  McKenna, Reginald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.

  Fry, Lewis

  McLeod, John

  Whitmore and Mr. Burns.

  Gilhooly, James

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  NOES.

  Allen, Wm. (Now.-under-Lyme)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Baget, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gedge, Sydney

  Monk, Charles James

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gibbs, Un. A. G. H.(City of Lon.)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  More, Robert Jasper

  Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor)

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Mount, William George

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Goldsworthy, Major- General

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bhownaggree, M. M.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Myers, William Henry

  Biddulph, Michael

  Green, Walford D.(Wdnesbury)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bigwood, James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Birrell, Augustine

  Gretton, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bowles, Major H. F. (Middlesex)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Penn, John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Heath, James

  Plunkett, Hon. Horace Curzon

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Helder, Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Campbell, James A.

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Richardson, Thomas

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hopkinson, Alfred

  Ridley. Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

  Carson, Edward

  Howard, Joseph

  Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Hozier, James Henry Cecil

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Seely, Charles Kilton

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Sharps, William Edward T.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Isaacson, Frederick Wootton

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Smith, Abel (Herts)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christehurch)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Spencer, Ernest

  Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.)

  Kenny, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kimber, Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cranborne, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Crilly, Daniel

  Knowles, Lees

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Darling, Charles John

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lecky, William Edward H.

  Taylor, Francis

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Legh, Hon. Thomas W. (Lancs.)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Dixon, George

  Leighton, Stanley

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Drucker, A.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

  Warkworth, Lord

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lowles, John

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Wharton, John Lloyd

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fardell, Thomas George

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Farquhar, Sir Horace

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Camming

  Willox, John Archibald

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r)

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Maclure, John William

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Fielden, Thomas

  McKillop, James

  Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)

  Finch, George H.

  Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Wylie, Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arey

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Younger, William

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Milbank, Powiett Charles John

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Minch, Matthew

  Boulnois and Mr. Tritton

  Garfit, William

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Second Reading put off for six months.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY IN INDIA (HEALTH).
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can say when the Departmental Committee of Inquiry on the Health of the Army in India will produce their Report; and whether it will be placed in the hands of Members when printed?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): It is hoped that the Re-port will be complete in a few days. I propose, after I have had time to consider it, to make it public.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to state the names of the Members of the Departmental Committee which has been appointed to inquire into the health of the Army in India; and, whether he can state when it is probable that the Report of the Committee will be completed?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Members of the Departmental Committee appointed to report on the health of the Army in India are: Lord Onslow, President; Sir James Peile, Member of the Council of India; Surgeon-Major-General W. Taylor, Army Medical Department; and Surgeon-Colonel J. Richardson, Indian Medical Service (retired). It is hoped that the Report may be ready in a few days for consideration by the Secretary of State.

  INDIAN FAMINE.
  MR. R. SOUTTAR: On behalf of the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir WILLIAM WEDDERBURN), I beg-to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, pending the receipt of the complete statistics of mortality which have been called for, he will give the House an approximate estimate (based upon the
  704
  reports of the local officials) of the number of deaths, up to the present date, believed to be due to famine in the various affected districts?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON,asked whether the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India would consider the desirability of not disturbing officers in their beneficent labours in looking after distressed people by calling upon them to prepare returns of unnecessary statistics? [Cheers.]
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: As I stated in reply to a previous Question by the hon. Member for Banffshire, I shall include in the famine papers to be laid on the Table from time to time all the information received from India regarding mortality in the famine districts; and I have called for monthly mortality returns for all famine tracts in which the mortality was considerably above the normal. The second set of famine papers, which I hope to lay on the Table by Monday, will contain partial information on the matter. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Manchester, I must say that I do not think it right to present to the House conjectural estimates in anticipation of correct information, or to ask the Government of India, whoso time is more than filled up by urgent practical work, to transfer any portion of their attention from such work to the framing of speculative estimates of mortality.

  CHILDREN'S METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
  MR. WALTER HAZELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the remanded children, who are one of the classes for whom it is proposed to establish the new Metropolitan Children's Asylums' Board, under the Local Government Board, are already under the Home Office and the London School Board; and whether, seeing that it is through the action of the School Board that many of them are first apprehended, and that they are subsequently placed under the Home Office, he will consider the advisability of leaving the temporary provision for them in the hands of one or other of the authorities which already have to deal with them?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Under the existing law the Guardians, and the Guardians alone, are responsible for the care and maintenance of children who, prior to the question of an order being made for removal to an industrial school being determined, are remanded to the workhouse. In many workhouses there is no suitable accommodation for these children, or only accommodation which does not properly provide for their being kept separate from other inmates. The provision of such accommodation for children of cither sex in each of the 30 Unions in the Metropolis, with the necessary staff for supervision, will entail a very considerable expenditure—an expenditure greatly in excess of what would be entailed by separate provision for children of the class referred to. The total number of such children for which provision would be required would probably be not more than 100 or 120.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a conference of Guardians of the various Unions and parishes of the Metropolis, and the managers of the District Schools in the same area, to consider the proposed order for the formation of a new Board for the management of various classes of children chargeable to the rates, which has been announced to take place on Friday 26th inst.; and, whether he will give an assurance that he will take no final action in the matter until it has been fully considered by the representative bodies of London?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I am aware of the proposed conference of Guardians on the 26th inst., and I do not contemplate issuing the Order before that date.

  NAVAL INSTRUCTORS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether his attention has been given to the regulations under which sub-lieutenants, midshipmen, and naval cadets are required to pay to the Naval Instructor 3d. a day each for tuition; and (2) whether the Admiralty will
  706
  relieve sub-lieutenants, midshipmen, and naval cadets from the obligation to provide from their very small pay so large a proportionate contribution to the much greater pay of the Naval Instructors?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): My answer to the first question of the hon. Member is in the negative. The payment of £5 a year by young officers to their instructors is of very long standing, but I have no objection to the question being considered by the Committee which I propose to appoint.

  RAMS (WARSHIPS).
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the allegation that on Thursday, 4th February, in Portsmouth Harbour, H.M.S. Inflexible parted her bridles, and would have drifted, broadside on, on to the ram of H.M.S. Hero, which was only prevented by the promptitude and presence of mind displayed by the officers and crews of both ships; and whether the Admiralty will make further inquiry into the occurrences of narrow escapes of ramming one of Her Majesty's ships by another?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Our information says nothing about the ram of the Hero. Whenever any accident happens, or any occurrence takes place which seems to demand inquiry, inquiry is forthwith made.

  MAIDSTONE ASSIZES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that two prisoners, George Thompson and Thomas Pope, were tried and acquitted at the Maidstone Assizes on 19th November last, and that the former had been in prison five months and two weeks, and the latter in prison also awaiting trial over six months; what compensation are Pope and Thompson to receive for their incarceration; whether he is aware that at the Maidstone Assizes in November 1894 four prisoners were found not guilty; of these two were found to be not guilty by the Grand

  707
  Jury and two after trial, and that one of the four prisoners had been in prison 5½ months, and each of the other three for over three months awaiting trial; also that at the Maidstone Assizes in November 1895 five prisoners had been found not guilty, two by the Grand Jury and three after trial, and two were in prison over four months, the other three for three months, awaiting trial; and whether he has any objection to granting a Return showing the number of prisoners sent for trial to assizes last year and acquitted, and the period elapsing between the committal and acquittal?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Yes, sir; I am aware of the long detention in prison before trial of the two prisoners named. It is a matter of great regret that the present Circuit arrangements necessitated this; but I am afraid a claim for compensation could not be entertained. I have not the means of verifying the statements in the third paragraph of the Question, but have no reason to suppose they are inaccurate. Returns for 1895, giving the particulars suggested by the hon. Member, will appear in the forthcoming volume of the Judicial Statistics, which will be presented within a few weeks.

  POST OFFICE LETTER WEIGHTS.
  MR. J. E. GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General will arrange to have tested letter weights on sale at all post offices?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is not prepared to make arrangements for keeping letter weights on sale at post offices. Such a course would involve competition with the ordinary trade, and would, it is considered, be altogether outside the scope of the functions of the Department.

  COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE (JAMES BATE).
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of James Bate,
  708
  who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death at Liverpool Assizes on the 20th November last, and left for execution on Tuesday morning, the 8th December, whether he communicated to the Governor of Walton Gaol his decision that the law must take its course in Bate's case; and, if so, on what day was this communication made; on what day did he order the respite of the execution of Bate; between these two dates did any new facts in the case come to his knowledge; and, if so, what were they; on what day and at what hour was the fact of the respite communicated to Bate; and, upon what grounds did he advise the Crown to commute the capital penalty in this case?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I should be departing from the course which has been taken uniformly by all my predecessors in similar circumstances if I were to answer in detail the series of questions which the hon. Member has asked me. At the same time I have no desire to keep anything back which I can properly lay before the House. The murder, though committed in a moment of drunken fury and in circumstances of considerable provocation, was in other respects of such a, nature that I felt that the circumstances as a whole, and regarded in themselves, did not justify reprieve, and that the recommendation of the jury to that effect must be disregarded. After my decision was made public, I received such clear evidence by numerous and weighty representations from all quarters of the existence of a genuine and unanimous sentiment in favour of mercy that I was forced to the belief that the execution of the extreme penalty would change indignation at an atrocious crime into compassion for the criminal, and, giving weight, as my predecessors have done in exceptional cases to this consideration, advised Her Majesty to commute the sentence.

  AKASSA GARRISON.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a company of West India troops has been sent to garrison Akassa during the absence at Bida of the forces of the Niger Company; and, whether the grievances of the Brass men, stated in Sir J. Kirk's

  709
  Report to be such as no Government would wish to see continued, have been redressed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON,): 100 men of the 2nd West India Regiment have been sent to assist in holding the Delta of the Niger, including Akassa, during the operations north of Lokoja. A modus vivendi with reference to the Brass men was proposed last year. But the matter has not been finally settled, and must be again taken in hand after the return of the Company's expedition.

  DAUNTS ROCK LIGHTSHIP.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state by whom the Inquiry into the circumstances connected with the loss of the lightship Puffin will be held; whether arrangements will be made for the presence of a nautical assessor, and whether the Court will have authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and to examine them on oath; and, whether the Inquiry will be open to the Press and the public?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the Puffin will be held by the Chief Magistrate at Dublin with Nautical Assessors appointed by the Secretary of State. The Court will have authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and to examine them on oath; and the Inquiry will be open to the Press and to the public according to the usual practice.
  CAPTAIN DONELANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of transferring the venue to Queenstown or Cork.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he had not considered that point, but if the hon. Gentleman chose to make any representation on the subject he would consider it.

  LISTOWEL BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a petition for the remission of a sum of £87 18s. demanded of the Listowel Board of Guardians as one month's interest on an overdue instalment of a seed loan at the rate of 60
  710
  per cent. per annum; whether, if the instalment due on the 1st August were paid on or before the 31st August no interest would be demanded, and whether the Guardians sent payment in full on 1st October, but the cheque was returned and £87 18s. additional demanded; and, in view of the fact that the Lord Lieutenant has power under Section 7 of the Seed Act to extend the time of repayment, if he will advise the Treasury not to press for this additional sum?
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is a fact that the Treasury demanded interest at the rate of 60 per cent. per annum from the Listowel Board of Guardians on a balance of an instalment under the Seed Loan Act of 1895, although the amount in question was tendered in full by the guardians one month after it became overdue; and, if so, whether he will use his influence with the Treasury to withdraw this demand?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): It appears that the Listowel Board of Guardians obtained an advance of £3,517 14s. 9d. under the Seed Potatoes Supply Act of 1895, and that the first instalment amounting to £1,758 17s. 4d. became due on the 1st August, 1896. A Receivable Order for the lodgment of the latter sum was forwarded by the Board of Works to the Guardians on the 31st July, and their attention was called on the face of the document to the liability to poundage if the instalments were not paid within 31 days from that date. Poundage charge is in the nature of a penalty, and is not to be confused with interest. The Treasury have, I understand, fully considered the question raised in this and similar oases, and I see no advantage to be gained in asking them to reopen it.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was only a month's delay. How could there be any question of impounding when there was no receiver appointed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURbelieved that what was done was strictly in accordance with the law.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he would repeat his Question on another day.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the great distress prevalent in the Union of Listowel, county Kerry, owing to the partial failure of the potato crop, and the almost total failure of the oat crop; and, whether the Government will consider the necessity of instituting relief works in the Union, and supplying the people with seed oats for the present year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On the 8th inst. I informed the hon. Member for West Limerick that careful inquiries had been made as to the condition of the poorer classes in the Listowel Union, but that the result of these inquiries did not point to the conclusion that it would become necessary to supplement the re-sources of the Poor Law by the opening of relief works. I see no reason to alter the opinion so recently expressed by me regarding the opening of such works. With regard, however, to the question of the supply of seed oats to the small occupiers in this Union, I believe it is a fact that the oat crop of last season in the Union was a bad one, but except in one or two instances Boards of Guardians have not signified a desire for legislation enabling them to be provided with a supply of fresh seed by means of loans. Should such a desire be generally expressed, I should be prepared to consider the matter; but I may observe the time is now running short.

  MAIL DELIVERY (COUNTY CORK).
  MR. JAMES GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the defective system of transit and delivery of the mails between Skibbereen and Crookhaven; and whether, in view of the fact that Schull and Crookhaven are important fishing stations, he will give improved postal arrangements in the districts referred to?
  MR. HANBURY: Schull and Crookhaven are served by mail car from Skibbereen. The mails reach Schull at 8.33 a.m. and Crookhaven at 10.35 a.m., and leave Crookhaven at 1.40 p.m. and Schull at 3.43 p.m. Up to the present this is
  712
  the best arrangement of which the circumstances have admitted. The question of using the Skibbereen and Schull Tramway for the conveyance of mails Las recently been pressed upon the Department, and the matter is now under inquiry. When a report is received the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

  CASTLEBAR UNION.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the acute distress which prevails in the Nephin Mountain electoral divisions of the Castlebar Union owing to the failure of the potato crop and the low price of agricultural produce; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate such distress, and to enable the people to crop their holdings during the coming spring?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Representations have been made alleging the existence of distress in the locality mentioned in the Question, but the official Reports received do not indicate anything in the nature of abnormal destitution which the Poor Law will be unable to cope with, or which calls for the opening of relief works as suggested in the memorials addressed to Government.

  CAIRN AT FINNER, COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to give the name of the person who supplied the information relative to the cairn at Finner, County Donegal; whether he is aware that the Royal Society of Antiquarians of Ireland hold that the formation is properly described as a cairn; that human remains, believed to be those of Irish chieftains who died in battle, were discovered 20 years ago in the chamber, and are now in a vault adjoining the cairn; that there is no such place known as Muldoon's grave; and that the Society has taken up the matter with a view to disproving the statements made and protecting the place from further interference by the contractor for the rifle range; whether he is aware that the officer in charge of the construction of the rifle range, Mr. Hogg, was conducted over the place on the 11th instant by some local

  713
  antiquarians and was given the fullest information concerning the cairn; and whether, as material for the construction of the rifle range is easily obtainable in other parts of the district, he will see that no more stones are removed from the immediate neighbourhood of the cairn?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): It is not usual to give the names of officers by whom reports of this character are made in the course of their duty. I have no doubt that in this case the officer reported according to the best information which was open to him at the time he wrote. The matter seems, however, to be one on which even antiquarians are not agreed. Whether there is a cairn or a grave or not no further removal of materials will take place.

  POOR LAW RELIEF BILL (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether attendants at present in charge of lunatics in Irish workhouses would be eligible for service in the auxiliary asylums to be established under the proposed Poor Law Relief Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Competent attendants will, of course, be eligible for service in the central auxiliaries proposed to be established under the Bill.

  LABOURERS ACTS (COUNTY DONEGAL).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why nothing has yet been done in respect of a representation under the Labourers' Acts lodged six months ago by Charles M'Daid, Neal M'Namee, and John M'Geehan, of Aughygault, near Stranorlar, in County Donegal?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have already authorised the erection of three cottages in this townland, and, pending the receipt of representations from other districts, the consideration of the applications from the labourers named was deferred, as the expense of proceeding with a scheme for a few houses would be out of proportion to the result. The three applications in question will not be lost sight of, however, but will be taken into consideration as soon as a reasonable number of other similar applications have been received.

  SOUTH SHOAL, ORKNEY.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dangerous nature to fishermen of the rock known as the "South Shoal" off Hoy Head, Orkney; and whether a buoy or bell-buoy could be fixed there?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have communicated with the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses on the subject of the hon. Member's Question; but I am informed that they are not aware of a danger to navigation known as the "South Shoal" off Hoy Head, Orkney. Perhaps the hon. Member will supply some information which will enable me to identify the rock to which he refers.

  "NELSON'S ENCHANTRESS" (STAGE PLAY).
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ascertain if the Lord Chamberlain has had his attention called to the performance of a play at the Avenue Theatre last week called "Nelson's Enchantress," in which the greatest Naval commander of the century, who died in the service of his country, is held up to public contempt; whether the Lord Chamberlain will call upon the manager of the said theatre to withdraw the play in question, under a distinct notice that otherwise the licence to perform stage plays will be suspended or withdrawn; and whether, seeing that a former Lord Chamberlain prohibited a certain performance in a London theatre which lampooned the Members of the Government of that day (1870–74), similar protection will be afforded to the memory of the honoured dead?
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the public performance of the play named under the shadow of Nelson's monument has caused considerable indignation and pain in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, where the memory of Lord Nelson is especially cherished. [Laughter and ironical cheers.]
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am not aware of any feeling of indignation in the counties mentioned. I had no knowledge of the play referred to

  715
  until my attention was called to it by the Question on the Paper. I am informed by the Lord Chamberlain that the play was duly submitted to him for licence, and that, as the play contained nothing which in his Lordship's judgment would justify a refusal, the licence was granted, and it is not proposed to withdraw it.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Am I to understand from that answer that the Lord Chamberlain will sanction dragging up the Duke of Wellington and other heroes—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Then, Sir, I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the answer that has been given, I will draw attention to the matter when the salary of the Lord Chamberlain comes up to be voted. [Laughter.]

  PRISON-MADE GOODS.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cause of the delay in the publication of the correspondence with foreign countries on the subject of prison-made goods?
  MR. RITCHIE: The correspondence has been presented, and will be delivered to hon. Members on, application to the Vote Office.

  CHAIN PIER, BRIGHTON.
  MR. GERALD LODER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the remaining piles and stumps of the Old Chain Pier at Brighton are a serious cause of danger to pleasure boats and fishing smacks; and whether he can take steps to have them removed without delay?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am aware that the piles and stumps of the Old Chain Pier at Brighton have not been removed, and that they may become a cause of danger to shore navigation. The removal of this Pier is provided for by the Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Acts, 1888, 1893, and 1896, the effect of which is to impose the duty upon the Pier Company of removing the piles and materials within 12 months after notice in writing from the Brighton Corporation, and further to empower the Board of Trade to remove them if the Company abandon the removal after it has been commenced. I have
  716
  been in communication with the Company as to their statutory duties, and have been informed by them that they have entered into a contract for the removal of the remaining piles and stumps, which will be effected as soon as the weather permits. The attention of the company has been directed to the requirements of the Act as to providing buoys and lights, under the direction of the Trinity House, to obviate danger to navigation.

  MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS (IRELAND).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if in Ireland it is customary for the Lord Chancellor when appointing magistrates to assign certain districts of a county in which they are to adjudicate; if so, why in their deed of commission are they nominated county magistrates; should they insist on adjudicating in districts of their county outside those mentioned in their deed of commission, what punishment would be inflicted; and when did the custom begin to exist of Lord Chancellors limiting the exercise of judicial functions to particular districts in the case of the appointment of county magistrates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the practice of the Lord Chancellor, as it was of his predecessor, to notify each person about to be appointed to the county magistracy the district or districts in which only he is to attend at Petty Sessions, and that the commission will be issued to him on the understanding that without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor he shall only attend the Petty Sessions of the district or districts assigned to him. The Lord Chancellor cannot anticipate what course he would deem it his duty to adopt in the event of a magistrate disregarding this regulation, as each case must depend upon its own circumstances.

  RIOT (COUNTY FERMANAGH).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 28th August 1896 a riot took place in Tempo, county Fermanagh, in which 17 houses tenanted by Roman Catholics were wrecked by Orangemen,

  717
  that the residence of the parish priest was smashed, and the church attacked; has his attention been drawn to the fact that John Breen, Tempo, in his statutory declaration forwarded to the Attorney General, deposed that an attempt was made by the Orangemen to burn his house, and that his child was twice struck by stones in its cradle; is he also aware that the police were frequently attacked with stones during the night by the Orange crowd, and that two women in their houses were seriously assaulted; and, in view of the fact that the police gave sworn testimony that between 150 and 200 Orangemen took part in the riot, will he state how many of these alleged rioters have been brought to justice?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are generally as stated in the question, though very slight injury was done, I am informed, to the Roman Catholic Church, and no serious injury was sustained by any person on the occasion. Five of the most prominent rioters of each party were prosecuted and tried at the Belfast Winter Assizes, the trials resulting in nine convictions, carrying terms of imprisonment varying from 14 days to four months, and one acquittal. The decision of the Government to proceed against five of the principal rioters of each party was arrived at after a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case. I may mention that in the earlier stages of the rioting both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant parties were nearly evenly matched, and were equally to blame; the Protestant party, it is true, was afterwards reinforced, and got the upper hand. By the course followed by the Government peace and good order have been happily restored at Tempo.

  EXECUTION OF MR. STOKES.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the documents and information and correspondence in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the execution of Mr. Stokes and the confiscation of his property, and the proceedings in Boma and Brussels, which were promised on the 10th August, will be circulated; whether the Congo Government has complied with the request of Her Majesty's Government to restore the property of Mr. Stokes, or
  718
  has refused to comply; and whether Her Majesty's Government will insist on their requirements in relation thereto?
  MR. CURZON: The Papers relating to the Stokes case have been delayed in order that they may include the result of the negotiations with the Congo Government concerning Mr. Stokes's property. These have now been completed, and have resulted in an offer from the Congo Government to hand over the sum of 147,550 francs as representing the total value of all the goods belonging to the estate. This offer has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and the Papers will be circulated as soon as possible.

  NAVAL FORCE OF POWERS AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total number of European gunboats at present stationed at Constantinople; and whether, in view of the possibility of a fanatical outbreak, the Ambassadors have requested or advised the adoption of further precautions?
  MR. CURZON: The ships of Her Majesty's Navy now at Constantinople are the Cockatrice, which is on her way to the Danube; the Melita, and the Imogene. We do not know the total number of gunboats there, but it is believed that Austria, France, and Italy have each two, and Germany and Russia one each, making a total in all of 11. Her Majesty's Ambassador reported on the 3rd instant that precautions were being taken by the authorities, in view of the possibility of disturbances occurring during the month of Ramazan.

  SCHOOL ENDOWMENT (IRELAND).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Scheme passed by the Privy Council relating to Limerick, Killaloe, and Kilfe-nora Diocesan School Endowment will be laid upon the Table for consideration by the House; and, whether Canon Gregg's petition, and that of 34 ratepayers of Limerick City, will at the same time be submitted to the House?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The supplemental scheme for the government and management of this Endowment was laid on the Table of the House on the 11th inst. Copies of the two petitions referred to were attached to the Scheme, and all three documents have been ordered to be printed for circulation.

  LAND SUB-COMMISSION (IRELAND).
  MR. E. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the Irish Land Commission have refused to allow Mr. Harvey, who gave evidence of value before the Sub-Commission Court in certain cases of Mr. Collum in Fermanagh and has since been appointed a Sub-Commissioner, to give evidence upon an appeal brought by Mr. R. Collum; and whether the Land Commission have power to prevent Mr. Harvey from attending to give evidence if served with a subpoena ad test?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It has been found necessary to refer this Question to the Land Commissioners, who are at present on Circuit, and I am not in a position to reply to-day. I hope, however, to have the information necessary to enable me to reply to-morrow, but, if not, I will be able to do so on Monday next.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the very defective arrangements for ventilating the Committee Room in which the British South African Committee now meet; and whether it is possible to arrange for an improvement on this condition of things?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The ventilating arrangements of the room in question are not all that could be desired when so large a number of persons as occupied the room on Tuesday last are present. I am doing my best to improve the ventilation, and to this end I have given directions that an electric fan shall be erected to increase the circulation of air in the room.

  ELECTION OF CORONER (COUNTY TIPPERARY).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that the meeting of the Justices of Tipperary called in connection with the pending election of a coroner was held on the 11th instant, and decided not to change the places of polling used at previous elections of a coroner for the south division of Tipperary; and, has the writ for the election yet been issued; if not, why; and when will it be issued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A meeting of the Justices of the County of Tipperary was held on the 11th inst., for the purpose of dividing the South Riding of the county into coroners' districts, but the Justices, under a misapprehension as to what was necessary, failed to comply with the requirements of the Act of Parliament, inasmuch as they neither fixed a place for the holding of the election nor did they make any order as to polling places. To remedy this defect the Lord Lieutenant has been advised that the proceedings for a re-division must be gone over de novo, and he has intimated his readiness to grant a new Warrant for that purpose at the earliest convenient date. The Writ for the new election of a coroner will at once be issued when the re-division of the Riding has been carried into effect.

  POLICE PROTECTION DUTY (COUNTY CLARE).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that that the police of Kilcooney and Ballyvaughan, County Clare, are in the habit of patrolling farms belonging to Thomas Markham, and at times, in the absence of the herdsmen, counting the cattle and sheep on the lands; and (2) whether this is within the duties of the police; if not, will the police be instructed to confine themselves to protection duty?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph. Markham is under police protection, and the police, in the discharge of their duties and as a, precautionary measure, occasionally examine and count his cattle and sheep.

  ARMY WARRANT OFFICERS (GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL).
  MR. CHAULES COLSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the good conduct medal is greatly prized by Warrant Officers, who find its possession of great value to them when seeking civil employment, and the further fact that members of the Army who attain Warrant rank before 18 years' service are under present regulations debarred from receiving this particular medal, the Government would place them on the same footing as those who become Warrant Officers after having served 18 years in the Army?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I would refer my hon. Friend to a, reply made in this House in 1894 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling District on this subject, in which the Secretary of State fully concurs. The point of that answer was that Warrant rank is in itself a better testimony of good conduct than any medal could afford. The wish of the military authorities is to make the status of a Warrant Officer approach more nearly to that of a Commissioned Officer than to the conditions which hold in the ranks, and they consider that to reward a Warrant Officer for ordinary good conduct by the grant of a medal would be a step in the opposite direction.

  CARBIDE OF CALCIUM.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large quantities of carbide of calcium are being imported to this country; and whether, having regard to its dangerous nature when exposed to air, any steps are being taken to regulate its storage; and, if not, whether Clause 14 of the Petroleum Act can be made to extend to its inclusion?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The dangers attending the storage and conveyance of carbide of calcium have been occupying the attention of the inspectors of explosives for some months, and steps are being taken to apply to this substance by an Order in Council the provisions of the Petroleum Acts. A memorandum will eventually be issued to local authorities suggesting the precautions to be adopted for preventing risk.

  "CHURCH LEY" (MANCHESTER).
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the objection taken by the Local Government Board to the practice of including "Church Ley" in the demand notes of the township of Manchester for poor and other rates, a paper headed "due on demand" is still issued with the item "Church Ley at 1d. in the pound for the year—(optional)"; and, whether the Board will take steps to prevent the inclusion of a voluntary church rate in a demand for rates which are compulsory?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I was not aware that the practice referred to had been continued. Although in the form of demand note it is stated that the payment of the "Church Ley" is optional, the inclusion of this item in the demand note which is headed with the words "due on demand" is, I think, reasonably open to objection. I am advised that it is not clear that the Local Government Board have any power which would enable them to prevent the inclusion of the "Church Ley" in the demand note, but the Board will communicate with the overseers on the subject.

  MUSSULMANS IN CRETE.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have confirmation of the reports that 300 Mussulmans have been massacred by the Cretan insurgents in Sitia, that 13 Mussulman villages have been there destroyed, and that Mussulman women and children have been killed and mutilated at Kisanmo Kasteli; whether there has been a general massacre of the Mussulman inhabitants of Sitia; and, whether he will direct special inquiry as to the fate of the Mussulman inhabitants of the interior of Crete?
  *MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul telegraphed on the 12th instant that the Commander of Her Majesty's ship Dragon had been informed by the Governor of Sitia that 300 Turks had been killed there, and that he feared the massacre of the Christians in the towns in revenge. We have received no confirmation of this report, nor have we

  723
  heard that there has been a general massacre of the Mussulman inhabitants of Sitia. On the 9th instant the Turkish authorities informed Her Majesty's Consul that 23 Mussulmans had been murdered at Kissamo Castelli, but of this report also no later confirmation has yet been received. I am afraid that in the present condition of affairs, Her Majesty's Consul has few opportunities of communicating with the interior of the island; but I have no objection to telegraphing to him for any information that he may be able to give on the subject.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his telegram an inquiry as to the truth of a report that six Christians were put into a bakery and roasted alive?
  *MR. CURZON: I think that allegation applies to Canea, where the Consul is, and I doubt not that he will inform us of any such occurrences.
  MR. DILLON: But will the right hon. Gentleman mind asking him; it is a very horrible allegation?
  *MR. CURZON: I will do so.

  BENIN EXPEDITION.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what is the approximate number of blue-jackets, Marine Artillery, and Marine Infantry, respectively, engaged in active operations at Benin; and (2) what is the rank of the senior officer of Marines present, and is he under the control and command of naval officers during these purely military operations?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The telegrams which we have received give no details which enable me to answer the first question of the hon. and gallant Member. We have also no knowledge of the particular officers landed, beyond those mentioned in the telegram which has been published. The whole force is under the control and command of Admiral Rawson.
  *SIR J. COLOMBasked whether it was in accordance with Admiralty rules that in active operations on shore officers specially trained in military operations on land should be under the command of officers specially trained in naval operations on water?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIMIRALTY: I believe it is a question of seniority to a great extent.

  FELON CONVICTS.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether as life was taken by Warders Rogers and Coulton at Dartmoor Prison on the 24th December last, and with a view both to do justice to the warders and to satisfy the public mind, he will, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, consent to lay upon the Table a copy of the report which he has received from the visiting director of the prison, together with notes of the sworn evidence taken by him?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: For the reasons which I have already given to the hon. Member I am afraid I cannot consent to lay these papers on the Table.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Standing Order or Instruction in force in convict prisons requires that convicts convicted of felony shall be kept apart from convicts convicted of misdemeanour; and, what is the date of such Order or Instruction?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: There is no Standing Order on the subject. The separation while at labour of these two classes is a long-existent practice.

  AFFAIRS IN NORTHERN SYRIA.
  MR. JAMES BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received by the Foreign Office to the effect that considerable bodies of Turkish troops have been recently landed at or near Alexandretta, and that great alarm exists among the Christian inhabitants of the adjacent parts of Northern Syria and Asia Minor lest fresh massacres should be perpetrated?
  *MR. CURZON: We have received no official information of any recent landing of Turkish troops at or near Alexandretta. Her Majesty's Vice Consul reported on January 15th that the state of Payas, a sub-district in that Province, was far from satisfactory, and representations on the subject were made to the Turkish Government by Her Majesty's Ambassador.
  MR. BRYCEasked whether any information had been received to the effect that great alarm existed among the Christian inhabitants of the adjacent parts of Northern Syria and Asia Minor lest fresh massacres should be perpetrated?
  *MR. CURZON: My recollection of the reports does not confirm that statement, but I will look at them again and inform the right hon. Gentleman.

  OTTOMAN EMPIRE REFORMS.
  MR. C. J. MONK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can confirm the statement contained in the lately-issued French Yellow Book, and purporting to have been made by the French Ambassador to M. Hanotaux on the 22nd of December last, to the effect that Great Britain had given her adhesion to the following preliminary agreement of the Great Powers, namely, the maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, no Condominium, and no action on any point?
  MR. CURZON: In reply to my hon. Friend I beg to refer him to the collection of Papers Turkey No. 2, 1897, recently laid before Parliament. He will find in Nos. 27, 28, and 29, that these points were mentioned in the instructions sent by the French Government to their Ambassador at Constantinople, and that Lord Salisbury stated that the instructions appeared to be in harmony with the proposals of Her Majesty's Government.

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the increase of pay announced by him for the Army Medical Service is to be paid by the Indian or by the British Exchequer; and whether the proposal for this increase of pay originated with the Government of India; or, if not, whether their consent was obtained before this extra charge was laid on Indian finances?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Service in India is paid for by the Government of India. The Secretary of State for India has granted this increase of pay
  726
  after full consideration, and the new regulations promulgating it will be issued by the Indian Government.
  MR. BUCHANANinquired whether the proposal for this increase of pay originated with the Government of India, or, if not, whether their consent was obtained before this extra charge was laid on Indian finances?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I believe in the first instance it was suggested by the War Office, then correspondence ensued and the India Office agreed to the proposal.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Were the Government of India consulted?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes.

  JAMESON RAID INDEMNITY.
  MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the South African Republic has yet presented to Her Majesty's Government or Her representative at Pretoria their claim for an indemnity for the late raid; if so, whether he is prepared to state the amount of such claim and from whom it is demanded.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have received the following telegram from the High Commissioner:
  "17 February No. 2. Following telegram received from British Agent in the South African Republic. (Begins.) 16 February. I have just received note from this Government asking to send to your Excellency enclosed bill of indemnity to be paid by Her Majesty's Government or to be caused to be paid by them for raid by Dr. Jameson and British South Africa Company's troops. The amount claimed falls under two heads—first, material damage, total of claim £677,938 3s. 3d.—[laughter]—second, moral or intellectual damage, total of claim, £1,000,000. Government desires to observe that above claim does not include legitimate claims which may be demanded by private persons on account of proceeding of Dr. Jameson and his troops. I am sending you note by post."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the last an additional or separate claim?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; I believe it is. There is a little ambiguity in the telegram. I am not quite certain. Yes, I think the moral and intellectual damage is valued at a million separately. But it might be that it is only £322,061 16s. 9d.—[laughter]—in order

  727
  to make up the round million when coupled with the material damage. I am not quite certain, but I believe it is the first of these interpretations.

  REFORM PRISONERS (PRETORIA).
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to lay upon the Table the correspondence respecting the British political prisoners at Pretoria?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid correspondence, so far as available up to date, in reference to the British political prisoners at Pretoria, would shortly be laid on the Table.

  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT.
  MR. W. W. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the payments to the Local Taxation Account will be made, under the Agricultural Bating Act, 1896?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Payments to the Local Taxation Account for the purpose of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, have been commenced. The payments of the grant to the spending authorities in respect of the half year commencing on April 1st next will be paid either next month or early in the half-year referred to.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the appointment of a new Royal Commission to inquire into the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, he will propose, for the information of Members of this House, the reprinting of the Parliamentary Return (No. 366 of Session 1869), ordered by the House on 24th July 1866, giving a detailed account of the public income and expenditure of Great Britain and Ireland separately from 1688, or will consent to the issue of a further Return bringing the figures to the close of the present financial year.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have made inquiry and have ascertained that there are considerable
  728
  numbers of copies of this Return still in print—310 of Part I. and 370 of Part IL, and these are on sale in the usual manner. The Return has proved of very great value, but there is a later Return issued on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, giving the required facts of expenditure in a form more convenient for discussion.

  SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES).
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates will be presented and considered in the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member when the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates will be taken. They will not be taken on Friday. I may state to the House that the Estimates to be taken on Friday will be the Army Estimates, not the Civil Service Estimates on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. It had been arranged to take the Civil Service Estimates, a course which the authorities of the House were of opinion would be in order, although it is a fact that the whole of the Estimates have not been circulated. Mr. Speaker has since informed me that on further consideration of the point raised now, for the first time, such a course would, in his judgment, be irregular, so the Army Estimates will be taken.
  MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman has hardly answered my question when the Supplementary Estimates for Civil Service will be circulated and discussed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have given all the information in my power; they will not be taken on Friday.
  MR. CHANNING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware they have not been circulated yet?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am as anxious as the hon. Member, and indeed more anxious, to have all the Estimates printed and circulated, but this does not rest with me, but with the Departments concerned. I will do my best.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that

  729
  the Motions on the Order for the Speaker to leave the Chair will not be taken until the whole of the Civil Service Estimates are printed and circulated?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Had the hon. Gentleman done me the honour to listen to my answer, his question would have been unnecessary. What has happened is this. The authorities of the House were consulted as to whether the discussions on the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair would be regular, and it was the opinion of the authorities that they would be. Upon further consideration, however, it was decided they would not be in order. We shall, therefore, defer putting down the Civil Service Estimates until they are printed, and we should be directly contravening the ruling of the Chair if we did take them.
  SIR C. DILKE: In what order will the Army Estimates be taken to-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: They will be taken in regular order, with the exception of the Ordnance Factory Bill.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now Read a Second time."
    MR. T. LOUGHmoved to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words—
    "it is desirable before proceeding with the Second Reading of this Bill to have further information as to the necessity for the proposed works and fuller details as to where the expenditure is to be made."
    He said that the object of the Bill was to obtain 5½ millions without putting that amount into the ordinary Estimates, and by that means the expenditure was withdrawn from the cognizance and control of the House. Upon this arose a question of principle.
    730
    He quite admitted that there might be occasions when it was necessary to proceed by loan—when a very large expenditure for some definite purpose was required. But he desired to submit that, for the works specified in, the schedule of this Bill, and with the fuller particulars which had since been distributed, to proceed by loan was not a very convenient manner, and he did not think the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman quoted would help him through all the difficulties which his present proposal raised. The chief precedent which he quoted was the Barracks Act 1890. The last Return issued by the Financial Secretary to the War Office showed that one and a quarter millions were available under that Act in the year ending the 31st of March 1896. The expenditure in the last year for which they had particulars, was only £500,000, and in the year before that £600,000, so that according to the expenditure for the last two years there ought to be enough to go on with for a year or two under the Barracks Act of 1890. He submitted that it would be made convenient to put them on the ordinary Estimates. The "reposai of the right hon. Gentleman was to take a certain amount, but not to spend it all immediately. Probably the amount he would expend in each year would not be more than £500,000. If the Act was passed he would have to provide in the Estimates something like £250,000 every year, so that if the Act were not passed it would only be necessary to add £250,000 or £500,000 to the Estimates; and then all the purposes the Government had in view would be secured. He was of opinion that the particulars they got in the Estimates would be a great deal better than they had got in the schedule of the Bill. They had really only the rough amounts given to them in the schedule, whereas in the ordinary Estimates they got information under four columns. First, how much the total work was to cost; second, how much had already been spent; third, how much required for the present year; and fourth, how much would be required to finish it—representing opportunities for discussion on the Estimates, which this Bill did not offer. Under the first head was "Barracks, £3,000,000," and in connection with that, further particulars had been distributed by the right hon.

    731
    Gentleman. His point was, that if it were one large expenditure that was required, such as £2,000,000 for the fortification of Dover, this procedure by loan would be very good, but where there were a number of small items, then it would be much better to proceed by means of the ordinary Estimates. There were many small items here. There were £18,000 for Devonport; £13,000 for Halifax; and £11,000 for Ceylon. It would have been much better to have placed these small items on the Estimates so that they might be properly criticised by the House in the ordinary way. The largest item was the one for St. Lucia, £260,000, which was described as the completion of the scheme for the transfer of headquarters from Barbadoes. He had been trying to get some particulars of the scheme, but they had not had them, so far as he knew. St. Lucia was one of the most insignificant islands in the Windward Islands, and, although it was supposed to be a convenient coaling station, it was rather an unhealthy spot. The whole population was only about 40,000, and yet they were going to spend there £260,000 to make it the headquarters of the district. They had had no argument in support of it yet, and he thought they ought to have some explanation before they passed such a large item as this. There was also an item of £169,000 for the Mauritius. He thought it would be desirable that they should hear something about this item too. The chief item, perhaps, out of this country, was the Irish expenditure. There was no less than £600,000 provided here for the building of barracks in Ireland. He protested against that expenditure. At the present time the Irish were raising a very grave question with regard to their treatment financially, and if this expenditure was approved of, he ventured to say it would be urged as a, sort of set-off to the claim that might be made on financial matters by Ireland. Whether that were so or not, he could not help thinking that it would prove to be a gross waste of money if all these barracks were built in Ireland. Under the Act of 1872, no less than £300,000 were spent on buildings in Ireland. Under the Act of 1890 another £500,000 had been spent, and now they were asked to spend £600,000 for barracks, and, he supposed, something
    732
    like £400,000 for making Berehaven and Lough Swilly impregnable. This he regarded as a waste of something like £1,000,000 in Ireland. The waste was something tragic, for many of these barracks were now useless. His point here was that as the old idea of scattering the troops in small barracks all over Ireland was very costly, and had been abandoned, so the present idea of building huge barracks at the Curragh and Dublin would also prove not to be a lasting one, and that the largo sum they were now asked to spend would be totally wasted. He wished to take another point. Under the Barracks Act of 1890 a grave scandal arose in connection with the Royal Barracks in Dublin, and formed a splendid illustration of the mistake of proceeding by loan. It was estimated that the Royal Barracks would be completed for about £60,000, but the result was nearly £200,000 was spent, and he estimated that about £130,000 was wasted in this single bit of extravagance. These largo sums, he submitted, would probably be wasted, in the first place, because he believed that the buildings would not be found to be permanent, and, in the second place, because in carrying out work by means of loan instead of by the ordinary Estimates that came regularly before the House, there was a tendency to create great waste and extravagance in the execution of the work. No justification had been made out for this expenditure. He had shown that under the one Act which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, great waste had taken place in proceeding in this matter. He thought they might take out some of the small items in this schedule and modify the scheme relating to the barracks. The next item was for defence works, £1,140,000, and they had received very scanty information on this head. They had been told that four harbours were to be made impregnable. Falmouth was the only harbour that commended itself to his judgment, and he should like more detail with regard to the precise proposals, as all the money spent at the other three places mentioned would very likely be wasted. He believed the understanding was that coaling stations were to be provided in the harbours which were to be made impregnable. But the theory

    733
    recognised by the highest military authorities was that there should be no attempt to make the coaling stations impregnable against a fleet, but only sufficiently to guard them against the predatory raids of a hostile cruiser. A very distinguished writer in The Times also fastened on the expression that the harbours were to be made impregnable, stated that a large expenditure upon them would be out of place, and that they only should be fortified to the extent he (the hon. Member) had indicated. It was in connection with proposals of this kind that they had seen the greatest waste of money, and they ought to hesitate before they sanctioned the spending of such a large amount. He thought that Falmouth was a good case, but to spend money on making impregnable places like Berehaven and Lough Swilly, which were almost impregnable in their natural state, seemed to be a mistake. The next proposal involved an expenditure of £1,149,000 on ranges and manœuvre ground. He thought they should provide any ranges they required under ordinary Estimates, which would avoid suspicion of jobbery. The proposal which excited most interest under this head was that which related to the fortification of London.
    *MR. BRODRICK: I have never used any expression "fortification of London," and I entirely denied, in answer to a question put to me, that that was the intention.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the exact words of the light hon. Gentleman would show that there really was here a proposal of an alarming character, which the Committee ought to look, into with care. The right hon. Gentleman said, in explaining this matter:—"The principle on which our troops will be employed for defence in case of invasion was drawn out ten years ago by the most eminent soldiers of the day, and was then approved by the Government. London must be surrounded by defensive positions strongly held and fortified."
    *MR. BRODRICK: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly read on?
    MR. LOUGH: "And fortified with artillery as a second line of defence."
    *MR. BRODRICK: "Fortified by artillery." That means strengthened. I did not mean to convey that a line of forts was to be built.
    MR. LOUGHobserved that the words the right hon. Gentleman used were that "London must be surrounded by defensive positions strongly held and fortified with artillery as a second line of defence. Since 1888, thirteen sites have been acquired, and storehouses erected, and work commenced." In order to show that he had not taken an unreasonable view of the right hon. Gentleman's language, he would quote from the communication which recently appeared in The Times. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who wrote it?"] He did not know who wrote it, but he heard the writer was a good military authority:—
    "London must be surrounded by defensive positions strongly held and fortified with artillery as a second line of defence. If, however, this extraordinary proposition is carried into effect, it would be not a second, but a fifth line of defence. The first line is the Navy observing; or blockading the ports from which an invading army is to issue. The second is the Navy operating against the enormous fleet of transports when it has sailed. The third is constituted by the extensively fortified ports of the United Kingdom, backed by the action of the Navy. The fourth is the field army. To these are to be added defensive positions strongly held and fortified by artillery, at a cost of £164,000. The idea of creating any valid defences on a line of at least 120 miles for such a sum as this is absolutely illusory."
    The right hon. Gentleman told them that £68,000 had been spent on this matter during the last seven years. He should like to ask him if only, £68,000 had been spent, because he observed from the letter in The Times it was believed that a very much larger sum must have been spent over the scheme? Assuming that the expenditure was £68,000, it was argued that because they had spent that amount they should proceed to expend the £96,000 more which was asked for in the Bill. He would commend to the right hon. Gentleman the maxim that the first loss was the best loss, and if they were to stop a bad proceeding they should stop it now, when only £68,000 had been spent, rather than to-morrow, when £160,000 might have been expended on this rather absurd proceeding. What justification had the right hon. Gentleman given? He told them that the sites had been chosen deliberately, and the object had been to form storehouses there in order that the supplies concentrated at Woolwich might be scattered over more convenient places, and

    735
    that it was the opinion of officers who assembled ton years ago that it would take six weeks to distribute the stores, in the event of war, from Woolwich. Distribution was the science of commerce best understood in London, and if this proceeding was to be justified on the ground that it would take six weeks to distribute supplies from Woolwich, sight must have been lost of the costly and splendid railway system which had been created in London, and which would be available for this purpose. Anything in Woolwich Arsenal could be got out in from 24 to 48 hours, with the assistance of the railways, and if the War Office could not do it, let them call in one of the great distributing merchants of London, and he would soon do it. The right hon. Gentleman cited as an authority for these proposals the Emperor Napoleon. Was ever anything so absurd? Napoleon did not know anything of the railway system, which had more to do with mobilising an army and with distribution than anything else. These were antiquated notions, and not the kind which ought to govern their consideration of this Bill. He believed the Government were right in distributing the stores from Woolwich Arsenal, but wrong in creating storehouses on the tops of hills within a range of a certain number of miles around London. They would have to carry their stores up the hills by horses and men, and when they had got them up they would be no use there. To erect the storehouses on the line of railway where ingress and egress were easy, would be far more practicable than the Government proposal. Then there was the item for the purchase of a manœuvre ground on Salisbury Plain. That was an idea that commended itself to a great many people, but it was one which, nevertheless, ought to be looked into. He did not think 100,000 troops would ever be got together in time of peace, and if they could be, he did not think Salisbury Plain would be a healthy or useful place whereon to manœuvre them. It would be very different from the ground an army would encounter in actual warfare. It might be an interesting experiment for two or three years, but the permanent purchase of a large piece of land would not be necessary for the purposes for which the Government intended to acquire it. He suggested
    736
    that huts and similar buildings would be required, and that the purchase of land would lead to the development of a great camping ground. It would be a healthy place for a, camp, and some of the money proposed to be spent at Aldershot and the Curragh would be more wisely spent there. Too much money was being spent on military enterprises, but, as far as the sanitary housing of soldiers was concerned, if a moderate scheme were presented he would not oppose it. Mixed up with what was good and useful were some large, and doubtful, and bad proposals, and the Under Secretary for War would do well to agree to the Amendment and withdraw the Bill for further consideration.
    MR. HUDSON KEARLEYseconded the Amendment, and said he thought the Mover was amply justified in taking exception to this money being secured by loan instead of being voted in the Estimates. The precedent of 1860 was an extremely bad precedent for two reasons: first, it was the first time such an expedient was adopted; and, secondly, the major part of the money voted was, wasted. Lord Palmerston recognised at the time that the proposal was not one that could be justified. But there was this excuse for him, that the country was in a state of panic from the widespread belief that France contemplated invading us. Lord Palmerston said it was contrary to principle to raise money by loan for the expenditure of the country in time of peace. For many of the purposes to which the money was to be applied, such as the re-construction of Winchester Barracks, money was usually voted in the Estimates. The House was asked to acquiesce in the Bill because it was said the work to be done would be speedily accomplished, whereas if they voted the money in the Estimates it would drag along some time. But when this Bill was passed the House lost all control over the expenditure of money; whereas, if placed in the Estimates it could be criticised annually. It had become far too much the fashion for Governments to come down and toll a plausible story and get Members of the House to surrender one of their most cherished rights to criticise the expenditure of money from the national purse. He objected to this money being taken out of the control of the House for that reason. But the proposal

    737
    that chiefly excited his opposition was that to erect defences on "fortified positions" round London. It was said these positions were to be strengthened by artillery, and to contain entrenching tools and ammunition. The work that could be done for the money asked for would be utterly insignificant, and if more were required a large sum would have to be expended. He objected to the proposed fortified positions because he believed they would be worthless, and positively dangerous. If an invading army once succeeded in landing on our shores it would make straight for London. The first duty of our military commanders would be to bring this invading army to an engagement, and concentrate the whole of our forces for that purpose. But the proposal under the Bill meant locking up large bodies of men. They would not only be locked up but concentrated over a circle of 120 miles. They would have a great amount of fighting force locked up in these positions, and for that reason alone he considered that these fortifications would be a failure. The right hon. Gentleman had refused to give them any information as to where these fortifications were to be erected, but all Europe would know in a few months. He objected to the scheme, further, because it was a waste of money, and in this connection he should like to quote to the House an opinion given by Lord Palmerston in 1860, when he was bringing forward his proposal. Someone said to him, "Why not fortify London?" He replied that no doubt London might be open to attack, but London was too vast to be surrounded by fortifications. He said, "You cannot fortify London. London must be defended by an army in the field." If they were going to erect fortifications here, what about the other large commercial centres? Why not fortify Liverpool, Glasgow, and Manchester? ["Hear, hear!"] There were plenty of strong natural positions between the coast and the metropolis, and these could easily be turned to account when the occasion arose. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make a point of dealing with the contention he made, that these places would occupy a large body of men. He wanted to take a, view apart from the military question; he wanted to keep up the heart of Londoners. Londoners had a great affection for these hills. They were
    738
    in great request for residential purposes, but if the War Department once got possession of them it naturally followed that no houses would be erected there. He had some experience of what happened when the War Office got hold of places for defensive purposes. In Devon and Cornwall the coasts were in several directions in possession of the War Office, and very necessarily, but the public were warned off, and the neighbourhood which the War Office held became a wilderness. The people did not mind that, but if they came to do the same in London it would be very different for the Londoners, who would protest against it. The amount proposed to be taken showed that they did not contemplate putting up any valuable works. What was proposed was something for which the Londoners would not thank you. He hoped that this proposal would be dropped so far as these fortifications were concerned. The idea was not a new one. He thought every military faddist had propounded some wonderful scheme to protect London from an enemy, and the only thing he was surprised at was that they were not already overburdened by some grand scheme; but the good sense of the House had resisted any such proposal. Take the case of Paris, where the fortifications on which millions had been spent were useless. Then what was the use of talking about fortifying London? If they had carried out all the schemes which had been recommended this country would have been bankrupt years ago.
    *GENERAL RUSSELLsaid he should only make a few remarks on the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Islington. He saw that he had taken exception to the expenditure on barracks. There was the sum asked in connection with St. Lucia, a small and unhealthy island; regarding this he thought the House ought to have some explanation. He thought hon. Members from Ireland, so far from complaining of the amount of money spent in Ireland with regard to barracks, ought to rejoice. He regretted, however, he could not approve of some of the money spent there. For instance, the Royal barracks in Dublin, which were pronounced unhealthy, the Messrs. Guinness wanted to purchase the site for a storehouse for their corks, but it was refused, although they offered to build new barracks on a site which they

    739
    proposed to purchase. Since then, much money had been wasted, and many soldiers and officers had died in those barracks, in which now only about 700 men were accommodated. Let them, again, take the Island Bridge Barracks. It was most unhealthy, on the banks of the Liffey, below a churchyard, and had been condemned long since. The railway company offered to buy it from the Government and build a barracks anywhere near Dublin on a healthy site without cost to the Government. The site of the barracks would have been extremely useful for their works, but the Government refused this offer, and kept on patching up those old buildings, and now the whole site was condemned and the entire barracks were to be constructed elsewhere. He wished especially to make some remarks regarding the objections taken to what was termed the fortification of London. Hon. Members opposite appeared to have entirely misunderstood the whole of this scheme. He thought he was in a position to assure them that the scheme brought forward now was the result of careful inquiry, and the deliberate judgment of the principal authorities for the last 20 years. It had been confirmed and accepted by successive Governments, and it was now being carried out in by no means a too liberal manner by the present Government, in accordance with the wishes of their predecessors. There was no question of the fortification of London. He was sorry to say that this word was used in The Times by one who was spoken of as a distinguished writer, who in many ways talked great nonsense. About 20 years ago it was his good fortune to visit the Russian Army, and to see the preparations for defence being carried out in Turkey. He reported to the Home authorities that war was inevitable, and would be declared as soon as the roads were clear for transport. In reply to various Members of the Government of the day, who were good enough to send for him, he also expressed his conviction that there was nothing to prevent the Russians from reaching Constantinople about three or four months after they had declared war, that was to say, about two months after they succeeded in crossing the Danube. That Report was not accepted by the Military
    740
    Authorities or by Her Majesty's Government; the only exception to that was the present Commander in Chief, who pointed out to him the line of operations which the Russians would take, and predicted that they would disregard Varna and Shumla, and that unless something unforeseen occurred they would be in Constantinople in the middle of August. The Russians adopted the line of operations which the present Commander in Chief had predicted. They disregarded Varna and Shumla, and they would no doubt have been at Constantinople in August, or if not, early in September, if it had not been that they were delayed in crossing the Danube, which gave the Turks the opportunity of erecting temporary fortifications at Plevna, very similar to those which it was now contended should be made round London. The Russians were consequently delayed two months before Plevna until the bad weather set in, and did not reach Constantinople until January. Similarly, when war seemed imminent, our Government, with the sanction of the Turkish Government, sent out engineer officers to survey certain lines round Constantinople, on which temporary fortifications might be erected, and no doubt these would have saved the capital if it had not been for the treachery of the Turkish Commander, who allowed the Russians to encamp within them. These works which were now proposed, consisted simply of block houses, or points d'appui, to hold stores, at the important points where it would be necessary in time of invasion to raise temporary fortifications round London. They had heard that it would be almost impossible to invade London. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Islington said "hear, hear," but that was not the opinion of foreign strategists. It had been his good fortune to have conversation in a friendly way with some of the principal and most able strategists of the continent, and without exception, they had always said that the invasion of England was not only possible but under certain circumstances quite feasible. If that event ever happened what an enormous boon it would be if it were possible for our troops to occupy defensive positions in intrenchments which, by means of the huge population available in London, could be

    741
    thrown up in three or four days. So impressed were the Russians with the advantage of such defensive preparations as were here contemplated in the case of London that they had planned no less than two or three such positions on the line of the supposed march of an army from the western frontier to St. Petersburg. If it should so happen that we lost the command of the Channel what an advantage it would he if our Volunteers, by intrenching themselves behind such defensive works as were now indicated, could hold any hostile columns in check before London for, say, a week. The objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite were entirely opposed not only to the military experts in this country and on the Continent, but to the practice and preparations which foreign countries had adopted for their defence in case of invasion. It would be utterly impossible to get the stores out of Woolwich in four days, as had been suggested. He thought that some of the criticisms in The Times were, to say the least, injudicious, and he could not accept them. He hoped that the House would pass this Bill without delay, especially that part of it which related to the defence of London, which he regarded as the most important and best part of it. ["' Hear, hear!"]
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
    MR. W. H. MYERSsaid that the hon. Member for Devonport had said that there was no urgency in the matter of the rebuilding of the Winchester barracks. He ventured to think that there was very great urgency in the matter in view of the great inconvenience caused by the present state of affairs. As the House was aware, only part of the barracks were burnt down in December 1894. Two blocks of buildings remained intact and only the central block, which formed the quarters of the married men of the depôt. Consequently temporary accommodation had to be found for those turned out of their quarters. 'He hoped his right hon. Friend would endeavour to press this Bill on with all speed, not merely on the ground he had mentioned, but also because Winchester was a very first-rate military centre, lying within a convenient distance of Portsmouth, Southampton, and London, and also of the new
    742
    manœuvring ground it was proposed to set up near Salisbury.
    MR. D. F. GODDARDlooked upon the Bill from two standpoints—the standpoint of the policy involved and the standpoint of finance. He was not for a moment prepared to raise any technical objection to the defence works proposed, but it seemed to him that the estimate for these works was altogether inadequate. It could not be seriously supposed that this expenditure of £1,120,000 would anything like complete the works that were contemplated. Was it not a fact that 18 years after the Act of 1860 was passed, under which £11,000,000 were voted for certain military works, the whole of the money was expended, but not a single one of the works really completed? What the ultimate cost of those works was likely to be no one knew. It had become mixed up with other figures, and probably it would be half as much again as was asked for. It seemed to him that the Government were falling into exactly the same error. They were really formulating a programme of military works which they knew perfectly well could never be completed for the money asked for. The note at the bottom of the schedule of this Bill stated that these works were partly new works and partly works begun and not completed under the Imperial Defence Act of 1888 and the Barracks Act of 1890. Payments under those Acts were being made now, and some of the money for which the Government were asking would go to defray liabilities incurred some time ago. With regard to the proposed earthworks, shelters, and storehouses, he would like to know whether the military authorities had not seriously questioned the utility of such works. If there was the slightest doubt as to their utility in the minds of the military authorities the House ought to be told of it. They had been assured that the shelters were required to contain the tools of workmen building earthworks. If that was the only purpose of these shelters why should the structures be very substantial? Why should they be of considerable magnitude and strength, as if intended to resist an enemy's shot? Was tins Vote for the defences of London after all only a part of an outlay which it was intended to incur at a future time? Was there some undisclosed plan for the complete fortification

    743
    of London? In that case they had good reason to complain. There was, he feared, rather a tendency to give information piecemeal in these matters, and he would like to know whether the Imperial Defence Council had really recommended the policy of spending this large sum of money in the defence of London. A good part of the proposed expenditure on barracks he gathered from the schedule was rendered necessary by the contemplated increase of the Army. That raised a question of policy which they had a right to discuss in that House. Did we want this increase of the Army? ["Hear, hear!"] Was there a real necessity for it, or was it not some better organisation of our existing forces that was wanted? We were paying about 21 millions for our Army and there ought to be some really searching inquiry into the expenditure so that the country might ascertain whether it was getting the full benefit of it. He complained of the lavish expenditure to which the Government were committing the country. ["Hear, hear!"] Last year on the Budget night the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very strong and earnest appeal for aid in checking the large expenditure that was going on. The appeal of the right hon. Gentleman was worthy of very serious consideration. They had before them the indeterminate cost of the Egyptian campaign, and they were confronted with these quickly recurring Works Bills. He warned the Government that when the taxpayers came to understand thoroughly how la vishly their money was being spent upon these works, for some of which it was difficult to find any justification, they would resent it greatly. He knew the stock argument that these things ought to have been done long ago, that they had been neglected; but he did not think that the argument was available, because large sums of money had been spent from year to year for these purposes. He agreed entirely with the Amendment that had been moved, because he was of opinion that enough information had not been supplied to the House. By passing this Bill they would be giving the Government a free hand to lay out some £5,500,000 on some kind of military works or other. The money would be beyond the control of the House of Commons. Against that he thought it right to protest. It was true
    744
    that mention was made in the Bill of a reference to the Treasury, but he regarded that as worth very little. The reference would simply be from one public Department to another, and that could not be held to constitute an effective check upon this enormous expenditure. The term of thirty years was too long for the repayment of these loans, and they were confusing, because they overlapped. Then some of this expenditure ought to be provided for in other ways. Take the item for converting the female prison at Woking into barracks for the Royal Artillery, was that the kind of expenditure that ought to be met by a loan for a long period? He held not, and he held the same opinion with regard to the expenditure for replacing wooden huts by others at the Curragh, Colchester, etc. He thought that the application of a surplus, if there was any, for the purposes of this Act was a highly objectionable method of doing business. It seemed to him financially that it was becoming the practice of the Government to apply surpluses to extraordinary expenditure. That was a very serious point to consider. It raised the whole question of method in our National Accounts; it raised the whole question of the National Debt and its system of liquidation; and this question ought to be very carefully considered if the practice was to become common. Let the full expenditure of the country be disclosed to the taxpayers in an account as plain as it could be made, so that they might know what was being expended on different departments. Then there would be a chance of getting sound and correct judgments on such a proposition as this. This system of finance was a bad one, and needed to be altered; this system of finance at any rate did not show a very robust confidence in the approval of the country for the Measures which the Government were bringing forward for the expenditure of this money. He should vote against the Bill.
    COLONEL MURRAY,speaking on the Bill from a military point of view, said that if the proposed works around London were to be in the form of storehouses, connected by lines of entrenchment, if necessary, later, but without regular forts, they would be valuable in imparting strength to concentration in the event of an imminent invasion. For

    745
    hundreds of years the Navy had kept the country free from invasion, but it was desirable to have a backing of troops. Many of our troops were suitable as a mobile force; there were other troops whose qualification lay more in a passive form; and for these it would be a source of great strength if earthworks were constructed. Without finding spots of concentration regiments would be scattered around London without any organisation, and with no means of taking a proper share in the defence of the country. London was the central point in our system of defence, and we should have a local chain of strong points. He therefore congratulated the Government on the decision they had made to construct this chain of works round London, and he hoped they would carry the proposal forward with determination. As to manœuvre on Salisbury Plain, he thought it would be very satisfactory to have a large drill ground. We had outgrown Aldershot, which was too small for extended drills, especially for cavalry. He urged the Government to acquire certain rights of movement over ground near Salisbury where troops could manœuvre freely without disturbing game.
    MR. JOHN DILLONsaid he had listened with astonishment to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. According to his argument, the conditions of modern warfare required troops not to have any fixed plan or places of fortifications, while it was necessary for the Volunteers if they took the field to fight from behind trenches. The hon. Member's speech was really an argument against wasting money on one of the most monstrous propositions ever submitted to the House of Commons, namely, the fortification of London. The hon. Member said that he was proud to hear that these fortified places were to be connected by trenches or long lines of defence, so as to make them one continuous position. That would mean trenches 120 miles round London, and the only argument the House had heard in defence of the plan was the suggestion to waste £150,000 in defence of London because £60,000 had already been wasted. If London was beset by an army largo enough to surround the City or seriously to threaten it, the people would be eating each other within
    746
    a fortnight. He therefore supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Islington. He objected to the Bill on two grounds, first, because of the inadequacy of the arguments as to the necessity of these armaments; and, secondly, because he was opposed root and branch to all these monstrous increases in expenditure on the Army and Navy. Apart from that, in carrying out this policy, the Government were pursuing a most vicious course in providing extraordinary Budgets for the Army and the Navy, and, following the German method, withdrawing the expenditure from all control or criticism in this House. Last year the House of Commons assented to an enormous increase on naval armaments, and the First Lord, who then talked of the splendid isolation of England, stated that between 1889 and 1899 there would have been an aggregate expenditure of nearly 55 millions upon construction. The taxpayers were entitled to expect, having made such sacrifices in order to place the fleet ahead of all the other fleets of the world, that at least the burden would be lightened as regards military expenditure. They were now assured that, owing to some kaleidoscopic change, England was no longer in a position of splendid isolation, but was bound hand and foot with other European Powers, so much so, that even though people were being roasted alive, she could not move the most powerful ships afloat unless other nations gave her permission to do so. All the millions voted had not enabled England to redeem the honour of her flag or to strike a single blow for civilisation and Christianity in the East of Europe. He did not think a single shred of justification had been afforded by the Under-Secretary for these demands. He objected to increased expenditure in the Army. If England was determined to strain her almost boundless resources so as to retain the undisputed mastery of the sea, there might be a great deal to be said for it, only he could wish she would use her power in a more humane and decent way; but she ought to apply herself to reducing expenditure on the Army. The British Army was a very small concern. If England would give up her monstrous system of land-grabbing in all parts of the world there would be no shadow of reason for calling for

    747
    increased expenditure upon the Army, and though at the present moment everybody must recognise—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. I must remind the hon. Member that there is no question of increasing the Army in this Bill.
    MR. DILLONsaid there was a large increase for barracks and accommodation for troops in all parts of the world, but, of course, he would not pursue the argument in the circumstances. He objected, then, to the whole policy of the Bill, but he also very much objected to the finance of the Bill, and the way in which the money was to be provided under Clause 2. As to the borrowing powers under Clause II., by means of terminable annuities to be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament for Army services, he wished to know whether moneys provided by Parliament were to be specifically earmarked for those annuities. Clause 3 appropriated the surplus for the year 1896–97, and suspended the Sinking Fund Act of 1875, which provided that the surplus of each year should go to the payment of the National Debt. He objected to this scheme. The English people at least were enjoying a period of exceptional and enormous prosperity; yet not only was an eight-penny income tax being maintained, but fresh debt was being contracted to provide this enormous naval and military expenditure, and the Sinking Fund, which ought to provide a reserve for periods of emergency, was being destroyed. Now England was at the top of the wave; presently she would be in the trough. The Radical Party, as the party of economy and sound finance, always came into power when the country was in the trough, and when they had built up a surplus the Tory Party came in to squander it, and to disorganise finance. The great surpluses, provided partly by the new Death Duties and partly by increased prosperity, ought to have led to a revision of the whole taxation, with a view to further concessions to the working classes, but all the surpluses had been seized upon for bloated expenditure on armaments, and even the £120,000 which last year was to have gone to the Voluntary Schools had been swallowed up. As to Ireland's relation to this Bill, about £600,000 was to be spent on barracks
    748
    and huts and harbours. He wanted particulars as to those harbours. Were they to be available for the people? He had no objection to money being spent in Ireland, but, in view of a coming inquiry, it became important to know whether this expenditure would be charged as local expenditure in Ireland. He claimed that if £600,000 were to be spent in Ireland, it should be spent in a way which would be beneficial to the country. This was a year of great depression in Ireland, and the money could be applied to a better purpose than the building of barracks. If the Government would take this sum out of the Bill, and apply it to the relief of those districts in which the people were on the verge of starvation, he would reconsider his attitude to the Bill.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that there was a great deal in the hon. Member's remarks about Clause 3, which dealt another serious blow at the settled financial system of the country. It destroyed the "annuality" of our accounts, which secured that each year's revenue and expenditure should be complete in themselves, and that any surplus should go to the reduction of the National Debt. That was a very proper and necessary arrangement, which should only be disturbed in times of emergency. Of recent years it had become the practice of Governments to interfere with the proper financial relations of the Empire. As to the provision of ranges and manœuvre grounds, he believed them to be necessary for the Army. In buying a large tract of country in and about Salisbury Plain, the Government would be acquiring the best site available. New barracks were eminently necessary also; and by replacing the insanitary barracks now existing, money would be saved, because it would no longer be necessary to be continually moving regiments about, so that all might have their turn of the healthy and of the deadly barracks. As to the defence works, however, the scheme was open to serious objection. He could not understand why not merely the Navy, but the Army, should be wild to go into bricks and mortar. It was not by them, but by action in the open field, that the country was to be defended. The chain of forts by which Paris was surrounded only served to prolong the

    749
    agony of the siege; and as to forts for defending London, why, if the enemy got as near as that, the game would be up. Nothing could be more injudicious than a chain of detached forts round London for the purpose of defence. It was said that only storehouses were proposed; but the storehouses would only precede and be the foundation of the forts. If not, what was the purpose of the stores? He hoped no Minister would rely for the defence of any part of the country on forts, but would depend on coping with the enemy in the open field. But the part of the defence works in which he was particularly concerned was that relating to the Scilly Isles. He believed he was the only Member of the House who had ever asserted that the Scilly Isles would make a most important naval strategical station. He had constantly urged that the first and most necessary thing to do was to make them an absolutely good and safe naval station by building a breakwater. The forts might come in their proper order. Undoubtedly, the first step to take was to build the breakwater across the Broad Sound and make a proper and safe anchorage. Unless that was done it was useless to build forts in any case. To build forts before they built the breakwater seemed to him the height of absurdity. He could understand the building of the breakwater without the forts, but could not understand the building of the forts without the breakwater. What was suggested reminded him of the words—he believed they were Swift's:—
    "Here is proof of Irish sense, here Irish wit is seen,
    "When nothing's left that's worth defence, they build a magazine."
    [Laughter.] He took great interest in the naval affairs of the country—["hear, hear!"]—and his belief was that the more forts we built the more difficulties and not facilities we placed in the way of the Navy. Bricks, mortar, and mud were useless. This country was only to be defended by ships. Once the line of our warships was broken through, we were gone and nothing was left.
    *MR. REGINALD McKENNAhoped the House would not suspect him of being an authority on military questions. He made no such pretence; but this Bill had an aspect
    750
    which was not at all military—namely, a financial aspect—and it was upon that point he proposed to address a very few words to the House. Part of the Bill was to provide for barracks, and the money for that purpose amounted altogether to nearly three millions sterling. The expenditure on barracks was to a certain extent a permanent one, and it was therefore perhaps reasonable that the whole charge for barracks should not be included in the Estimates of any one year; but, until they had a careful system of separating annual and permanent expenditure, it appeared to be most unreasonable to mix up the accounts of the Estimates with the accounts in Bills like the present. What took place as a matter of fact in practice? An item for barracks might be put down in the accounts for the Estimates, and the Secretary of State might think the item would not look well in the Estimates. He could at once put it in a Loan Bill. The House had never before it the actual expenditure being made from year to year; never did they get a complete and comprehensive view of the whole of the Army expenditure. Anyone with any regard to finance must see that that is a very undesirable method to pursue. If the House were to retain any control whatever over the Army expenditure they must know from year to year what they were expending. Although all the items for barracks should not appear in one year because the works were permanent, why should not the charges be spread over several years' Estimates? A great deal of the money expended under such Bills as that now before the House was money they would not be willing to continue to expend if they ever had an opportunity of revising their judgment. It was ludicrous to consider that London could be defended by the methods suggested in the Bill. If the authorities wanted a Metz they must spend millions and not £96,000. A letter which recently appeared in The Times appealed very strongly to him. The writer signed his name Lieutenant Colonel J. R. Povah. That Gentleman said:—
    "Lord Lansdowne's present scheme is offered as the sole alternative to asking the country for £225,000 more; at the same time he asks for £96,000 alone for works on the North Downs. Now, there seems some doubt what

    751
    these works really are to be. Are they to be merely quartermasters' stores for mobilisation, or real fortifications? If the latter, no money is asked to arm them; while the idea of fortifications in any shape is opposed to all naval and military expert opinion. But works without guns are less useful than even soldiers without rifles, because men unarmed can run away, but permanent works cannot; while they are positively more dangerous to a defence, as they may be turned by a victorious assailant on their original garrison."
    That was an expert opinion, and a, most reasonable and common-sense one, upon these supposed fortifications. It certainly appealed to him, if it did not to hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite. No case had been made out for the expenditure of £96,000, and he asked right hon. Gentlemen to accept the Amendment in as far as it meant the postponement of the Bill possibly for another year.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that, in introducing the Resolution on which this Bill was founded, he went as fully as possible into the various items of expenditure which the Government intended to undertake, and hon. Members had contended that the amount of money provided could not possibly furnish all the works proposed. By far the more serious criticisms had been directed to the Government dealing with this question by means of loan. ["Hear, hear!"] But, when he introduced the Resolution, he introduced what he believed seemed to many Members of the House the cogent arguments why the Government should deal with the matter by means of loan, and not by means of annual Estimate, and although he was reluctant to recapitulate what he then stated, he would remind the House that it would be absolutely impossible to enter upon big works on the system of annual Estimate without causing either very great financial inconvenience or very wasteful expenditure of money. But, as matters were, one of two things must happen. Either the contractor must, when the Vote for the year was exhausted, suspend, hundreds of workmen at great inconvenience to him, or, if he kept on with a smaller number of men to avoid those suspensions, and a frost occurred or anything to stop the works, the Department would find itself towards the end of the financial year with a large sum of unexpended money,
    752
    and it would press upon the contractor to spend money which would then surely be expended in a wasteful manner. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Department did not do this, perhaps £100,000 or £200,000 would have to be surrendered to the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to raise taxes in the next year for purposes for which the people had already been taxed. ["Hear, hear!"] If the House liked to change its whole financial arrangements, and say, what has never yet been said, that it would allow the money voted for one service to be carried on to the next year, or even the year after that, then the difficulty of providing for such works by annual Estimate would disappear. But he repeated that in the present financial arrangements of the House a scheme for paying those large works by annual Estimate would be a wasteful, an extravagant, and a shortsighted policy. ["Hear!"] When he introduced this Resolution he explained that one of the strongest points in favour of bringing forward a Measure of the kind was that it gave Parliament increased control, and enabled it to estimate the expenditure as a whole, and either to modify, reject, or accept it. Let them take the case of the defence of London. That subject was introduced by Mr. Stanhope in a speech in 1889, when he put £20,000 into the Estimates. That sum was voted, and it was renewed in subsequent years, both by Mr. Stanhope and by the Administration of which he late Secretary for War was a member. But under this plan the principle involved in the question was never discussed and decided on by Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] He, on the other hand, in introducing the Resolution, made a frank statement of what was intended, not merely as regarded the same class of expenditure, but also as to the completion of the original scheme. The plans of the Government, as unfolded by him, had been discussed by the House and the country, and whatever else might be said on the subject, at all events, the result of including that portion of the expenditure in the loan had been a full, careful, and, he hoped, a sufficient consideration of the subject by the House. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) had continued to talk of the scheme of fortification for London. Subsequent speakers had taken up the point,

    753
    and while some had urged that the Government were spending far too little if London was really to be fortified, others had contended that the Government were spending too much because the expenditure would be useless. ["Hear, hear!"] Many mutually destructive arguments had been used that night. Let them consider the principle involved. But whatever that principle was—whether good or bad—it was considered and accepted nine or 10 years ago, and he would urge this important fact on the attention of the House—that the Government had not departed one inch from the principle laid down, or from the scale of amounts it was thus proposed to adopt. Those who regarded the Navy as being an absolute defence to the country, and as meeting all the numerous chances of war, would, of course, support no expenditure on the Army at all for National Defence. They might support expenditure on the Army for striking power abroad; but, obviously, if the Navy were an absolute defence, they required no Army and no fortifications on land. Everybody knew there were chances in war. Everybody knew that the highest military authorities, not merely in this country, but also abroad, admitted that there was the possibility of a temporary reverse at sea. The Duke of Devonshire—and he was sure every Member in that House would recognise that the Duke of Devonshire was a man who had given this subject the most careful consideration and was a man of immense weight and authority on the subject—["hear, hear!"]—speaking the other day, said:—
    "Between the permanent loss of the command of the sea and the possibility of a temporary reverse which might expose some portion of our coast to the risk of invasion there is a very wide interval."
    That was their position exactly. They were preparing against this risk in this way. Undoubtedly, as had been said by many hon. Members that night, the task of the Army defending this country was not to remain stationary. ["Hear, hear!"] They had had some means within the last few days of estimating what the power was of a hostile force to land even on a comparatively small portion of territory protected by cruisers. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not a certain, scientific
    754
    axiom that they could prevent a force from landing on any particular spot. Supposing there should be an invasion. The organisation of the Army was this in such a case. There would be a mobile force, of very large size, whose duty it was to march on the enemy, at whatever point he might attempt to land, without a moment's hesitation. But there was also the chance, laid clown by the highest military authorities, that, at the same moment their Army was engaged with the enemy which had landed, they might have another force of troops landed at another spot endeavouring to strike in the rear of the Army towards London. It was in respect of that chance that they took up the position around London. When Mr. Stanhope introduced this scheme in 1889 he used these words:—
    "Neither officially nor unofficially has any plan been brought before me for building permanent fortifications for the defence of London. Such a scheme is extravagant, visionary, and wholly unecessary."
    And then he went on to say:—
    "Everyone hopes and thinks that our first line of defence should be strong enough to defend this country from the possibility of invasion, and the scheme now adopted is an additional security, necessary only in what may be a remote contingency. It is necessary to prepare and strengthen the position they would occupy, so as at once to protect the defenders and to make up for their necessary deficiencies. There are certain strategical positions round London commanding roads and railways which are essential to its defence. These have been carefully examined by our most experienced officers, and places have been marked out where, upon the occurrence of grave emergency, certain steps, arranged in every way beforehand, could at once be taken."
    [Cheers.] Why did Mr. Stanhope make that declaration, by which the Government stood? That question was brought before Parliament in the year 1887 by Sir E. Hamley, who was admittedly one of the best strategists this country had ever produced, in a most serious speech, in which he called attention to the very action now to be taken. That speech was taken up, amongst others, by the London Chamber of Commerce, who urged upon the Government the serious importance of taking steps to see that there was some second line of defence in this country in case of any reverse of the field Army. Mr. Stanhope then

    755
    appointed a number of military authorities to investigate the subject, and the action that was then taken was taken on the report of Lord Wolseley, Sir R. Buller, an eminent engineer, and an eminent artilleryman. Those four officers examined and chose certain sites with a view, not of putting up fortifications, but of putting up centres on which the temporary intrenchments that might be necessary would be founded. That was the principle which was adopted by Mr. Stanhope, and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman when he came into office. It had been urged by the hon. Member for Devonport that, as they were going to fortify London, why did not they fortify Liverpool in the same way? But the hon. Member himself supplied the answer. ["Hear, hear!"] He said, a moment before, that any hostile force landing in England would have for its objective the metropolis. That was the very reason they had proposed to defend it, and they proposed to defend it in the way they did because they knew that besides their field artillery they must have a very considerable body of less-trained troops whom they desired to give the strongest positions and all the assistance they could have in defending and executing the defences which they might have to undertake. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Devonport said they were locking up a large force in these positions. That was not the case. They were placing them in the very positions in which they would be most available to be trained off into the field army if their services were required. He could assure the hon. Member for Devonport and the House that this subject was not one which had been taken up lightly. It was considered most carefully by the military authorities before the scheme was placed before Parliament. It had been held, too, by every military authority who had had to do with the matter to be the very best scheme that could be adopted. He could quote Lord Wolseley, Sir R. Buller, the present Inspector-General of Fortifications, and the present Inspector-General of Ordnance, who were absolutely at one as to the advisability of this scheme.
    SIR JOHN COLOMBwas understood to ask a question as to sea transit.
    *MR. BRODRICKsaid he could not admit that this question of risk was one for naval authorities alone. The naval authorities would undoubtedly do all they knew to prevent the risk of invasion. But if his hon. and gallant Friend told him that there was no risk and no chance of invasion then he was at issue with him. There was a chance. ["Hear, hear!"] The advice of military authorities was not asked in reference to the formation of the fleet for defence, nor did they invite the opinion of naval authorities as to action to be taken after an enemy had landed. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *SIR J. COLOMB: But before the enemy has landed?
    *MR. BRODRICKsaid before the enemy landed he could not attack London. [Laughter.] His hon. Friend must allow the military authorities to deal with the enemy on shore. Naval authorities might believe that a landing never would take place, but if it did, naval authorities would have their hands pretty well occupied with their own business. Let it not be supposed for a moment that naval and military authorities were at issue. Military authorities wished to provide for their share of the work being properly done if at any time England should be left open to invasion. ["Hear."] Criticisms had passed in reference to the expenditure for barracks at St. Lucia. Troops were necessary for the defence of the coaling station, and it was necessary to have quarters for them; this was the opinion of the Colonial Defence Committee and approved by the late Government. Obviously it was useless to have a coaling station at St. Lucia unless it was defended; and it was necessary that the coaling station should be maintained there, having regard to its geographical position in respect of other Powers. With regard to the other barracks, it must not be supposed that the defence of coaling stations alone made necessary an increase of expenditure on barracks. It was proposed to complete the system upon which the House set its seal in 1890 to replace barracks which were worn out or insanitary by barracks fit for the habitation of troops. ["Hear, hear!"] As he had pointed out earlier, the Government were not going beyond the amount, nor had they reached

    757
    the amount, which was put before Parliament and Lord Randolph Churchill's extremely economical Committee and received approval in 1888; but they were going ahead as fast as they could with all regard to economical expenditure of money. Let the House notice this. The Government were not asking for more than they hoped to spend in five years, in order that they might not withdraw from the notice of Parliament expenditure beyond a reasonable period. It had been said that these loans were mixed up with the annual Estimates, but that was not in accordance with facts. He did not think that Members would find any items for defence purposes in the Estimates during the time the Defence Loan Works were being carried out. The loan was taken for works of a permanent nature, and in the Estimates were the items for armament, and if at any time the House desired to criticise the expenditure on armaments there was always an opportunity on the Vote for Stores. With regard to barracks, undoubtedly they asked for what was necessary in order that they might at once start with contracts in the most economical manner. His hon. Friend behind him criticised the proposed defence of the Scilly Islands, not because he thought they should not be defended, but on the ground that there ought to be a breakwater. All he could say was they were doing exactly what they were asked to do by the joint Naval and Military Committee, and if they consulted three or four experts from the Admiralty and the War Office, and checked their opinion by the sanction of the Secretary of State and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and brought the result before the Defence Committee to consider and to decide what shall be done, after hearing-all who had a right to be heard, they had as near an ideal system for protection in an expert manner as could be got under our Constitution and Parliamentary arrangements. The only thing a civilian could do was to endeavour to follow out the proposals arrived at, and he might add those proposals had never been seriously challenged as regarded defence of coaling stations, of harbours, and ports. He assured the House it was the desire of the Government to give the fullest information on all points so far as was consistent with national interest and
    758
    the purpose of these defensive works. The nature of these works was not known in detail in foreign countries and to foreign critics, although Members had asserted that all our preparations were known abroad. That assertion did not square with the immense desire of many foreigners to become better acquainted with the state of affairs. If these matters were so well known, the authorities would not have to be so careful in this respect. ["Hear, hear!"] The Department had furnished the House with a full schedule of all that they thought ought to be known to the world, and if any Member had any doubt on any point he would be glad to satisfy him. There was no desire to magnify official reserve, and they would be glad of advice on any point from those acquainted with the public needs, and any suggestion would be carefully weighed. But at the same time he trusted sincerely that this Measure, having been brought in on the highest expert judgment, having been carefully examined and cut down to the narrowest limits consistent with efficiency, would be accepted in the spirit in which it was proposed to meet the protective needs of the Empire. [Cheers.]
    *MR. W. WOODALLsaid the interesting and in the main reassuring speech of the right hon. Gentleman was, he thought it would be felt, ample justification for the Motion of his hon. Friend requiring further information before this Measure was proceeded with. The inconvenience and loss which were entailed by the necessary and legitimate enforcement of the rule as to March 31 was a matter too familiar to need emphasising at this time. At the same time the House of Commons must be aware there was a danger incidental to this practice of proceeding by way of loan as to which Parliament ought to be always on guard, and that was evidenced in the figures that had been submitted to them in the memorandum of Lord Lansdowne, in which he explained that the works estimated for in the present War Office Votes were diminished by the fact that the Government had been able to include in their scheme dealt with under the loan system a number of works which, to that extent, reduced the annual Votes for which Parliament was to be asked. As to the defence of military ports and commercial harbours, it would not be contended for a moment that there was anything novel

    759
    in the proposals. The responsibility for dealing with them had been recognised by every successive Government. He wanted to say a word with regard to the four ports for which defensive works were included in the scheme. It might have been assumed that the proposal to create harbours at Berehaven and Lough Swilly, for example, was a new idea, whereas during the term of office of the late Government the lands were acquired, the works carried on, and the armaments much advanced. He hoped the necessary works would now be pushed on to completion. ["Hear, hear!"] With reference to the barracks, it was impossible to overrate the importance of the proposals of the Government. It was a scandal to see that the huts erected at Aldershot, the Curragh, and other places had been allowed to continue so long. They were in an insanitary condition and, he was afraid, not free from vermin. He was glad they were about to make provision for better quarters for their soldiers generally, and especially for the married soldiers. ["Hear, hear!"] If the right hon. Gentleman was unfortunate in regard to any of his observations, he must by this time feel that he was, at any rate, not happy in his references to the scheme for the defence of London. They now learned with great satisfaction that there were to be stations—in which were to be stored implements and, it might be, ammunition—as rallying points under the scheme of mobilisation. It was perfectly true that this scheme had been recognised at the War Office, and there was a certain continuity in regard to it during the term of the late Government. But what was the extent of the contribution of the late Government to this alarming and sensational work? He believed that during their last year of office there was included in the Votes the sum of £5,000 for establishing stations in which some of the forces assigned to the defence of London could be mobilised as quickly as possible. He thought the House would gather from what had been said in the Debate that any Government charged with the defence of the country would be open to very serious reproach—he might almost say impeachment—if they failed to contemplate the possibility—the grievous and hardly conceivable possibility—of an invasion of this country, of the breakdown of their national defences, and of
    760
    the failure of the Volunteers and others to prevent the landing of an enemy. He should be very much surprised to learn that at the War Office those responsible for the defence of the country had not provided against the landing of an enemy—he would not say on the south side of London, but in any part of the United Kingdom. He should also be surprised if there were not schemes by which entrenchments might be thrown up and every point of vantage rendered capable of defence, whether the enemy landed in Suffolk, Essex, Kent, or any other part of the coast. That on approaching London the enemy should be met by a carefully studied resistance was also obvious. But that was a very different thing from what the right hon. Gentleman startled the country with in his statement with regard to the ultimate defence of London. His words, to the gravity of which he would again call his attention, startled the leader writer in The, Times and created a sensation throughout the country generally, speaking, as he did, not merely of this scheme of mobilising the Volunteers, the Militia, artillery, and the rest according to the method suggested by Sir Edward Hamley, but going on to say,
    "London must be surrounded by defensive positions, strongly held, fortified with artillery, as a second line of defence."
    The Under Secretary's explanation diminished the gravity which seemed to lie in his words as to fortified positions round London. There was nothing like the difficulty suggested in getting stores from the Ordnance Department at Woolwich. If it occupied six weeks it would be a grave reproach, and the Under Secretary ought not to give sleep to his eyes nor slumber to his eyelids until such a scandal was removed.
    *MR. BRODRICKsaid he was speaking of ten years ago. Since then decentralisation had taken place which it was intended to carry further.
    *MR. WOODALLsaid that decentralisation was to be approved of, but it was an enormous administrative advantage to have a central point from which to draw stores of all kinds. The adoption of the new rifle rendered ranges of greater distance necessary, the acquisition of which presented difficulties. He gathered that on Salisbury Plain the Government would be able to provide

    761
    ranges which, would be available for all arms of the service. The Financial Secretary of the War Office, in an address to the Bloomsbury Rifles, indicated that the Government had undertaken the responsibility of providing ranges in different parts of the country accessible to Volunteers. He should be glad if this were so, because hitherto the responsibility of providing ranges had been thrown on the Volunteers themselves. He hoped the idea of acquiring Cannock Chase as a desirable site for ranges, manœuvres, and other useful military purposes had not been abandoned.
    *SIR J. COLOMBsaid he could not vote for the Amendment, because a portion of the money was to be applied to barrack accommodation and ranges, which were very necessary. The Under Secretary for War had given the House an interesting historical sketch of the sums of money that had been spent on fortifications and defences since the time of Lord Palmerston. But £900,000 had been spent on the defence of coaling stations, etc., which had been left out of account. Now, that was an important fact. It was under Lord Carnarvon's scheme that the money was all spent upon the ports. Then, in 1888, they had the Imperial Defence Act. The sum then was £2,600,000, and of that £2,500,000 was spent on fixed defences of ports. Then there was the Naval Works Bill of last year, and between two and three millions more were spent on fixed defences and harbours. Now, again, this year they had this Bill providing 5½ millions over one million of which was to go to defray the expenses of defending the ports. They were not at the end of it, because between this and 1901 there was a further million to be provided to complete the defence of enclosed harbours under the Naval Works Act, so that altogether that House, by this method of procedure would spend between 1884 and 1901 a sum approaching six millions upon one item of defence—the defence of the ports. It was time they should have an end put to the confusion as to who was responsible for these ports. One year they had the Admiralty coming forward, and then in the next year they had the War Office coming forward and advocating the expenditure on naval grounds. Between the two they were, he feared, getting into
    762
    considerable confusion. He thought it was time that they should differentiate and settle who was responsible for the defence of the ports. The First Lord of the Admiralty came last year with his big bill for enclosed harbours, and he justified it on the ground of strategical necessity. He then ventured to say, if they came to look at the strategical necessities, they would find Berehaven a very important place; but the Admiralty repudiated the importance of Berehaven. [The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY: "No."] When last year the question of Berehaven was raised the Admiralty had not a word to say. What had happened this year? His right hon. Friend comes down to the House and puts Berehaven in the front rank for naval reasons. He wanted to know which Department was responsible for the selection. [The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY: "Jointly."] Then he thought it was very desirable, when expenditure was proposed, a full statement should be made to the House. If they attempted to go into naval affairs on a military Bill or into military affairs on a naval Bill Mr. Speaker would rule them out of order. In conclusion, with regard to—he hardly knew how to describe them; they were sometimes called magazines, sometimes stores, sometimes block houses—the places to be erected round London, when he asked who recommended them, they were told "the highest naval authorities." When he asked his right hon. Friend what naval authorities, he replied, "They have nothing to do with it; it is a military affair." Then there was some talk about "absolute defence by the Navy." He did not know any sane man who talked about absolute defence. When the naval command of the sea had gone, would anybody who knew anything of the economic conditions of this country hold that there would be anything for us but capitulation? He was in favour of reasonable security against military raids, and for the sea faces of the ports, but who was going to be responsible for keeping the ports open? Was the War Office or the Admiralty to provide security for the free ingress and egress of the shipping into and from the ports? He believed that the present method of the Admiralty and the War Office, asking at different times large loans for these

    763
    purposes, was getting us into great confusion in our defensive policy.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONagreed that the present system led to confusion. The Bill asked for 5½ more millions for the defence of the country, and he believed the country was not averse to all this expenditure. There were a few of them, however, who objected most strongly to this enormous expenditure on our armaments. There was an old saying of Mr. Disraeli's, that expenditure was not policy. It was not his policy. He belonged to the Manchester school, which had now got another name, and was called the "Little England" school. He was proud of the name, because he believed that a "Little Englander" was honest. For years past he had listened to the Army Debates, and some grand new scheme was always being brought forward by which it was urged we should attain a state of permanent defence, and of peace and happiness. A few years afterwards, however, he had always heard that nothing was right, that increased expenditure was required, that past expenditure had been of very little value, and that the regiments were all imperfect, that the arrangements were all in confusion, and that all our boilers were bursting. [Laughter.] If the Army could not defend the country, then the money devoted to it was absolutely wasted. Since the days of the Crimea our Army had had the sense not to fight the big Powers, but the very small Powers—which was better far, he admitted. [Laughter.] He should give his vote heartily against this enormous and uncalled for expenditure, first, because they were deprived of discussing the matter on the Estimates, and secondly, because there was no more necessity for it now than in past years. Now that there was a Concert of Europe, and we agreed with everybody, what was there to be afraid of? [Laughter.] He opposed the Bill still more because he agreed with Mr. Gladstone that this country ought not to enter into a system of competition for enormous armaments with foreign nations.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid that he could not agree with the suggestions that had been made in the course of this Debate that the money required for the purposes of the Bill should form, an item in the Estimates of each year. He entirely
    764
    agreed with the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War that it was far better that the matter should be settled once for all by means of a Bill instead of the question being discussed every year in Committee upon the Army Estimates. It must be remembered that the unexpected always happened, and that until an item in the Estimates had been agreed to in Committee no contracts with regard to it could be entered into, because if the Vote were rejected the money it involved would go towards the redemption of the National Debt. For his own part, he was extremely glad that the policy of the late Mr. Stanhope was being carried out. The state of some of our barracks at the present time was shocking, and was a discredit to the country. In some places the troops were placed in a miserable collection of huts and hovels, and the men had to change their cots from side to side of the rotten structures with every change of wind. With regard to the acquisition of the 40,000 acres of land in the neighbourhood of Salisbury Plain under the Bill, he was of opinion that it was scarcely adequate for the purpose of military manoeuvres, seeing that it was only a territory of eight miles long by eight miles wide. At the same time, half a loaf was better than no bread, and he was decidedly in favour of agreeing to the Government proposal upon the point. He could quite understand hon. Members like the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland, who objected to military force altogether, voting against the Army as an entirety, but he could not understand those who desired that we should have an Army voting against a proposal that would insure its efficiency. Everyone who had studied the subject knew that the cause of the defeat of the French Imperial Army by the Prussian Army was that the latter had attained its great superiority by means of its annual manœuvres. The great Austrian manoeuvres of three years ago, which had attracted so much attention from military men, had been conducted on far larger territory than that which was now asked for under this Bill. With regard to the suggested lines of defence around London, he was entirely in favour of the proposals embodied in the Bill, which he thought was the best that the War Department had

    765
    brought in for many years, and which he should support most heartily.
    SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNER-MANsaid his hon. and gallant Friend who had just sat down had courage enough to compare this loan of several millions to "a ha'porth of tar." [Laughter.] He could not regard it in that light. He thought it was a large and serious step for the House of Commons to take. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MAJOR RASCH: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me; but I only alluded to a part of it, the manœuvre part, as "a ha'porth of tar."
    SIR HENKY CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that even that was a pretty big "ha'porth." ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] At all events, he was not surprised, and he did not think the Government had any occasion to be surprised that the Second Reading of this important Bill should have created a disposition to somewhat prolonged Debate. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend the Member for West Islington had brought forward an Amendment in favour of further information. There were some points upon which further information could not be given with great advantage to the public. [Ministerial cheers.] Rut he was not surprised on the whole that his hon. Friend should hesitate to give an unequivocal support to the Bill. The House of Commons was within its right when it regarded all Bills involving loans of public money with considerable suspicion. [Cheers.] He was quite aware that under the modern system, which differed from the old system, the House was not altogether parting company with the money, because the annual Estimates would have to show the yearly interest necessitated by the expenditure under the loan and also the yearly sum for the repayment of the loan. That was, perhaps, an improvement on the old system. At the same time it was a, very doubtful point indeed, especially for those who took a high financial ground in those matters—which he was not inclined by personal disposition to take—whether it was altogether sound finance that they should vote this large sum of money, not for any definite, separate, and distinct purpose, but for certain purposes which were also included in the annual Estimates. ["Hear, hear!"] Still, he should admit that he
    766
    himself had in his official capacity administered Bills of this sort and Estimates of the same character, and had derived considerable advantage from the fact that they were running together. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] There was no doubt that a Bill of this sort gave great facilities to a Minister—he had, as he had said, experienced those facilities himself—by enabling him to pass from Estimate to loan, and from loan to Estimate, expenditure according as it might suit his purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] In regard to the question of barracks, the late Mr. Stanhope—whose removal from among them they would always regret.—["hear, hear!"]—was immensely impressed by the necessity for erecting more sanitary, and, indeed, he might say, more decent barracks, for the accommodation of the troops in the country—["hear, hear!"]—and he introduced a loan of this character for the purpose of erecting such barracks. The sum which was then obtained was not adequate for the purpose, and was now pretty nearly exhausted; and the Government now asked for an additional sum to continue the work. So far as that went, there was not a word to be said against it. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time it verged very closely upon the services, which were affected by the ordinary Estimates of the year, and created a certain amount of confusion; but the object was so good, so necessary, and so urgent that he did not think the House would hesitate to vote the money for the purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] It was when one looked closely into the particular items that were set out in the schedule of the Bill that objection to the course proposed by the Government arose. One of the items deserving of the greatest censure was one to which he personally could raise no objection—he referred to the provision for a military hospital in Edinburgh. [Laughter.] It was a, small sum of £18,000, and had been proposed in the Estimates year after year only to be postponed in favour of some more urgent service. But it justified the suspicion that items which ought to be provided for out of the ordinary Estimates were contained in the schedule of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] However, he did not make any very strong point on that ground. One reason alleged for dealing with this great matter of barrack

    767
    buildings by loan rather than by Estimate was capable of being pushed a little too far—namely, that the Estimates might be passed at so late a period of the year, that building could not be carried on at the best period of the year. That only affected the first commencement of the building. Once the House of Commons had given its consent to a certain work the work could be gone on with in anticipation of the approval of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Still, he admitted that in the case of a, large undertaking such as was involved in replacing insanitary barracks by more decent accommodation, the House might very well grant a, loan of this character—that, was to say, the House might very well take it that that was a matter not to be borne by the taxpayer of the year, or next year, or the year following, but might justly be spread over the next 20 or 30 years. ["Hear, hear!"] Whether the same argument might not be applied to public buildings under the Civil Service Estimates, such, for instance, as the South Kensington Museum—["hear, hear!"]—he did not stop to inquire, but in the meantime, he thought it was a fair argument that, although in the long gone past loans of this kind were, so far as he knew, confined to definite fortifications or purposes which could be confined within themselves, they were now allowed to be applicable to the building of ships, to the providing of guns and the building of barracks. That principle having been admitted, he did not think the House had any great cause to complain of the proposals of the Government in that respect. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the money to be expended notoriously for sanitary purposes, he quite admitted that within the last ten or 15 years there had been a, not altogether economical expenditure of money on barracks in Dublin, but there were certain barracks in Dublin which were notoriously insanitary, and surely it, was an urgent matter to get over that—["hear, hear!"]—and he hoped no objection would be raised on that head. Another object for which part of this money was required was the acquisition of a, larger extent of land on Salisbury Plain in order to facilitate manœuvres. It was hardly manœuvres in the ordinary sense of the term—["hear, hear!"]—that would be facilitated. It was rather cavalry training. He did not doubt, at all that that would
    768
    be a very useful thing because there were very few parts of the country in which cavalry could be properly trained by reason of the inclosed nature of the country; but, on the other hand, he was bound to say that would not take the place of ordinary manoeuvres—["hear, hear!"]—for the simple reason that while it might train commanding officers and troops in exercises so far as they were applicable to an open country, it did not train them in taking advantage of the features of an inclosed country, and that was surely the thing most wanted for the defence of this island. ["Hear, hear!"] He had repeatedly pointed out the difference between this country and all European countries he knew. He dared say the right hon. Gentleman opposite would say, Why was not the Manœuvres Bill of last year passed into law? ["Hear, hear!"] That Bill was not passed because it was a little too rigid and repellant in its terms for the ordinary sentiment of the British public. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government were kind enough to say they would accept any Amendments on that Bill which were approved or suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and himself, but they could not undertake the duties of the regular government of the country. [Cheers.] It was a little too much to expect that they should say what should be inserted in that Bill, but if on a future occasion the Government introduced a Bill providing for facilities for manœuvres, a little less drastic and alarming, he would be very glad to see it carried into law. [Cheers.] The Bill also proposed to provide for the fortification of coaling stations, and upon that it was difficult for them to pronounce an opinion. Certain branches of the military profession were likely to be the most competent advisers on the subject of the defence of these positions. As he understood, the greater part of the money was required in consequence of the great development that had taken place in recent years in the quick-firing armament which, in substitution for, or unfortunately, as often happened, in addition to, the old heavier armament, was to be provided in marine stations. He believed that the proposals in this Bill were the result of the joint opinion of the best officers of the Army and Navy. The Under Secretary

    769
    for War had referred, on a previous occasion, to Berehaven and Lough Swilly as if the works there were novel. As a matter of fact, those places had been provided for year by year for many years past. Now, under naval advice, the Government had aided two other fortified stations, and to that he did not think the House would raise any objection. This was a matter respecting which it was most undesirable that further details should be given. ["Hear, hear!"] He was not in favour of undue secrecy or mystery, but there were points in regard to the defence, not only of these isles, but of our possessions throughout the world, which it was very undesirable to drag before the public so that they should become known to all the world. [''Hear, hear!"] He came now to the most contested matter in the Bill—namely, the money which was to be voted for certain positions in the neighbourhood of London. His withers were unwrong in connection with that matter. When he came into office in 1892 a certain amount of money had been spent in acquiring rights over certain sites in the neighbourhood of London, and in the two or three years over which his responsibility extended certain small sums were voted and expended for the purpose of improving them. He could not say that he had ever been very enthusiastic upon the subject, or had considered this a very vital part of their preparations. It was all very well to say that schemes of this kind had been recommended by the highest military authorities. The name of Sir Edward Hamley had been introduced, and the names of others who had approved of this particular mode of defence, and those names, no doubt, ought to be received with all the respect that was due to them. He was all in favour of the advance that had been made in recent years in perfecting our schemes of defence, both naval and military, but they ought not to be the slaves of those schemes. ["Hear, hear!"] Upon them they should bring to bear such common sense as Providence had endowed them
    770
    with, and if those schemes, however high the authority for them might be, conflicted with their common sense they ought to be a little cautious about expending money upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] But in the present case he thought that too much had been made of a comparatively small matter. Whether it was the Under Secretary's fault or not he could not say, but an idea had certainly got about that there was some grotesque scheme of encircling London either with a wall, a circumvallation, or with a chain of forts. He need hardly say that by the mass of the people such an idea would be looked upon as perfectly absurd. He shared that opinion himself. But if all that was meant was this, that our technical and skilled advisers, knowing the particular route of any force which by some unfortunate hazard was able to land on our coasts and to approach the metropolis, selected certain positions as those upon which temporary fortifications should be thrown up and a stand could be made against them, and if this was merely a provision for making the subsidiary preparations for such a defence, then he did not think there was much to be said against them. [Cheers.] His idea was if that were contemplated under this loan or in the Estimates, the less said about it the better; and if any disposition had been shown to magnify and make it a rather large item in this expenditure, and a strong point in justification of the House voting the money, then he thought it was a great mistake, because they could not obviously justify it without stating the positions which they were to hold, and if they stated the positions they did away with half the benefit of the whole scheme. He believed that this was one of those cases in which they might trust a little to the opinion of the high military authorities, to whom he should be in any case indisposed to bow the head completely; but the House might trust to them if the scheme only involved a small amount of money, and if they found some slight completion of preparations at the places

    771
    which they had selected as necessary to employ troops which could not be otherwise used in the defence of the country, and at the same time add to the security of the metropolis and the sense of the security of the inhabitants, then he did not think any great objection could be made to it. His hon. Friends had spoken the language of common sense. They did not profess to be strategists or technical soldiers when they protested against the exaggerated view of those fortified positions. He imagined that there were positions of that kind not only around the metropolis but in other parts of the south of England, which had been selected by our skilled advisers as being the bases on which in case of necessity a rally should be made. If that was only meant why should they object to it? [Cheers.] He agreed with everything that had been said against the idea of anything in the nature of a ring of forts round the metropolis, but if the proposal had only the limited meaning he had referred to he did not think that was any reason for the House rejecting the proposal of the Government. He took what might be called the Scotch side on this question. [Laughter and cheers.] It was the cautious side. [Laughter.] Whether it was likely that an enemy should invade the country and successfully land a body of troops or not, they should be "canny" enough to provide against the possibility even if it did not exist; and in that modified and reasonable sense he was not unwilling even to support this much maligned proposal of the Government. On the whole, therefore, he had sufficient feeling in him that the House ought to support the Government of the day who came forward on the advice of their best advisers to make proposals, and he had sufficient loyalty to agree to them, provided they did not notoriously conflict with the common sense which they all possessed. [Cheers.]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)felt that the right hon. Gentleman
    772
    had continued the tradition which had honourably distinguished Parties in the House on a, matter in which Party politics were not really concerned in any sense, but in which it was their duty to carry out, to the best of their ability, the advice of the military and naval experts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had given that support to the Government of the day which he hoped had been on similar occasions given by those who had sat on the Benches which the right hon. Gentleman adorned. ["No!" and laughter.] He simply rose, having made these few words of acknowledgment, to say he hoped the House would now consent to give the Government the Second Reading of the Bill.
    *MR. JOHN BRIGGsaid it had been his disadvantage to have lived outside the military atmosphere which appeared to surround Gentlemen opposite. He could even remember the time when there were soldiers pensioned off after 20 years' service who never fired a shot in earnest in their lives. His life's work had been directed to constantly improve the methods of making and saving and extending commercial supremacy instead of military and naval supremacy. He could not, however, but utter a protest on his own account, and on behalf of some quarter of a million of people in his immediate neighbourhood, who, by the fortunes of the last election had now no voice to speak for them in this House, against the tendency to spend the results of our prosperity in expenditure which, to his mind, the advocates of this Bill had not been able to justify. To listen to Members opposite one might think war had already been declared, and an hostile fleet was in the Channel; but it was a comfort to find that our experts not only knew how and where we must place our defences, but could also tell us exactly whereabouts our enemies were going to deliver their attack. He was thankful the danger was not so imminent as they were asked to believe, and that

    773
    Consols were yet at 112. He watched with the greatest jealousy this spending of our surplus saving, and while our trade and commerce had lately shown signs of life and vigour they must remember it was not a long time since wise men in England believed that the highest tide of our prosperity had been reached; and even now he would be a rash man who would depend upon our present prosperous condition being of long duration. It appeared to him that the Navy having
    obtained large grants last Session without much difficulty, the Army was now to be treated in the same way. Against this Bill, therefore, he entered, for himself and a large number of his constituents, his earnest protest.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:—Ayes, 194; Noes, 43.—(Division List—No. 34—appended.)

    AYES.

    Allen, Wm. (Newc, under Lyme)

    Drucker, A.

    Kenny, William

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Arnold-Forater, Hugh O.

    Dunn, Sir William

    Kimber, Henry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Knowles, Lees

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Lafone, Alfred

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man'cr)

    Laurie, Lieut.-Genera.

    Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fielden, Thomas

    Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

    Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

    Finch, George H.

    Lecky, William Edward H.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Leighton, Stanley

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Leng, Sir John

    Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)

    Fitz Gerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

    Lockwood, Colonel A. R. (Essex)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Forster, Henry William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Bentinck Lord Henry C.

    Fowler, Matthew (Durham)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Bethell, Commander

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Garfit, William

    Madure, John William

    Bond, Edward

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)

    McKillop, James

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bowles, Major H. F.(Middlesex)

    Godson, Augustus Frederick

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Gordon, John Edward

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Milton, Viscount

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Goschen, Rt. Hon. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Caldwell, James

    Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

    Moncklon, Edward Philip

    Campbell, James A.

    Goulding. Edward Alfred

    More, Robert Jasper

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Mount, William George

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W,

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbr'y)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Chamberlain, J. Auston (Worc'r.)

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Camba)

    Myers, William Henry

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Greville, Captain

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Hardy, Laurence

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Heath, James

    Plunkett, Hon. Horace Curzon

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.)

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Pym, C. Guy

    Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Rankin, James

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Hubbard. Hon. Evelyn

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Dalbiae, Major Philip Hugh

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    Richardson, Thomas

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Isaacson, Frederick Wootton

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Darling, Charles John

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Willox, John Archibald

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

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

    Strauss, Arthur

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Wyvill, Marmaduke d' Arcy

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Taylor, Francis

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES,

    Tennant, Harold John

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Anstruther

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Lambert, George

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Brigg, John

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Burns, John

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Charming, Francis Allston

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Colville, John

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M'Hugh, Patrick, A. (Leitrim)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Davitt, Michael

    McLood, John

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dillon, John

    Minch, Matthew

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

    Gilhooly, James

    Morton, Edward John Chalmers

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hud'rsfld)

    Harrison, Charles

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Price, Robert John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES,

    Holden, Angus

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Mr. Lough and Mr. Kearley

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Kilbride, Denis

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Bill read a Second time, and committed for Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading (5th February) further adjourned till Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Clause 1—
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, &c. (17th February) further adjourned till Monday next.
  SHOP ASSISTANTS (HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.