Commons Sitting of 9 June 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read the second time.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read the second time.
  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read the second time.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read the second time To-morrow.
  COMMONS REGULATION (RUNCORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read the second time To-morrow.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the above Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with.
  Ordered that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS' CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON BUILDING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  BOMBAY, BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  [Not amended], considered; to be read the third time.
  MATLOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Add the following clause—
  "(1) The conversions of stock by this Act authorised shall not take effect unless and until the company shall have reduced the price of gas sold by them to 2s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet. (2) It shall not be lawful for the Company to raise the price so reduced unless by order of the Board of Trade, and to the extent allowed by such order. (3) The Board of Trade shall not make any such order unless they are satisfied, after an inquiry at which the London County Council, the Corporation of the City of London, and any vestry or district board of works within the company's area of supply shall be entitled to be heard, that some exceptional circumstances have arisen making it reasonably necessary that the increase of price asked for by the company shall be made. Any such order shall remain in force for such period only as may be specified in such order."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise to move the clause standing in my name on the Paper, and in order to explain its purpose it will be necessary to state in the briefest possible way the object of the Bill. This Bill proposes to consolidate and convert the capital of a London Gas Company—namely, the Gas Light and Coke Company. It is, I suppose, one of the largest Bills of the kind that have ever been introduced into this House, and the interests which it affects are simply enormous. The amount of stock which it is proposed to convert is in the aggregate very nearly 12 millions of nominal value, while, of course, the market value is very considerably larger. It will be seen, therefore, that this is not a small Bill, and if this House will give its attention, I will, in the briefest possible way, endeavour to show how the interests of the public are affected by it. In order to do that it will not be necessary that I should go farther back in the history of the company than the year 1876. In that year an Act was passed by Parliament by which a Parliamentary bargain was made between the company of the one part and the consumers—that is, the
  1094
  public—of the other part, and the relations between the dividends payable and the price of gas chargeable was subject to an arrangement known probably to most Members of this House under the name of the sliding scale. The arrangement was shortly this: 10 per cent. was taken as a standard rate of dividend, and 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet was taken as a standard price, and it was stipulated that for every penny charged in every year in increase or in diminution of the standard price the standard rate of dividend might respectively for such year be reduced or increased by one-quarter per cent. That was the sliding scale clause. But there is another section of the Act which is also, in my judgment, very important, and that is what is known as the option clause of the Act. By that section it was stipulated that any stock thereafter issued should be sold at the best price obain-able, and that the premiums should not go to the shareholders, but that the benefit of such premiums should inure to the consumers. Now, my point to-day is that the principle of the option clause really concludes the issue which the House has to decide, and I think it concludes it in this way. The object of the option clause was to strengthen and support the sliding scale clause, and the general effect of the clause is to provide that the shareholders from 1876 onwards should not receive any additional advantage in any shape whatever without there being some corresponding benefit to the consumers. Now, this Bill proposes to reopen that Parliamentary bargain, so made in 1876, and, as I submit, to reopen it solely in the interests of one of the parties to that bargain—namely, in the interests of the company. What the company desire to do is to replace the nominal value of the stock by this Bill, which will make it more closely approach to its market value, and in the paper—the statement issued by the promoters—it is stated as follows:
  "The result may be to render the stock more marketable and to enhance, to some extent, the price of the stock."
  The company, in that statement, I venture to think, very considerably underestimate the effect upon the prices. The degree of enhancement is, of course, a matter of dispute, and must remain a matter of dispute, but we are not

  1095
  altogether without experience. We have the experience derived from a somewhat similar case of the conversion of the stock of the South Metropolitan Gas Company a few years ago. Now, when the Bill for the conversion of the stock was before this House, the Chairman of the Company estimated the enhancement of the value at £90,000. On the other hand, the Comptroller of the London County Council estimated the enhancement of the value at £250,000; but, as a matter of fact, the Stock Exchange value of the shares since the conversion has been increased by no less a sum than £900,000. I do not claim that any enhancement is a result due to the conversion, but I do claim that the conversion is the cause, to a very considerable extent, of that enormous enhancement. On that I should like to say that the amount of stock involved in that case was considerably less than the amount of stock involved here. Perhaps it was only about one-third and possibly not even one-fourth of the stock involved in this case. Now the promoters again refer to this option clause, and they say that, admitting that the shareholders will derive some advantage from the enhancement, the consumers will also receive a benefit. If the price is enhanced it will be a distinct benefit to the consumers by raising a higher premium which will be paid on all future issues of stock. Now that is a very misleading statement, and the whole argument is at once knocked on the head by merely stating the amount of stock which now remains unissued. The amount of stock which at present remains unissued is only £175,000. Of course it is obvious that the benefit to the consumers upon such a trifling amount of stock is absolutely inappreciable. The conclusion is that the whole benefit will go to the shareholders without any corresponding benefit whatever to the consumers. So much with regard to the consumer. But I think we have also to consider the interests of the public. The effect of this Bill will be to conceal from the eyes of the public the real state of the facts in relation to the company. While, in fact, it will be paying 12¾ per cent. on its ordinary stock, if this Bill passes it will apparently be only paying 5 per cent. I submit it is contrary to public policy
  1096
  that a company having statutory powers and dealing in a. monopoly should seem to be paying a dividend of only 5 per cent., when it is really paying a dividend of 12¾ per cent. In the second place, I would point out that if at any future time the community should desire to purchase the property of this company their position would be prejudiced if this Bill becomes law. I do submit—although it has been disputed, and was disputed on the last occasion, when this matter was discussed, that the Stock Exchange value has any influence upon the conclusion of the arbitrator; yet I do submit, and I think experience will bear me out, that the Stock Exchange value of the shares of any company is likely to a very considerable extent to influence the mind of an arbitrator. An arbitrator is not bound to give his reasons; we do not know what considerations are operating in the recesses of his mind, and I do say that there is a risk, and a very material risk, which people in their private affairs would not willingly incur, that the Stock Exchange value of the enhancement of the value will have no inconsiderable influence in the primary determination of the purchase price in the mind of the arbitrator. There are precedents mentioned in the printed statement which the promoters of the Bill have circulated. With regard to these precedents, what I have to say is this, that I believe that in nearly every case they were practically agreed Bills; that is to say, that the local authority which would be entitled to oppose such a Bill was satisfied that in some form or another it had received a quid pro quo in respect of the Act so accepted. I admit that there is one exception, and that exception was the case of the South Metropolitan Gas Company. That is a very significant case, and I would ask the House to consider the details of the history of the South Metropolitan Gas Company's case. The Bill to convert the stock was introduced in 1895, but in that year, having been referred to a Committee, the Committee threw it out, and in the Report they make the following observation:—
  "The Committee consider that the subject of the conversion of stock is of so far-reaching and important a character that it ought to be dealt with by a Committee especially appointed to consider the same as affecting the case of water companies."

  1097
  Now, the Chairman of that Committee did not sit upon this side of the House, and did not belong to the Party with which I am connected, but he was a very respected member of the Party opposite. That was the conclusion of the Committee in 1895. The same Bill was re-introduced in 1896, the following year, and it went before another Committee, and that Committee, differing from the former Committee, passed the Bill. Now, of course, I fully appreciate the difficulty in which I am placed this afternoon. I am asking this House to overrule the decision of one of its Committees, and there is a very strong feeling in the House with which, if I may say so, in general I agree, against the House intervening to overrule the decision of one of its Committees. But, Mr. Speaker, I venture to submit that reasons of that kind ought not to operate in the present case, and for this reason: two Committees of this House have considered the very issue which I am asking the House to decide this afternoon. Those two Committees came to opposite conclusions upon this very issue. Why should the House be bound by the conclusion of one of its Committees more than by the conclusion of the other of its Committees? The two Committees have differed upon this very issue, and I submit that the question is again set at large, and that this House is perfectly free this afternoon to decide the matter for itself upon its merits. With regard to the South Metropolitan Gas Company's case, I should like to point out further that it differs very materially, so far as the public are concerned, from the case now before us. The public have no complaint against the South Metropolitan Gas Company. Indeed, it is the fact of the extraordinary discrepancy between the cost of gas north of the Thames and south of the Thames which really gives intense force to the appeal which I am now making. South of the Thames, the consumer is only paying 2s. 3d. per 1,000 feet of gas; whereas, north of the Thames, in the area of supply of the Gas Company whose Bill is now before the House, the consumer is required to pay 3s. per 1,000 feet, and certainly this is not a time when the Gas Light and Coke Company is, I think, entitled to any special indulgence. It has just raised the price of its gas from 2s. 10d. to 3s.; but it has done something
  1098
  even more oppressive than that. That is how the matter stands so far as the ordinary consumer is concerned. As the House probably knows, there has recently sprung up a new method of supplying gas, namely, the method known popularly as the penny-in-the-slot system of supply. Now, the company are behaving very harshly to this class of consumer. Hitherto such consumers have paid at the aggregate rate of 3s. 4d. per 1,000 feet; henceforth they will be required to pay a penny for every 22 feet consumed, or at the rate of 4s. per 1,000 feet. This, of course, concerns the poorer class of consumers, and I notice that when anything nefarious is to be done it is always the poorer class of the community that suffers most. It is freely stated by the local authorities that this high price of gas supplied by the Gas Light and Coke Company is due to bad management and over-capitalisation. It was said, I think, upon the last occasion when we discussed the subject, that the raising of the price of gas would not benefit the shareholders, as thereby there would be a diminution of their rate of interest. But I think it is important that the facts in relation to this matter should be fought out. No doubt by raising the price of gas 2d. you will have to reduce the dividend by ½ per cent., but it is clear that the object of the company is to prevent a still heavier fall in the dividend unless they took this sum of money out of the pockets of the consumers. There is no kind of relation between the sum taken out of the pockets of the consumers and the loss of dividend to the shareholders. The loss of dividend to the shareholders will only amount in the aggregate to, I think, about £30,000, whereas the 2d. extra per 1,000 feet amounts to the enormous sum of an addition to the annual revenue of the company of close upon £200,000, and that comes out of the pockets of the consumers. Now, in moving this clause I am simply giving effect to a Resolution which has been passed almost, I think, without exception, by all the representative authorities of the Metropolis, and has, in many cases, been endorsed by large public meetings of the citizens. I am supported in moving this Resolution by the Corporation of the City of London and by the London County Council.

  1099
  Upon this ground, at all events, they are absolutely in sympathy. I think that is a significant fact which ought not to be without effect upon the House. The ease of the London County Council is, perhaps, exceedingly significant. The question was not treated at all as a Party question. Leading members of the Moderate Party denounced the Bill in its present form in language quite as vigorous—in perhaps more vigorous language—than that used by the Progressives, and in the result there was a record division: 101 voted against, and only four for. Now, I say that the public is entitled to receive some consideration for the advantage which this Bill will confer upon the company. I propose, therefore, by this clause which I have put upon the Paper that the Bill shall not take effect until the present price of gas has been reduced to 2s. 6d. per 1,000 feet. In fixing 2s. 6d. per 1,000 feet as the figure, I may say that it has not been arbitraily chosen. I have selected 2s. 6d. because it bears absolutely the same relation to the initial price fixed by Statute in a case of this kind which the present price charged by the South Metropolitan Gas Company bears to the initial price fixed by Parliament, and therefore it seems to me that I am only proposing what is perfectly fair. I have endeavoured to state very briefly the grave objections which the representative authorities of London entertain to the Bill in its present form, and I now ask the House to introduce into the Bill the clause which appears on the Paper in my name, and which, I believe, embodies terms which are fair and equitable to both parties.
  MR. HARWOOD: This is not merely a London question; it seems to me there is another principle involved, and it is this, that it would be very undesirable that in any case where any monopoly has been granted by Parliament there should be any manipulation of shares tending to disguise the truth of the added value of that enhancement. The time may come when Parliament will wish to overhaul monopolies of this kind, and I think it is necessary that we should have nothing done which would disguise from Parliament and from the country the value of
  1100
  the shares. It is really very undesirable that it should appear that they are only making 5 per cent. profit, when really they are making 12 per cent. by manipulating the stock. Wherever Parliament has granted a monopoly Parliament ought to retain in its hands the power to value that monopoly at any time it thinks fit. On that principle I beg to support the proposition of my honourable Friend. I should like to draw attention to the way in which this matter is disguised by the promoters in this Bill. In paragraph 7 they seem very proud to put in, in double leaded type that whereas they might have charged the consumers another 16 millions, they have only charged them 13½ millions. According to that statement the company has made a profit of two and a half millions which they have actually pocketed, and they put against that 13½ millions which they have abstained from taking out of the pockets of the consumers. Such a comparison is most unjust, and shows the spirit which underlies this proposal of the Gas Light and Coke Company. I most strongly object to anything of the sort being done, and I beg to second the Motion of the honourable Member for Bothnal Green.
  MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON: As Chairman of the Committee that considered this Bill I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I state at once as shortly as possible the grounds which led the Committee to pass the preamble of this Bill, and to decline to consider either of the proposals laid before us for levying a charge practically on the company as the price of the granting them the advantages which they expect to derive under this Bill. Now, Sir, the object of the Bill, as stated by the honourable Member for Bethnal Green, is to consolidate the debentures and preference capital and to split up the ordinary capital of the company. To the consolidation of the preference and debenture capital no objection was urged—the objection was entirely urged against the splitting of the ordinary stock. Now let me explain to the House what that splitting is. At present the ordinary capital is a 10 per cent. stock, subject to the sliding scale of advance or

  1101
  diminution of ¼ per cent. in the dividend for every reduction or increase of a penny in the price of gas supplied to the consumer below or above the standard price of 3s. 9d. There is nothing in this Bill which would enable the company to levy one penny of extra charge on the consumers or to pay to their shareholders one penny of extra dividend. The dividend will be precisely as it is at the present time, the difference solely being that the ordinary stock, instead of being in each case £100 of 10 per cent, stock, will in the future be £250 of 4 per cent. stock. There is nothing new in this. As far back as 1891 a Bill was granted to the Bristol Gas Company for splitting their stock; in 1892 a similar Bill was given to the Oxford Gas Company; in 1893 a similar Bill was given to the Crystal Palace Gas Company; in 1894 to Plymouth and Stonehouse; in 1895 to Scarborough; and in 1896 to Cheltenham, Ilfracombe, Guildford, and to the South Metropolitan Gas Company. Now the honourable Member, in moving his Amendment, has alluded to the case of the South Metropolitan Company. I do not think that that case is exactly as he represented it. In 1895 the South Metropolitan Gas Company came before this House, promoting a Bill allowing them to consolidate their debenture stock and to split their ordinary stock in thin manner. On that occasion, undoubtedly, the Bill was thrown out by the Committed upstairs, and the remark made by the Chairman of that Committee which has been quoted. In 1896 the South Metropolitan Company again came before this House with a similar Bill. That Bill passed the Second Reading: it was referred to a Committee upstairs, of which, my Friend the honourable Baronet the Member for Blackburn was Chairman, and of which I was a member. On that occasion the Bill was opposed by the London County Council on the ground that if passed, and if at some future time the London County Council desired to purchase the London gas companies, they would be obliged to pay a higher price for this company on account of the power given to split their stock given under that Bill, and in speaking on behalf of the opponents of that Bill Mr. Worseley-Taylor said that if it were granted no legitimate ground could
  1102
  be urged for refusing the same powers to every gas company in the country. We had precisely the same objections urged against this Bill. We were told that if it were granted the price of stock would be so enhanced that the County Council at some future time would have to give a larger price for gas undertakings. We were told that the South Metropolitan Gas Company was everything that was good, whilst the Gas Light and Coke Company was everything that was bad. We heard precisely the same thing in 1896, when the South Metropolitan Bill was before us, only in that case it was the Gas Light and Coke Company that was everything that was good and the South Metropolitan Gas Company everything that was bad. The only valid objection which was urged against this Bill is one to which allusion has been made by my honourable Friend the Member for Bolton—namely, that if the Bill were passed the public might be deceived as to the real amount of capital involved in the undertaking. Well, unfortunately for my honourable Friend, that objection was laid before us. The Committee recognised the force of it, and took the usual steps necessary to meet the difficulty. The Committee instructed a communication to be addressed to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, stating that in their opinion it was desirable so to readjust the form in which the accounts of gas companies are presented that in future, whenever a division of stock takes place, the amount of the capital shown on their balance-sheet, should clearly specify how much is due to actual capital expenditure and how much to the division proposed under the Bill; and I have every reason to suppose that that suggestion will be carried out. When it became evident that the opponents of this Bill would not get the preamble thrown out two suggestions were made for the Committee's consideration. First of all we were asked to authorise an alteration in the standard price of this company. In 1876, after a very long and exhaustive inquiry before a Committee of this House, the standard price for the three metropolitan gas companies was fixed as follows:—Tim Gas Light and Coke Company 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet, the South Metropolitan Gas Company 3s. 6d. per 1,000 feet, and the Commercial Gas

  1103
  Company 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet, with a corresponding sliding scale in each case. While the matter was before the Committee upstairs I asked the counsel for the opponents if they could point to a single instance in which Parliament, having settled a standard price for a gas company, that standard price had been altered. The counsel admitted that there was no such instance which could be pointed out, and I have since been informed on most reliable authority that, though numerous applications have been made to Parliament to alter this price, in every instance it has been rejected. The other proposal brought before us was that which has now been moved by the honourable Member for Bethnal Green in the form of the new clause now before the House. Prior to 1868 the system of fixing the price to be charged by the Metropolitan Gas Companies in force was somewhat analogous to that which is contained in the proposal of the honourable Gentleman. That system was found to be so undesirable—there were such constant complaints made to the Board of Trade and brought forward in this House—that in 1876, after a very exhaustive inquiry respecting the position of the three metropolitan gas companies, the present system of the standard price with sliding scale and auction clause was adopted for the whole of the three metropolitan gas companies. At that time the capital of the Gas Light and Coke Company was a little under £8,000,000; now it is a little over £13,000,000, or in other words, five millions of capital have been issued since that time on the faith of the arrangement which was then entered into. Now, I do not feel called upon—and I do not think it would be desirable that I should—to express any opinion whatever as to the merits of the management of the various metropolitan gas companies, nor ought I to express an opinion as to whether the sliding scale has or has not brought that advantage to the consumer which was expected from it at the time it was framed, or whether the standard prices fixed in 1876 are, considering the whole circumstances of the case—the alteration in the price of coal and residual products and the amount of wages paid—proper standard prices or not. If these
  1104
  matters have to be considered, if the matter is to be opened, then I say that it ought to be considered by a Select Committee of this House appointed for the purpose, which will have the whole of the evidence necessary on both sides before it, so that it can be dealt with by a Bill based on the Report of that Committee. It would be, in my opinion, a most improper course for a Private Bill Committee, dealing with a question such as the splitting up of the stocks and with a Bill involving nothing but that, to attempt to open such a question and to upset the deliberate decision of this House, entered into after a long and most exhaustive inquiry, and I certainly hope that the House will not accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for Bethnal Green.
  MR. COHEN: The honourable Member who has just sat down asked the House not to upset the deliberate decision of the Committee, and the issue which he argued was altogether different from the one which is involved in the classification and redistribution of the stock. Let me say that I agree with the honourable Gentleman. I quite appreciate the importance of upholding the decision of the Private Bill Committees upstairs, and, further, I recognise that the issue which is involved in the division of stock does not affect the objection which I, at any rate, have in view in supporting the Amendment of my honourable Friend opposite. I do not at all object to this readjustment of the stocks of this company. I know very well that they are only following the precedent of other gas companies, and of other railway companies, and of almost all important joint stock enterprises in this country; and I would not oppose this Bill if it were not that the Amendment moved by my honourable Friend opposite is the only opportunity we have of bringing before this House the great injustice which we in the north of London suffer inconsequence of this wholly unjustifiable advance in the price of gas. And I would go further. So strongly do I feel the responsibility of arguing against the decision of the Committee upstairs who have had before them the very questions involved in this readjustment of the stocks that I should hope my honourable

  1105
  Friend opposite would even now not press his Amendment to a Division if he can get from my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade some assurance that we shall get an inquiry giving us some prospect of relief from the injustice under which we have so long suffered. Let me say that, not merely in my own constituency in East Islington, but throughout the whole of the north of London, constituting the majority of the inhabitants of London, there is a strong feeling of the injustice under which they labour for no offence whatever, excepting that they, unfortunately for themselves, reside on the north of the Thames. I think the honourable Gentleman opposite said that this arrangement of the stocks will not affect the dividends in any way, and I quite agree with him, because it is only an arithmetical readjustment of the nominal capital. He himself will not, however, dispute that it does affect what is quite as important a factor—namely, the nominal amount of capital which exists—and I do not think the gas company will deny that it will render the stock more freely convertible, and that it will more readily appeal to investors in that form, and that it will enhance the value of the stock. The value of the stock must be a factor in determining the price which should be paid should any public body require to purchase the undertaking. I am myself not in favour of the municipalisation of private enterprises, and I do say that if the question were to come before the London County Council, of which I have the honour to be a member, I, as at present advised, should be opposed to the purchase of the gas companies by the Council. Therefore, from that point of view, what is the value of these undertakings would not in the least affect me. What I am interested in is that these people north of the Thames have to pay an enhanced price for their gas, and unless we can get some relief in that respect, we have no remedy before us, excepting to come to Parliament and oppose anything which is for the enhancement of the value of the gas undertakings. Reference has been made to the sliding scale. I have not a word to say against that sliding scale arrangement, and if I had, Parliament has
  1106
  already sanctioned it, and certainly I do not want to interfere with any Acts of Parliament under which gas companies have raised their capital. Let me remind the House, however, of the words used by Mr. Cardwell in the Committee of 1867. He reported that the companies were only entitled to their 10 per cent. after exercising due care in their management. We claim, and believe that we can prove, that that due care and good management have not been exercised in the case of the Gas Light and Coke Company. We think we can establish that, and if we do then clearly the ground on which this sliding scale arrangement has been granted to this company falls away, and they are not entitled to the benefits of that arrangement. If my right honourable Friend will give some hope that we shall have an impartial inquiry where we can establish that, we shall be satisfied. We in the north of London are paying on unjust and unjustifiable price for our gas. So far as I am concerned, this is my sole reason for opposing this consolidation of stock; but unless we get some such assurance from the President of the Board of Trade as I have indicated, then I consider we have no course open but to press the Amendment, and if my honourable Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
  SIR J. PEASE: A short time ago I ventured to address the House on a somewhat similar occasion, imploring the House not to review a decision come to by a Committee upstairs. There are occasions of national and great importance when these reviews have to be made; there can be no doubt about that. But on the general question of private Bills, especially those that have been, fought out in Committee, it seems to me, and I am sure the experiences of other honourable Members of this House who have had a shorter experience of these matters than I have had must bring them to the same conclusion, that the House ought not to indulge in these discussions on private Bills, the merits of which cannot be wholly and properly before it, and it is a course which it may hereafter very much regret. All the great Leaders of this House in my time, and before my

  1107
  time, have taken this stand. Sir Robert Peel held the same view so strongly that he said on one occasion—
  "I would rather support the decision of the Committee upstairs, where the primâ facie view, in my own mind, was that it had come to a wrong decision, than upset it in open House."
  What is the case? Why, that if the House begins once to review these decisions you destroy the independence of your Committee. That was Sir Robert Peel's view. The Committee is selected by the Committee of Selection of this House, who are men in whose decision you have full confidence, and when once you commence to review decisions of those you have appointed, and who have heard the evidence, you open the door to that "lobbying" which is taking place on this very Bill. To-day no Member could come through this Lobby without being canvassed upon the question of this Bill, and therefore I do ask the House, especially after such a statement as that which has been made by any honourable Friend the Chairman of this Committee, that we should not discuss the merits of the company on this proposed new clause. The honourable Member who has just spoken said that he is in favour of consolidation, but that he wants to reduce the price of gas. That is certainly not a question upon the merits of this Bill. Supposing the price of the gas had to be reduced, are you going by Act of Parliament to reduce the price of the coal from which gas is made? Everyone in the north of England knows that owing to that unfortunate strike in Wales the price of coal has gone up throughout the kingdom, and a large quantity of it has been taken off the market. I myself have nothing whatever to do with the London gas companies, but it is a fact that the Durham and Northumberland miners got an advance in their wages the other day, and for six months after that, on the ground of this strike in Wales. It is obvious that we could not interfere with such a thing as that. My honourable Friend opposite says, "Reduce your price, or else we shall not pass the Bill for the consolidation of stock." I think there is not a large railway company, if my memory serves me rightly, in this country which has not been before
  1108
  this House within the last few years for the consolidation of its stock; but the House never said to any of those, railways, "Because we are going to consolidate your stock for the benefit of your shareholders and for the greater simplification, of your accounts you are to lower your fares." We put no conditions upon them on account of the consolidation of their stock; it would have been illogical then, and it is most illogical now, in my opinion, because this Bill comes for consolidating stock, and the price of the stock may be improved by it, to say, "Very well, because you are going to get the advantage of the market value of your stock, and place it at such a figure that it will be a good investment to the working classes we are going to throw out the Bill because you do not lower the price of gas by 1d., 2d., 3d., or 4d., or whatever the price may be." I do hope that the House will endeavour to be a little logical in these things. If it does not feel inclined to take the advice I venture to give it, and decline to review decisions of its Committee upstairs, on the principle that we have elected that Committee which has reported upon the Bill, we are opening the door to that annoying system of "lobbying" to which we have been subjected this afternoon.
  MR. STUART: I have had a great deal to do with the private business of this House, and no one has a greater respect for the whole system than I have, and no one feels the desirability of the House supporting its Committees more than I do. I have had occasion to oppose in this House the Amendment of a Committee's Report, where even I felt myself that the Committee's Report was not altogether that which it should be; but, taking these views, I felt it essential to me, at any rate on this occasion, to sit still in this House until I should hear what the Chairman of the Committee in question had to say upon this matter. Now, Sir, I have listened with great attention to what the honourable Gentleman, who was Chairman of the Committee, said, and it appears to me—and I believe I shall be able to show to the House—that the point which is now before the House was not a point which the Committee realised. And that has been still more shown by

  1109
  the speech of the honourable Gentleman, who has just sat down, who, I believe, has failed entirely to seize what the real issue is which my honourable Friend who moved this Resolution was desirous of placing before the House. It is not the case that this Bill is a similar Bill to that of the South Metropolitan Gas Company. That was the view which was shared by the Chairman of the Committee. Again, it is not the case that this Bill, in coming for the splitting of stock, is in the same position as the Bill of a railway company coming to this House for the splitting of stock, as the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down seems to imagine. The House must cast their eyes back to the agreement that was referred to by my honourable Friend when the sliding scale was introduced, and by that agreement the public and the company were made partners in this business, because, before that time, the company was at liberty only to pay 10 per cent. dividend. After that time there was fixed an initial price, which has been referred to, for the gas of 3s. 9d., and for every 1d. that that price was reduced to the public 5 per cent. was allowed to be added to the dividend of the company. Consequently the public and the company were made partners in the profits that were beyond 10 per cent., and the management of that joint business was left entirely in the hands of the company. Now, Sir, we had exactly a similar case on the south of the Thames—namely, the case of the South Metropolitan Gas Company. The same thing was done in that case, only at a smaller initial price of 3s. 6d., and the management of the joint business, both of the board and on behalf of the public, was left in the hands of the company. We have had now 20 years' experience of the management of the two companies managing affairs in which the public is interested, both for themselves and for us, and we find that in the case of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, where circumstances are in no sense essentially different from those north of the Thames, there has been an admirably conducted business whereby the public have profited largely at the hands of those their agents in this matter. When we turn to the Gas Light and Coke Company we find that it is
  1110
  wholly different, and that they, acting as managers for our joint property, have not managed it well. That is the position of things, because we are paying 3d. per 1,000 feet more for our gas north of the Thames than we do on the south of the Thames. Allowing for the 3d. difference in the initial rate, which was made at that time in order to make allowance for the over-capitalisation of the company north of the Thames, there is a difference of 6d. between the two. That comes to nearly half a million of money a year, which the public of London is losing, because the Gas Light and Coke Company have not managed their affairs for themselves and for us as well as they ought to. It has been shown that they could manage them much better by the example of the company south of the Thames. Now, Sir, in every instance where there is this inferiority of management, which I say has been shown in this case of the Gas Light and Coke Company, we, on behalf of the public, have a right to complain. This is due in some respects to the over-capitalisation which has already been referred to. I do not blame them for that in the past, but if you take the last ten years you will find that the amount of capital for each 1,000 feet of gas profits that has been added to the capital of the company north of the Thames, has been something like 25 per cent. greater in proportion than the amount added to the company south of the Thames. So that over-capitalisation continues. In the second place, their wages paid for carbonisation, and the price of the coal are greater, and the sums received from the waste products are less. I do not wish to go into detail in this matter, because all that came out in 1892, when we, from the London County Council, acting on behalf of innumerable vestries and local boards sent a deputation, and called for an investigation into the conduct of this matter, and we were told that the proper time was to wait until the company came before this House for some further concession or further Bill, and then that would be the time to make our complaint. We did make that complaint before the Committee, and I say that that Committee, as the Chairman of it has shown to-day, has not recognised the true view of the position. The essential element of

  1111
  partnership between us and the company places this Bill on an entirely different footing from that of the Bill of any ordinary railway company coining forward for the splitting of their stock. We are not proposing in this new clause which the honourable Member for Bethnal Green has proposed to overthrow or interfere with the sliding scale. We do not propose to alter the initial price. We do not propose to make any alteration of the price in this new clause which will affect the 10 per cent. dividend. But what we do say is simply this: "When you have increased your business—when it is conducted in the same profitable manner—no more profitable and no less than that of the company south of the Thames, allowance being made for your over-capitalisation, which is your inheritance from the past—when you have reduced your cost per 1,000 feet to the cost charged by the company south of the Thames, and conduct the business, which is ours, on our joint behalf, as well as that company does—then, when you have achieved that success, we shall say 'Split up your stock if you desire to do it.'" The one thing is germane to the other. We have partners conducting our business on behalf of the company. They came forward and asked for something which is to give them a great advantage, and what we are asking is just the same as if the manager of a works came forward and asked for something—for some advantage—and what should we say? You would say that he would have to do the work more successfully and more cheaply, and then you would consider his request. That is what we, acting on behalf of the public, wish to do to-day, and what we wish this House, acting on behalf of the public, to do. It is simply to say to the Gas Light and Coke Company: "The public have before it an example of what a gas company can do. Do what that gas company does; do it as well, and then we shall be prepared to let you have this or any other similar advantage." Under these circumstances, I have no desire to make the fixed price 2s. 6d. or any particular figure. I do not wish to argue that point on the floor of the House. I think the reason why the 2s. 6d. limit has been fixed is because it is 3d. higher than that now charged by the South Metropolitan Gas
  1112
  Company, and makes allowance there-for for the over-capitalisation of the Gas Light and Coke Company. If, in the course of this Debate, any gentleman representing the Gas Light and Coke Company, or who could speak on behalf of the Gas Light and Coke Company, is prepared to say to this House that he will, when this Bill comes before the House of Lords, take care that the principle of the Amendment is accepted, and that the details of it are laid before the Committee accepting the principle, then I, for one, should use all my influence to ask my honourable Friend to withdraw the clause. It is not a ease of withdrawing that clause upon the question of the inquiry, because the inquiry would have to go into the initial price of the gas. All that we ask is this: "Do your business, and carry it out on behalf of us, your partners, as well as your neighbours are doing, and then we shall be prepared to give you a higher remuneration." I think this House has before it a question of principle which was not fought out before the Committee, as has been represented in this House already, and therefore I say that while it is inconvenient to review what Committees have done in general in this House, yet you must remember that the forms of the House give us an opportunity of reviewing the decision of its Committees, and therefore the forms contemplated that possibility. In the second place, when it is a thing done every year in this House, by this House, when the House sees fit to do it, the only thing to consider is: Is this a case for review? And I think by the facts which I have laid before the House that I have made out a very good case for maintaining that this is essentially a case for the House to reconsider.
  MR. MOON: I do not propose to go into the general question. I understand that the honourable Member for Bethnal Green obtained a pledge from the President of the Local Government Board that an inquiry should be held into this question as to the reduction of the cost, and as to the circumstances which differentiated the cases of the two companies north and south of the Thames. But the question which affects most of my constituents

  1113
  who do not live north of the Thames, is the difference of the prices charged by the two companies. I fully accept the views expressed by the honourable Member for Islington, and I wish to say that I should only vote for the new clause if the President of the Board of Trade absolutely declines to grant an inquiry.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,: The honourable Member for Shoreditch has said that a deputation was told that the proper time to bring the matter of the excessive charges of the Gas Light and Coke Company forward was to choose the time when the company came to Parliament for something else. I am not myself familiar with the phraseology of the statement to which the honourable Gentleman refers; but, accepting that what he says is accurate, what is the state of the case? The company has come to Parliament and the principal point to which this Amendment is directed came before the Committee; and, if I may venture to say so, the House of Commons would be taking upon itself the functions of that Committee if it attempted to go into the detail of the management of this company, with a view to seeing whether the price of gas ought to be reduced or not. They will be taking upon themselves a power which it will be quite impossible for them to properly exercise. The Committee is the ordinary tribunal before which matters of this kind are investigated. The Committee has investigated and considered this matter, and any opposition has been properly heard, and what the honourable Gentleman asks the House of Commons to do—the Commitee having decided against his proposed new clause—is, without any evidence before it, to over-ride the decision of the tribunal which has already heard the evidence, and to decide in favour of the course which the Committee has already rejected. I do not think myself that that is by any means an advisable course. The honourable Gentleman has cast great strictures upon the management of the Gas Light and Coke Company. Well, Sir. I am not in a position to speak either for or against the way in which this company has managed its affairs, and I regret as much as the honourable Gentleman that the Company has con-
  1114
  sidered it necessary to raise the price of its gas to a price considerably beyond that which is paid in other parts of the country. I think it is very much to be regretted that the company have thought it necessary to adopt this course. But although that may be my opinion, I could not possibly support proposals made in this House without evidence to support them to refuse that which the Gas Light and Coke Company have asked for, and that which the Committee upstairs have said ought to be given. The honourable Member for Bethnal Green has asked me on more than one occasion questions in regard to this company raising the price of gas, and I think I have told him, in answer to a recent question, that if he moved for a Committee to inquire into the matter, that would be a motion which I would be bound very carefully to consider in the interests of all concerned. If the honourable Gentleman likes to put a Motion of that kind on the Paper, then when I see its terms I shall be very glad to see if anything can be done. Further than that it is impossible for me to do. But I do not think that this House should take upon itself, without having any evidence before it, to decide as to whether the raising of the price of the gas is or is not justifiable, or whether the company is or is not properly managed.
  MR. LOUGH: I only desire to bring one point forward, and that is that practically the Amendment of my honourable Friend does not ask the House to decide this matter. The Board of Trade is asked to decide, and I myself think that the Board of Trade is the proper tribunal to do so. It may be that when the company puts its case before the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade would be bound to look with some sympathy upon a claim for a higher price, but anyone who reads the Amendment can see that the whole matter is left absolutely in the hands of the Board of Trade, and I really think that if the right honourable Gentleman looks at it from that point of view it will do away with his objection to it. Seeing that this Amendment has been supported on both sides of the House so strongly, and that the great populations in the North of London are alarmed and excited by the action of this company, I earnestly hope that the House will insist upon

  1115
  getting some definite promise from the Government before they refuse to support the Amendment.
  MR. BURNS: The answer that the President of the Board of Trade made to the mover of the Amendment, although satisfactory for some subsequent occasion, does not fill the Bill for the present occasion. It seems to me that his speech rather admitted too much. First of all, he said that he was not willing nor able to defend the management of this particular gas company. That practically justified much of the criticism that has been given in this House. Secondly, the right honourable Gentleman admitted with greater force than any previous speaker that it was a matter to be regretted that this company should not have its gas at the same price as the other company. That being so, I should gather that it was the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to have accepted the Amendment of my honourable Friend, and to have made inquiry as to the price of gas supplied by the Southern Company, and to have made such representations to the Northern Company as would have satisfied the reasonable demands of the various parts of London upon this subject. I have to say one other thing. The honourable Member for Barnard Castle seems to be under the same impression that a number of other Members are—that whenever a monopoly is attacked in the interests of the public in this House, where a Private Bill Committee has perhaps sheltered that monopoly and taken its side, then the House of Commons is to ratify at once the decision of its Private Bill Committee. If we are to ratify the decisions of every Private Bill Committee upstairs, I venture to suggest that the House should sit for two months instead of six, and that immediately the Committees have done their work they should hand it to the Clerk at the Table, and thus dispose of the duty and function of Parliament to traverse, as is its right and duty, every piece of work done by every one of its Committees. The greater includes the less. The House of Commons has control over all its Committees, and I consider this to be a case in which the House of Commons ought to set aside the decision of the Committee and vote for the
  1116
  Amendment of my honourable Friend. We have heard Sir Robert Peel invoked to-day. It is curious how monopoly and the friends of monopoly can drag up Parliamentary traditions, and invoke the names of great statesmen who have passed away, in the interests of "cent. per cent.," and of monopolies which are unjustly exploiting the people of this country. But my answer to that argument about Sir Robert Peel is this—that when Sir Robert Peel made the speech that he did make, and which under the circumstances could be defended, monopoly had not grown to the enormous extent it has now grown to. It was not so insidious as it is now; it did not have so many friends inside and outside the House as it now has; and the whole of the circumstances have changed since his time. That argument disposes of that suggestion. But I appeal to honourable Members opposite. What are the facts with regard to this case? The London County Council with practical unanimity have supported the Amendment of my honourable Friend. The City Corporation—that never can be credited with revolutionary or with confiscatory tendencies—has also supported the London County Council in this respect. All the vestries, and particularly some of the Moderate and Conservative vestries, have supported the London County Council. Public meetings have been held all over London in which the conduct of this company has been unanimously condemned. And I venture to suggest to the Moderate and Conservative Members of the House of Commons that if they want to know one of the reasons why it is that Conservatism is losing its ground in London, especially in matters affecting local life, like these gas monopolies do, it is because the Moderate and Conservative elector in London very often is justly under the impression that the Moderate or Conservative Party in the House of Commons is too anxious to suit the convenience of monopoly, and not the interests of the ratepayers. It is to the interests of the ratepayers that this House should see that the monopolists are subservient to the public, and the reason why Conservatism is being suspected by the Conservative elector is because, in the House of Commons whenever a monopoly has to be attacked or held in

  1117
  check, or a vested interest controlled, we generally have Conservative or Moderate Members standing up and fighting, not in the interest of the public and in the interests of their constituents against monopoly, as they ought to do, but fighting with the monopolists, as they are doing on this particular occasion. I trust that the Amendment will be carried in the interests of five millions of people who have a right to appeal to the House of Commons to take sides with them as against the profit mongering of a gas monopoly which now takes 10 per cent. of dividends, and which is a rate of profit which ought to be limited in the interests and for the convenience of the people of London.
  SIR J. B. MAPLE: We have heard such speeches as that before, and we are likely to hear many more. The question we have to deal with is a practical question. The House is asked to pass a new clause which would prevent conversion of the stock taking place until gas is supplied at 2s. 6d. That is practically the proposal, and we are told by different speakers that because South London gas is supplied at a cheaper rate, therefore it ought to be supplied at the same rate in the north. I ask any speaker to inquire as to the reason why the gas in the north of London costs more than it does in the south. It is the fact that the gas company in the north of London was over capitalised. Then the old system had worn out, and new pipes had to be put in; and then we have another important factor—that coal is delivered to the South London Gas Works at a much lower rate by water than in the north of London.
  MR. BURNS: The Northern Company have their works at Beckton, lower down
  the river than the South Metropolitan Works are.
  SIR J. B. MAPLE: It is a fact that coal is delivered cheaper to the south than to the north. I say, to put in a clause like this would be wrong. The public generally will gain instead of lose by the conversion of the stock. You are not asking the public to pay any money extra, but you are dividing the stock up in such a way that people of smaller incomes can invest, and when any money is required it can be obtained at a cheaper rate. I most thoroughly disagree with the time of the House of Commons being taken up with such questions as this. The production of a clause like this which has been thoroughly discussed in a Committee upstairs, seems to me to be a most absurd waste of time. I have no interest whatever in the gas company, but I have a very large interest in the consumption of gas, and I do say that I am convinced that the Gas Light and Coke Company manage their affairs as well as any other gas company in London, and when you take into consideration that by increasing the price of gas 2d. per 1,000 feet they lose a half per cent., I cannot understand why honourable Members do not see that they are as well able to look after their own interests and the interests of the public generally, as some of our Friends who have spoken in such strong terms as regards the management of this company. I do hope that the House will uphold its Committee, and so concur with the request of the company by a large majority.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause be read the second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 214.—(Division List No. 130.)

  AYES

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Colville, John

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Burns, John

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Crilly, Daniel

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Caldwell, James

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Davitt, Michael

  Blake, Edward

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Brigg, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dillon, John

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Brunner, Sir John T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Doughty, George

  Duckworth, James

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

  Buncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  McKenna, Reginald

  Shee, James John

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maddison, Fred.

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Souttar, Robinson

  Ffrench, Peter

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

  Spicer, Albert

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Strachey, Edward

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Harwood, George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Hazell, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Heath, James

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  O'Kelly, James

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Hutton, All E. (Morley)

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert M.

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Woods, Samuel

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Cochen.

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Schwann, Charles E.

  McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Arrol, Sir William

  Crombie, John William

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

  Helder, Augustus

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lane)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Denny, Colonel

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hornby, William Henry

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

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

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Beach, Rt, Hn. Sir M.H.(Brist'l)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Finch, George H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kenrick, William

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Kenyon, James

  Biddulph, Michael

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bill, Charles

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Knowles, Lees

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lafone, Alfred

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.

  Lambert, George

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fry, Lewis

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legh, Hon. Thos. W. (Lancs)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Garfit, William

  Leighton, Stanley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gold, Charles

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  1120

  1121

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Usborne, Thomas

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Purvis, Robert

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  McCalmont, Mj-Gn(Ant'm, N.)

  Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  McEwan, William

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  McKillop, James

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Webster, Sir R, E (I. of W.)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

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

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-L.)

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'hm)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Milton, Viscount

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Rutherford, John

  Williams. J. Powell (Birm.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morrison, Walter

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

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

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Hath)

  Myers, William Henry

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Woodall, William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, James P. (Lanarksh.)

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Spencer, Ernest

  Wylie, Alexander

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Penn, John

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Sir John Blundell Maple and Mr. Bucknill.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Bill ordered to be read a third time.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (8th June),
  Motion made—
  "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  SIR C. DILKE: What I said yesterday was that I did not propose to divide the House against the Second Reading of this Bill, and when saying that I stated that the workman under this company would, if this Bill were passed, not be able to draw out his contributions when he left the company's service. Although there is nothing about it in the Bill, I find that by the regulations of the company now in force he can take out these contributions, and therefore I must have unintentionally misled those by what I said in the course of my observations. I wish to take this opportunity of correcting that statement, as
  1122
  I am informed by the company that they intend that that shall not be the case.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to move the rejection of this Bill upon the grounds of public policy. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean has already explained that he was in error as to the inability of the workman to withdraw his subscriptions. With regard to this fund, I myself thought that that was to be so, and I still think that it is a little doubtful as the Bill stands, because it does not state how far the regulations in force might be altered; but at any rate I am quite willing to take it that this objectionable feature no longer exists. Now, Mr. Speaker, the right honourable Gentleman also said that the men did not appear in opposition to this Bill, and I want, with the permission of the House, to just offer a few remarks upon that point. The absence of opposition of railway men, of whom I have had some considerable experience, does not necessarily mean that they assent to the

  1123
  proposals of their employers. The plain truth is that probably there are no employers that have such great power over their workmen as railway companies have. There are various reasons for this which would be interesting to go into, but for the convenience of the House I shall forbear. I am here to-day to say that I have seen schemes proposed by railway companies that have been generally condemned by the staff, and yet when the crucial moment came that they had to appear in public opposition they had not the courage to do so. Intimidation is not unknown to railway companies, and I think I am bound to say that the Great Eastern Railway Company has an unenviable reputation in this respect. I hold in my hand the names of five men representing the grades of drivers, signalmen, and mechanics, who, within the last three or four years have been discharged from the service of the Great Eastern Railway Company for no other reason than that they had identified themselves with public agitation which the company considered against their interests. I am perfectly well aware that the numerous apologists for this and other companies will say at once that the cause of their discharge was for some technical offence, but as a practical matter that which would, under any ordinary circumstances, only bring upon the head of the offender a suspension or a small fine, is punished by dismissal. There is only one way in which railway men can get anything like that courage which they ought to have, that is by strong organisation in their trade unions. Upon the Great Eastern Railway Company the organisation of the men is notoriously weak, and that I blame, and I say with great confidence, that that weakness is the reason why we had not some open opposition to this Bill, and to the scheme to which I especially take objection. Let me say at once that this is not a wholesale attack upon the pension fund of the Great Eastern Company. Naturally, I have very strong and definite views about these
  1124
  private funds. But this afternoon I am not trying to air these views. I am not in any sort of way attempting to attack this fund as a fund generally. I am glad to see, for instance, that compulsion finds no resting place in this Bill, although I know that the present fund is a compulsory one for the fresh employee, and that the old fund will be merged into the new. Therefore, the element of compulsion exists, but I am quite prepared to admit that, as a matter of fact, compulsion has no real place in the Bill, and no one rejoices in that more than I do myself. My objection is that the Bill does not give the men adequate or, as a matter of fact, real representation on the managing committee, which in this Bill is called the pension committee. Of course, I admit that the company guarantee the solvency of this fund. But, though that is quite true, it must be remembered that the men pay 5d. or 10d. per week to one or other of these funds, and therefore I submit that when working men are paying 10d. per week of their own money, not merely an optional payment, but having it deducted from their wages by their employers, I think this House should say that that payment on their part ought to entitle them to full representation on the managing committee, of this fund. Now, Sir, the company have, through the efforts largely of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, allowed the men some representation on the pension committee. That committee is composed of 11 gentlemen; four of these gentlemen are directors of the Great Eastern Company, five of them are high officials of the company, carrying in the minds of the men more authority, if I may say so, than the directors themselves. When the driver sees the locomotive superintendent, he keeps his eye on him far more than on the chairman of the board, because, perhaps, he may never meet the chairman of the board again, but his locomotive superintendent, or his other officials, he is

  1125
  constantly meeting. I appeal to honourable Members whether the company, having admitted that the men have the right to representation, are carrying that right out by giving them simply two men on a committee of nine directors and officials. Why, the fact is that the men would be just as well off without, these two, because when reforms are waked for the company will say, "Here you have representation; what more do you want?" When you come to inquire into it, these two men are simply lay figures; they practically cannot lift their little finger one way or the other. When it comes to a question of voting, of course, they cannot be of any use whatever. What is this pension committee? Amongst its various functions it has the power of "rescinding, altering, or adding to the rules or regulations contained in such pension scheme, and it may modify the condition upon which new members may be entitled to benefits." Now, that is a very important committee. A committee that can actually rescind, add, or alter a number of rules in such important respects as the condition under which this pension fund is to be administered is the very place where the men who pay this money ought to have some full representation. There ought to be no mistake about this. These pension funds are not philanthropical institutions—they are matters of business. The Great Eastern directors, when they decided to found this fund, approached it just as much from a business point of view as they would if they were going to lay down a number of engines. I am not complaining. It is their duty to look after their shareholders' interests, but, unfortunately, it is often very difficult for the men to get anyone to look after their interests. I do not wish to retain the House long, but I do wish to show that the Great Eastern Company have some good reason for giving some little money to this pension fund. I would like the House to remember what are the wages of some of the Great Eastern Railway Company's employees. It may lie that gentlemen who only come across railway men when they are amongst their constituents at election meetings may suppose that all the men
  1126
  are quite satisfied both with their wages and with the pension fund. I will leave the House to decide that point so far as the wages are concerned. The figures I am about to give are for the London district, where it is with the greatest difficulty that the men can get anything like two or three decent rooms, except at the most excessive rentals. In the London district you have a platelayer working for this company for £1 a week. Porters between Liverpool Street and Tottenham work for 16s. a week, and the House must remember do not get those enormous "tips" that honourable Gentlemen are always telling us go to supplement the railway porter's wages. Many of those men do not average 2s. 6d. from this source per week. Firemen get 3s. 6d. per day, and ticket collectors 21s. per week. I only quote these figures to show that the Great Eastern Railway Company are simply recognising a part of their obligations in establishing this pension fund, and what I want to ask the representatives of the Great Eastern in this House is this: if they are desirous of encouraging thrift amongst their men—and no one desires working men to be thrifty more than I do—why do not they adopt the practice which has been followed by a company much larger than the Great Eastern—one of the largest in England—I refer to the Midland Railway Company? On the Midland Railway Company you have a friendly society which is registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and which comes under the control of the Registrar General, the same as any other society does. Now, that is one great defect in this Bill. By the Lancashire and Yorkshire Bill, to which I referred yesterday, the Registrar General, who is a State officer appointed to protect these agencies for working men, is put in the Bill. In this Bill he is left entirely out. That is a grievous defect, because if he were in it he would be able from time to time to correct any irregularity. But, as I have already said, the issue, so far as I am concerned, is simply this: Should Parliamentary sanction be given to a pension fund, to which the workmen; contribute as much as 10d. per week,

  1127
  which fund is left absolutely and entirely to the control of the employers of those workmen? That is the point—that is the issue that I wish to divide the House upon. The Great Eastern Railway Company could very easily have drafted a clause covering these matters, and could have given real representation to the workmen. As far as I am concerned as a workman, as a trade unionist, and as one who desires that the working classes should not merely get better wages and better hours and better conditions, but that they should also make provision for their old age, and get together a little independence—from this point of view I appeal with not too great a confidence to this House, but with some confidence that it will reject this Bill for the simple and sole purpose of allowing the Great Eastern Railway Company to complete their efforts in encouraging thrift by giving the workman not merely the opportunity of contributing his money, but a full opportunity of controlling it when he has done so.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I have listened with great care to the speech of the honourable Member, and I am exceedingly surprised that he should lightly undertake the great responsibility of moving the rejection of this important Bill on such very meagre grounds. I should have thought that, although it is perfectly evident that he is not familiar with the attitude of the men towards this Bill, and not at all familiar with the contents of the Bill itself—
  MR. MADDISON: I speak from a practical consideration of the matter.
  MR. GRAY: I should have thought that the action taken yesterday and to-day by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean would have been a very strong hint to him that he has a very bad case in re-moving the rejection of this Bill.
  SIR C. DILKE: The honourable Member is mistaken. It is my intention to vote with the honourable Member for Brightside. I thought yesterday that under the circumstances it would be useless to divide the House, but I certainly support my honourable Friend.
  MR. GRAY: I am very sorry to hear that the right honourable Gentleman has come to that decision, because I certainly thought, from his statement yesterday, that he was of opinion that it would not be desirable to move the rejection of this Bill, more especially because the three reasons which he gave yesterday, and which might have justified him in objecting to the Bill, have to-day been reduced to two, and I think that I shall be able to satisfactorily deal with the remaining two without trespassing upon the time of the House for more than a minute or two. I have not a single shilling invested in any Great Eastern Railway Company's stock—I wish I had—but I have a very great interest in the future of some 5,000 railway men who are electors in my own constituency, and from that standpoint I have looked with some little interest to the progress of this Bill. I think I can tell the House that it has never been my good fortune to see any Bill more advantageous to the workmen drafted by any body of private employers containing better terms than this from beginning to end—financially, and in every other way. What does it do? This is a Bill which will provide pensions for all wage-earning classes with a maximum wage of 18s. a week, and it will give that benefit to some 24,000 persons. It provides sick pay at the age of 55, and in addition to that the whole of the moneys contributed by the men can be taken back by them when they quit the service of the company with, at least, 3 per cent. interest. It is, therefore, a bank fund, a superannuation fund, a life insurance fund, and a sick pay fund all rolled into one, and all these benefits may be secured to the men by the payment, not necessarily of 10d. per week, but sometimes as small as 2d. per week. What is the object of the company? A pension fund already exists, founded in the year 1890. Later on the company again came to the House, in 1893 I believe, for further powers to extend the pension benefits, and those powers were readily granted. Under these two existing funds some 3,552 of the company's servants joined the pension fund, and a smaller number joined the supplementary fund, but since that date, when these two funds were formed and closed, there have been constant

  1129
  appeals on the part of men who are not members to be allowed to be enrolled—to be admitted to the benefits of these funds. But it was impossible on the existing financial basis for the company to admit them, and therefore the company comes to the House of Commons for permission to alter the financial arrangements, in order to admit the remaining 20,000 of their servants to the benefits of the existing funds. The company has come to the House of Commons for the purpose of strengthening the position of their employees. The company generously gave that which they were not bound to give—a locus standi to the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. I am very glad they did so, because I was anxious that they should have the power of appearing before the Committee. They were prepared to file their petition—they have withdrawn it, and I am not surprised that they did so. I cannot conceive any trade organisation prosecuting opposition in the face of the figures which I can place before the House. The company invited the opinions of their individual employees. They sent out voting papers to the whole of the 3,552 members of the pension fund, and received back ballot papers, in favour of the alteration to the fund 2,186, against 432, whilst 934 expressed no opinion. For the pension supplementation fund no less than 1,115 sent in in favour, as against 154 who were opposed to it. Now, if the opinions of the men themselves are to be taken as worth anything, I cannot imagine a more overwhelming opinion deliberately recorded by the men than the opinion I have just related to this House. The men have deliberately recorded their emphatic opinion in favour of the change now before this House. It is said that an explanation can be given as to the withdrawal of the petition of the Amalgamated Society. Yes, that is the best explanation that can be given—the opinion recorded by the men themselves that this is a good thing, and that they are determined to have it. I am not speaking from these figures alone. It was my good fortune to meet the delegates of the men who assembled in London from the whole of the centres affected by the Great Eastern system—delegates of the men, freely elected. One and all, without
  1130
  a single exception, unanimously were in favour of this Bill. Some little time later on, along with one of the representatives of an Essex constituency, I addressed a meeting of very nearly 2,000 of these men, and I had no doubt at that meeting that there was a large preponderance of men urgently desirous of obtaining the fund proposed by this Bill. An attack has been made by the honourable Member who is moving the rejection of this Bill upon the management of the fund. But, so far as the greater portion of the business of the fund is concerned, there is no necessity for a board of management whatever. The rules, which, though not incorporated in the Bill, are governed by the Bill, say that benefits must not be reduced, nor contributions increased; therefore it is perfectly clear that any change must be made in the direction of an improvement to the men. "There must be no increase of contribution, nor reduction of benefit."
  MR. MADDISON: The clause reads—
  "And that this Committee may modify the conditions under which new members may be entitled to the benefits thereof";
  so that you may make the conditions apply at different ages, and various other charges may be made.
  MR. GRAY: You cannot modify the terms in any degree detrimental to those who are already on the fund; and to those who may come in after, it does not matter whether the board of management alter or not, because they will have the terms of the fund before their eyes when they enter the employment of the company. It is perfectly permissive from beginning to end—they may come in, or remain outside, and I cannot conceive that it makes any material difference to them, if they are persons who have not yet sought employment within the ranks of the company. But the point I want to press is this: that the fund works automatically, for the most part. A man, we will say, reaches the age of 65. He has nothing to do but present his certificate of age, and his certificate of service, and draw his annuity. Or he reaches the age of 55, and breaks down in health. He presents his necessary certificate from the doctor, and draws the sick pay which is payable to him. He quits the service, then he has nothing

  1131
  to do but present the necessary certificate and draw out the money. There cannot be any dispute as to the amount due to him. It could be worked out by a penny-in-the-slot machine. You put in the necessary certificates, and out comes the necessary annuity, or sick pay, or contribution, or whatever it is. There is no need for a board of management for nine-tenths of the work. As far as I can see, it is only necessary in determining whether the workman has or has not broken down in health, and whether the retiring age should be 61 or 65. There might be same cases where dispute would arise as to the state of health of the applicant, but I do not conceive that the disputes would be many; and, if the applicant be on the pension fund or on the supplemental fund, there would be two of the men permanently elected by the men's own delegates to serve on this board, and those men could make things very uncomfortably warm for the company, under such circumstances, even if they had not sufficient voting strength to influence the decision of the board. The presence of two or three men with tongues in their heads must of necessity be most useful to the interests of the men. No considerable claim has been put forward by the men for larger representation. That is a point upon which they have not felt so strongly. They have brought forward certain amendments, which, I am sorry to say, have not been incorporated in the Bill. There is the question of the possible reduction of age. There is the question of the position of the man who may be reduced, and who may not be able to contribute the maximum contribution, week by week, that he has entered into in earlier years. These are matters which we must leave with confidence in the hands of the present directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company. It is, in my opinion, altogether beside the mark to imagine for a single instant that the company have any sinister design in introducing this Bill. It is a matter of pure business with them, and the mien realise that, although this is a business transaction with the company, if the company have erred at all they have erred on the side of gene-
  1132
  rosity to the men. The men are getting benefits of certain portions of the annuity not purchased by themselves—are getting benefits of sack pay from 55 to 65, and they are getting the benefit of taking the whole of their money out, in the event of their leaving the company. These are advantages the expense of which will fall very heavily indeed upon the Great Eastern directors and the shareholders in a few years' time. The honourable Member for Brightside has drawn attention to the fact that in the Lancashire and Yorkshire Bill the registrar of Friendly Societies is put in to safeguard the men; but he has not pointed out that there is no analogy between this Bill and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Bill. The basis of that Bill is an actuarial one, but there is no actuarial basis in this one. I draw the attention of all interested in questions concerning employers and employed to the basis upon which this fund is constructed. There is no actuarial valuation in this Bill, from beginning to end. The company pledge themselves, and register that pledge within the Statute itself, that, in return for certain contributions they will guarantee the payment of the whole of the sums set out in this Bill out of their current account, before their debenture stock holders can draw a single farthing of interest upon money invested. The present guarantee of the Great Eastern Railway Company is the basis of this Bill. That is the marked distinction upon this Bill and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Bill. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Bill was a question of actuarial valuation, and nobody who is familiar with actuarial valuation, and knows what difficulty there is in convincing an ordinary working man that, although there may be half a million of money in the fund, it is in an unsound condition, will doubt the necessity for having the Registrar General upon funds which are formed upon such a basis. The Great Eastern Company have ceased to bother about actuarial valuation. They have departed from the old basis of equal contributions from the men. They have undertaken the whole burden of benefits imposed by the Bill, and I do not hesitate to say that when the period of stress arises, as it always does arise in pension

  1133
  funds, after from 30 to 40 years, there will be unquestionably a heavy charge thrown on the Great Eastern Railway Company, a charge so heavy that there must be a commensurate benefit to the men. They realise that all anxiety as to the fund's stability is taken away. They have not to fear a quinquennial valuation. Whatever they contribute they will be assured of receiving from the age of 55 to 65. I have seen no Bill—and it has been my lot to go through a large number of schemes for the benefit of the working classes—containing sounder and more beneficial terms to the employee than the terms set forth in this Bill. It has passed without opposition before a Committee of this House, and if the House has decided by its recent vote not to review the decision of its Committee it may well give effect to the same principle with a more preponderating voice and vote than upon the last Measure, because in this case the very representatives of the men themselves have withdrawn their objections. Every unprejudiced, unbiassed examiner of the scheme itself will, I am sure, be convinced of the fact that no better fund has ever before been brought before the House of Commons. A large number of these men are my own constituents; they are taking the keenest interest in the decision of the House of Commons in this matter, and I do trust that the honourable. Member will have satisfied his conscience by having drawn attention to those cases of dismissal and those alleged cases of small wages. Supposing those cases do exist; it may be that there are a number of porters in receipt of poor wages; it may be that there are a number of men dismissed for taking part in some proceedings outside. I challenge the honourable Member to show that these are reasons for refusing the benefits of this Bill to 24,000 people who want them—people who do not receive these small payments, who have not been dismissed, and who are anxious for these benefits, which I am sure will establish the most cordial co-operation between employers and employed, and I therefore trust that the decision of the House will not for one moment be uncertain.
  MR.BURNS: For six years the House of Commons has had to listen to criticisms or opposition to a railway sick tension and superannuation fund; per-haps to a few Members of the House it may appear that such opposition and criticism is fruitless and futile. Well, measured by the success which we see in this Bill, I cordially congratulate every labour representative in this House for his courage in having subjected this scheme to hostile criticism, because what is the effect of the past action of this Bill? It has caused the House of Commons, or, I should say, it has converted the House of Commons to the view that the labour organisation has a locus standi before the Private Bill Committee. It would not have got that without criticism. It has also caused this Bill to have voluntary clauses of membership which previous Bills hitherto have not had, and it has compelled the Great Eastern Railway Company to surrender representation of the men upon this pension fund, representation which has hitherto been denied by that and other railway companies; so to that extent past opposition has been justified. Now we are told by the honourable Member for North-West Ham that the ballot of the men disposes of my honourable Friend's criticism. We all know what a ballot of this sort means. It is about as fair a representation of the opinion of railway men as it would be if a regiment of soldiers were to be asked to ballot as to whether the colonel or the adjutant should have command of the canteen fund. Tommy Atkins would vote for the colonel and the adjutant, and would probably suggest that he himself should have nothing to do with it. When the honourable Member says that this Bill represents the mature opinion and broad judgment of every man in Stratford Works, let me say that I differ from him entirely, because such is contrary to the fact, as is proved by a fairly substantial minority of the men having the courage, notwithstanding being suspected, and risking their chances of promotion, to vote against this most generous scheme. I am very sorry that the railway men of this country have not, as in this instance, the courage to have more backbone, and

  1135
  to stand out against these compulsory schemes of sick pay and superannuation funds. I am, indeed, sorry that the railway men of Stratford, whilst secretly disagreeing even with the voluntary fund, have not had the courage which was possessed by the minority, and protested against railway companies having anything to do with that which ought to be left to the men's own right and liberty to do for themselves through their own friendly societies. However, there is good reason why they cannot protest, and, if they cannot, we must. We must protest against this Bill because it gives the railway company powers, duties, and functions over their workmen contrary to the spirit of railway legislation which was granted for entirely different purposes. The honourable Member for West Ham has admitted that there are Amendments to be made in the interests of the men. The men object to the reduction of age in one or two instances. They would like to improve the Bill in other respects, but they cannot stand much chance of putting these suggestions forward in a definite and practical manner unless they have a tip from the firm that they must not push these suggested reforms too far. The honourable Member for West Ham says that he never met a more generous scheme than this. Yes, this is the kind of charity that covers a multitude of sins. It is the kind of generosity that whispers pensions to the ear of the platelayer which he will never live to receive. The company, by long hours, overwork, and low wages, kill 80 per cent. before they ever reach the age of 65.
  MR. GRAY: On death they take out their total contributions.
  MR. BURNS: If they do, that is nothing like what the Compensation Act gives them. When we are told about the generosity of the company, let them start being generous by giving their platelayers a rise of 4s. a week; from 16s. to 20s. in the London district. If they want to be benevolent, let them pay their shunters better wages, and not allow them to subject the passengers to respectable blackmailing in the shape of "tips," owing to the fact that it underpays
  1136
  its porters and the whole of its staff; and when we hear of the shunters, platelayers, and porters, and other men, being generously treated, then I ask to see that generosity in the wages that they receive, and I do not see it. The House of Commons is having its time wasted, public business is delayed, important questions are postponed, and the liberty of the subject is interfered with, simply because we do not keep railway companies, as was originally intended, to railway business pure and simple. Railways were instituted to carry men, goods, and cattle.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: How about ladies?
  MR. BURNS: Ladies are not carried: they are conveyed. Railways, as I have said, were instituted to carry passengers, goods, and cattle, but what do we see? Year after year railway companies come here for increased powers—omnibuses, privileged cabs, houses for men, sick, accident, bank and pension societies, the effect of which is, Sir, to concentrate the attention of the staffs of the railway companies on subsidiary and auxiliary business, foreign to the original charter granted to the companies. By these encroachments the railway companies, both as regards combination of workmen and associated thrift, are slowly but surely putting restrictions upon the workmen, and incidentally upon the public, which were never intended by Parliament years ago. We are asked to condone this Bill on the ground that it is generous, and not compulsory. It is true that it is not compulsory for old hands, but the honourable Member for West Ham knows it will be practically compulsory for new hands. He knows very well that if men do' not join they will incur disfavour, and that their chance of promotion or transference to better places will be lessened. Therefore, what is on the face of it a voluntary Measure in its operation may be made an instrument of intimidation to such an extent that Parliament should protect the workmen from it. Now I come to the subscriptions. A platelayer with 16s. a week, if he belongs—and I hope he does belong—to a trade union and friendly

  1137
  society, cannot afford to contribute any more. Many of them pay 3d. a week to their trade union, 95 per cent. of whose funds are used, not for trade union and strike purposes, but for sick, unemployed, and superannuation purposes. No man can afford, out of a wage of 16s., to pay more than 3d. a week, and many of them deprive themselves of food and necessaries, not to say small comforts—luxury rarely comes to the platelayer on the Great Eastern as it comes to the directors—in order to keep up this contribution. To ask—or compel, as I prefer to construe it—such men to join this pension fund means that they would have to forego membership of their union, and abandon, perhaps, a long membership of their friendly society. You put obstacles in the way of thrift by this Bill, instead of encouraging it. Going from subscriptions to representation, we find that the fund is to be managed by four directors, four heads of departments, and two workmen delegates. I put it to the honourable Member for West Ham—How would he like such a representation on a pension scheme for School Board teachers?
  MR. GRAY: Under the same terms, I should be very glad to see it.
  MR. BURNS: That does not dispose of the point. How would he like the London School Board teachers to be subjected to representation of this character? If a meeting of Stratford men were held in camerâ, and it was understood that the result would not be disclosed, the honourable Member knows perfectly well that the decision of that meeting would override the "bogus" ballot that we have heard so much about. What is the objection to allowing the scheme to be submitted to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, like trade unions, building societies, or any other friendly association? I am satisfied that a Government official would object to this scheme on the ground of representation, and on other grounds, and I think the Registrar of Friendly Societies ought to have a voice in the matter. I am informed that he has already called attention to it. Whether that is so or not I do not know; but I can assure this House that the workmen of this country, independent of politics, are not going to
  1138
  have their thrift interfered with to the extent that this Bill proposes. The men who belong to the Hearts of Oak, the Oddfellows, the Foresters, and the other friendly societies and associations, which have a membership of 10 millions, are slowly but surely organising to put a stop to these compulsory and these superficially voluntary funds, and some day honourable Members will find out that it is better to look after the interests of their constituents than to promote the intimidating interests of railway companies. Where this pension fund does not intimidate it chloroforms, and where it does not chloroform it misleads. If Lord Claud Hamilton—who is not a Member of this House, and the Stratford men will see that he never represents them—were to swear till he was black in the face that this was a voluntary agreement on the part of the men I would say it is not true. What is more, I say this has been forced on the men.
  SIR J. MACLURE: I rise to a point of order. Has the honourable Member a right, in the presence of Lord Claud Hamilton (who occupied a seat under the gallery), to make such an atrocious charge?
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is not out of order. He is not referring to any Member of this House.
  MR. BURNS: It is curious and interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the director of a railway company interrupts me. It only shows that one touch of intimidation makes the railway world kin. I have only this to say in conclusion: I am convinced that the House of Commons will one day resolve that railway companies must be kept solely to their legitimate business, and leave all their workmen a free and unfettered choice as regards their thrift and pension funds.
  MR. J. PENN: Mr. Speaker, I only rise to put right, if I possibly can, the very unfair interpretation of this Bill by several Members on the other side of this House. It has been contended that, there is compulsion in this Bill. Clause 11 of the Bill says that—
  "No rule or regulation in such new pension scheme or new pension supplemental scheme

  1139
  shall make it compulsory for any servant of the company to become a member of the new pension fund or the new pension supplemental fund."
  There is another point that I should like to deal with for one minute, and that is the statement that the fund can be altered by the management. Clause 12 puts that perfectly right, and I claim that nothing could be clearer than the language of the Bill itself, that there is to be no compulsion to join the pension funds, or that the funds can be altered by the management. I should like to deny that the Great Eastern directors have brought pressure to bear upon any of the employees in the unfair and extremely wrong fashion which has been suggested by some honourable Members opposite. I deny, on behalf of the Great-Eastern Railway Company, that compulsion is in any way contemplated; it is altogether foreign to their intention. In answer to the suggestion that the Bill does not receive the support of the Members of existing funds, may I be permitted to read a letter that was addressed this morning to the solicitor to the Company by the secretary of the delegates of the Great Eastern Railway Supplemental Fund? The letter is as follows—
  "23, Keogh Road,
  >"Stratford, 9th June, 1898.
  "E. Moore, Esq.
  "Dear Sir,—I am very sorry to read in this morning's papers the opposition to the G.E. Railway Pension Bill. I can earnestly assure you that we are more than satisfied with the Bill now before Parliament, and wish it every success in every way. Sir C. Dilke mentions about the representation on the management. I am pleased to say that the management in the past has been of a most exemplary character, and has met with universal approval from all our members. What more can one say? As to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, we having the Company's guarantee is and ought to be sufficient for anyone, and having our contributions returned with 3 per cent. added on leaving the service, and in case of death our representatives receiving double—why there is no savings bank to equal it! Need I say the voting showing that the members were unanimous in favour of the Bill ought, I think, to be sufficient to ensure our representatives in the House of Commons their help in passing such a good and liberal Bill for the employees in our Company. Trusting that the Bill will pass with flying colours is the wish of all our members,
  "From yours respectfully,
  "THOS. MCCALLUM,
  "Secretary for the Delegates,
  "G. E. R. S.P. Fund."
  I think that fairly disposes of the statement that this scheme is antagonistic to the men. I shall only add further that the Company has no objection whatever to any of its servants belonging to any society, or to anything else outside this particular scheme. But the Company is under the impression that this scheme is so good that large numbers of their servants will probably join it in preference to others. That, however, is a question entirely in the hands of the employees themselves.
  MR. BARTLEY: I have taken great interest for many years in similar schemes, and I should like to say a word or two on the subject. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that those who claim to represent the working classes should suppose that the great railway companies ought, as the honourable Member for Battersea says, to look after nothing but passengers, luggage, and cattle. For years we have contended in this House that large employers of labour ought to take a wider view of their duties, and we have pressed upon them over and over again that the true union between employers and employed could only be entered on where the employers take this larger view of their duties. And yet it is strange that when they come forward—as many of these large companies are coming forward, owing to the progress of public opinion in this direction—with a scheme which will promote harmony, honourable Members opposite have nothing but abuse for it. This scheme seems to me to be one of the best solutions of the difficulty of getting capital and labour to work freely and harmoniously. I have no doubt, if successful, it will lead to harmony and peace; but it seems that there are some people still left who take a delight in preventing industrial pence. I have no hesitation in saying that this scheme is one of the most liberal I have ever seen.
  MR. CHAINING: I understand that the honourable Member for the Brightside Division has raised this question as one of principle, and it seems to me that, in dealing with this question, we on this side of the House are right in insisting that there should be fair play between both sides

  1141
  in the shape of the Registrar of Friendly Societies being in a position to see and examine all the schemes brought in. It seems to me that my honourable Friend is justified in dividing the House in order to assert that principle. My honourable Friend is justified in insisting that this scheme is put as nearly as possible in the position of a friendly society, and
  that the men are guaranteed representation or a voice in the administration.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill as amended be now considered."
  The House divided:—Ayes 269; Noes 94—(Division List No. 131.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir A. F.

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Aird, John

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Cox, Robert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy j

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Ambrose, William (Middlesex)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hazell, Walter

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heath, James

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Arrol, Sir William

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Helder, Augustus

  Asher, Alexander

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (LaneSW)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Baird, John George A.

  Denny, Colonel

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hobhouse, Henry

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hornby, William Henry

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, Joseph

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Hy. Cecil

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

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

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Bethell, Commander

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Biddulph, Michael

  Fellowes, Hon. A. E.

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Bill, Charles

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J(Manch.)

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U

  Bond, Edward

  Finch, George H.

  Kenrick, William

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kitson, Sir James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Knowles, Lees

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lafone, Alfred

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mid'sex)

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Brassey, Albert

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Lucky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Acerington)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Legh, Hon. Thos. W. (Lancs)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. Tames

  Folkestone. Viscount

  Leighton, Stanley

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Leng, Sir John

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fry, Lewis

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Garfit, William

  Long. Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gibbons. J. Lloyd

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Gibbs. Hn. A.G.H. (C.ofLond)

  Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland)

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

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gold, Charles

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Goldsworthy. Major-General

  Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon, Sir John E.

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Graham, Henry Robert

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  McCalmont, Mj. -Gn. (Ant'm, N)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gunter, Colonel

  McEwan, William

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  McKillop, James

  Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Strauss, Arthur

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Richards. Henry Charles

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

  Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Robinson, Brooke

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Milton, Viscount

  Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Rothschild. Baron F. Jas. de

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Monk, Charles James

  Round, James

  Warkworth, Lord

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'hm)

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

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Morrison, Walter

  Rutherford, John

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-L.)

  Mount, William George

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. M.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  Saunderson, Col. Edward J.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Williams. J. Powell (Birm.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Pease, Sir Jos. W. (Durham)

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Pender, Sir James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Younger, William

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Sinclair. Louis (Romford)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Mr. Ernest Gray and Mr. Bartley.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spencer, Ernest

  NOES.

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Allen, W. (Newc.-und-Lyme)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Halftone, Richard Burdon

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Harwood, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Blake, Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shee, James John

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Burns, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Spicer, Albert

  Burt, Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Steadman, William Charles

  Caldwell, James

  Langley, Batty

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Colville, John

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Crombie, John William

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo. S.)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Davitt, Michael

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dillon, John

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

  Doughty, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Duckworth, James

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ellis, John E. (Notts)

  Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

  Mr. Woods and Mr. Madison.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Resolution agreed to.

  Bill ordered to be read the third time.

LIVERPOOL, AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]

  STAMP DUTIES.
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of the following stamp duties upon certain memorials under any Act of the present Session relating to the Liverpool and London am Globe Insurance Company, viz.. For and upon the first memorial enrolled of the names o persons who shall be deemed held and taken to be trustees of the company, the sum of live pounds, and upon every other such memorial in which the name of any person shall for the first time be inserted as a trustee of the company, the sum of five pounds."
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [H.L.], that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  CHAIRMEN OF PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COUNCILLORS' (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  For alteration: From Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From London: to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  In favour: From Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From the British Medical Association; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  In favour: From Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES REGISTRATION BILL.
  In favour: From Battersea; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  In favour: From Croydon; to lie upon he Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From Blackpool, Lichfield, and Kingston-upon-Hull; to lie upon the Table.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
  In favour: From Warwickshire; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Goonbell, Newburn, Morpeth, Clayton-le-Moors, Battersea, Wirksworth, Bamber Bridge, Vauxhall, Diss, Wymondham, East Dereham (2), Saint Day, Mount Horam, Chacewater, Admington, Crosscoombes, Hull, and Navenby; to lie upon the Table.
  SCHOOL BOARD CONFERENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  SOLICITORS' (MAGISTRACY) BILL.
  In favour: From Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD) OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Dunfermline; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE (PAY OF SORTERS, TELEGRAPHISTS, AND SORTING CLERKS AND TELEGRAPHISTS, ETC.)
  Return [presented 8th June] to be printed. [No. 230.]
  COLONIAL PROBATES ACT, 1892.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of the 19th May, 1898, applying the Act to the Island of St. Vincent [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of the 19th May, 1898, regulating the coinage of the British East Africa Protectorate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ACTS, 1844 TO 1886.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of the 19th, May, 1898, extending to the Republic of Hayti the provisions of the Order in Council of 7th March, 1898, which gives effect to the Additional Act to the Berne Convention respecting Copyright [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of the 19th May, 1898, applying section 238 of the Act in the case of Japan [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1875.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of 28th July, 1893, so far as it relates to the Summer Assizes on the North and South Wales Circuits [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented of Statutes made by the governing body of Magdalen College, Oxford, on 1st February, 1898, amending the existing Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 231.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented of Statute made by the governing body of Downing College, Cambridge, on 26th February, 1898, altering Statute VI. "Of the Fellows," of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 232.]
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878, AND WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) ACT, 1897.
  Copy presented of two Orders in Council of the 19th May, 1898; (i.) approving new denominations of Metric Standards, and (ii.) making a Table of Metric Equivalents in substitution for the Table in Part I. of the Third Schedule to the Weights and Measures Act, 1878 [by Act]; in lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2107, 2113, and 2114 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copies presented of General Reports by the chief inspectors of the Western and of the Southern Divisions of Scotland for the year 1897 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURAL RETURNS).
  Copy presented of Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, with Statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries for 1897 [by command]: to lie upon the Table.
  QUEENSLAND IMMIGRATION.
  Address for "Return relating to Immigration into Queensland, the mortality in the Colony, and the return to their native islands of Polynesian Islanders during the years 1886 to 1897, inclusive (in same form and in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 148 of Session 1895)."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENGLAND AND WALES) (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which, and the manner in which, local authorities in England, Wales, and Ireland have applied, or are applying, funds to the purposes of technical education (including science, art, technical, and manual instruction) during the years 1896–7 and 1897–8 under the following Acts: Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891: Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889; and Public Libraries Acts."—(Sir John Gorst.)
NEW BILL.
  WAITRESSES BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to the employment of waitresses in restaurants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kemp, Mr. Drage, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. Pym; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]
QUESTIONS.

  TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS IN CORK.
  MR. SMITH-BARRY (Hunts.,: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that serious complaints have been made as to the delays to telegrams received at the Cork office; is he aware that Press telegrams frequently occupy from two to three hours in transmission between the Central Telegraph Office in London and Cork, and that on the 18th ultimo a Press message reporting the proceedings of the House of Commons was handed in in London at 6.5 p.m. addressed to the Cork papers, to which it was not delivered

  1151
  until past 9 p.m.; also that a short message of sporting news handed in at Hamilton on the same day at 6.55 p.m. was not delivered to the Cork Constitution until 9.42 p.m.; whether the bulk of the delay complained of takes place within the Cork office itself; whether he will cause a Return to be prepared showing the time at which each message was received after 6 p.m. in the Cork office, and the time at which it was sent to the delivery room, and the time at which it was despatched by messenger to the addressee, such Return to apply to till the messages received during the week ended 21st ultimo; whether he is aware that there is an unusual proportion of learners, paid and unpaid, in the Cork office; and, whether he will cause steps to be taken to reduce the delays on telegrams in the Cork office, and to provide a staff adequate to deal with the telegraphic work promptly and efficiently?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,: Complaints such as those to which the right honourable Member refers have been made; and Press telegrams do, in the case of long messages, sometimes occupy from two to three hours in transmission between London and Cork. The delay sustained by the two messages to which the right honourable Member more particularly refers was to some extent caused by the great pressure which existed on the 18th ultimo. It does not appear that the bulk of the delay takes place in the Cork office, and there is not an unusual proportion of learners in that office; it appears, however, that the force of the office requires strengthening, and proposals on the subject are under consideration. In the meantime, authority has been given for some addition to the staff. It is not possible to prepare the Return as suggested, but the Postmaster General has obtained particulars of the time occupied in dealing with messages in the Cork office, and he will cause such steps to be taken as may be possible to prevent avoidable delay. It must be remembered, however, that, in the case of Press messages, the Department is called on to do so much that it would not be reasonable to expect that they should be disposed of in anything like the same time as ordinary messages.

  INLAND REVENUE RETIREMENTS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proposed enforced retirement before the age of 65 of about 20 inspectors and surveyors of taxes and other officers of the Inland Revenue; whether he is aware that many of these gentlemen are perfectly fit to perform their duties, and desire to continue to do so until they reach the age of 65; whether this enforced retirement is intended to facilitate the promotion of younger men; and whether, as this arrangement will increase the cost by £12,000 during the current year, and ultimately and permanently by £36,000 a year, he could state the advantage to the public anticipated from this procedure?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that the Hoard of Inland Revenue have fixed the age for retirement for all officers of their Department at 63 during the current year, and in subsequent years at 62. They are aware that some of their officers are still fit to perform their duties at 62, or even at 65, but they must be guided in this matter by a general rule, and looking to the Department as a whole, they consider that the new rule will have the effect of materially increasing the general efficiency of the Service. I do not understand how the honourable Member's estimate of the cost of this arrangement is arrived at. The result will no doubt be to increase the charge for superannuation, but this will be largely counterbalanced during the current year by a saving on the charge for salaries. The net increase will not exceed £2,000 in the current year; and this increase in connection with a salary list amounting to more than a million a year does not seem an excessive price to pay for the increased efficiency of the Service.

  HERRING BRAND FEES.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what total amount was received last year on account of herring brand fees, and how much surplus out of that amount will be available for expenditure by the Scottish Fishery Board upon fishery harbours;

  1153
  and whether the Secretary for Scotland will favourably consider the great need for such harbours when Scotland s equivalent grant for the £750,000 per annum given to Ireland is received?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The total amount received last year from brand fees was £594, none of which, however, will be available for harbours, as the estimated cost of collecting the brand fees exceeded the amount received. In allocating the grant referred to fishery interests will receive consideration along with others.

  THE CORDON AT CANDIA.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the cordon round Candia has recently been extended, and the regular Turkish troops allowed to occupy positions in advance of those previously occupied by them; whether this has been done in spite of the protests of the Christian chiefs; and whether Sir H. Chermside has addressed a letter to the Christian chiefs in which he states that, in the event of the new arrangements not being accepted, the English troops would retire behind the walls of Candia, and that the two elements of the population would be free to occupy the positions which each judges agreeable to its interests; the Turks shall be at liberty to employ auxiliary forces?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON, Lancs.,): I answered the first Question on Monday. The extension of the cordon was not effected in spite of the protests of the Christian chiefs, but after having been fully explained to them. A misunderstanding subsequently took place, the chiefs being under the impression that the new cordon extended much beyond its actual limits. They then protested against it, whereupon Sir Herbert Chermside offered if they disapproved of the new arrangement, which had been devised in the common interest, to revert to the status quo ante. The misapprehension having been removed, the chiefs have sent a written acceptance of
  1154
  the new cordon, which has so far been attended with great success.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right honourable Gentleman kindly answer the last paragraph of the Question? Did Colonel Chermside threaten that if his proposal were not accepted he would let loose the Turkish garrison?
  MR. CURZON: I did answer that. I said the statement of Colonel Chermside was that if the Christian chiefs did not approve the new arrangement, the status quo ante which had been in existence for a year would be reverted to.

  ARREST OF HERACLES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, on 11th May last, the servant of Mr. Evans, an English traveller, was seized by the Turks in Candia, cast into a filthy prison, and kept there for 43 hours; whether Sir Herbert Chermside, when first appealed to, refused to procure the release of Mr. Evans' servant; and whether Sir Herbert Chermside stated he was there to co-operate with the Turkish authorities?
  MR. CURZON: From the reports received of this incident it appears that the man arrested was not Mr. Evans' servant, but a muleteer, whom Mr. Evans had induced, contrary to the regulations, and notwithstanding his reluctance, to accompany him into Candia without a permit. The man was detained by the Governor at the police office for his own safety, and not in prison, and was eventually handed over to Sir H. Chermside, and by him sent back beyond the out-posts, as he was found to have been an employee of the Sitia Government at the time of the massacre of Mussulmans there in 1897. Sir H. Chërmside did not, so far as we are aware, make the statement mentioned in the Question. He said that the Turkish Governor was not under his orders, and that his province was to ensure the co-operation of the local government in preventing disorder.

  MEDICAL PROVISION AT THE BATTLE OF ATBARA.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the medical department attached to the British brigade at the battle of Atbara was insufficiently provided with chloroform or anæsthetics for the performance of operations on the battle-field; and, if so, what was the cause of such an omission; and whether a court of inquiry will be ordered to inquire into the circumstances?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): No, Sir. The field medical equipment of each regimental unit, bearer company, and field hospital of the British brigade was fully equipped with chloroform and anæsthetics, in accordance with the regulations, and there was an ample reserve at Wady Halfa. There is no reason to suppose that there was any deficiency at the battle of Atbara.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there was no light ambulance attached to the cavalry in Egypt, and whether the only way of carrying the wounded after the cavalry reconnaissance before the battle of Atbara was by tying them on to gun limbers; and, if so, whether steps will be taken in future to have more attention paid to the medical arrangements?
  MR. BRODRICK: No British cavalry were employed in the reconnaisance referred to. The medical arrangements for the cavalry who were present rested with the Sirdar.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: But is it the fact that the wounded were tied on to the gun limbers?
  MR. BRODRICK: Any Question as to the Egyptian Army should be addressed to my right honourable friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the litters for the conveyance of wounded after the battle of Atbara were unprovided with sunshades such as are always attached to litters in hot climates; and,
  1156
  if so, if he will state the cause of this omission; and whether any steps have been taken to ensure proper litters being provided for the wounded in future?
  MR. BRODRICK: The stretchers hitherto provided for the British Army have not been fitted with covers. A supply of stretchers with folding hoods is, as I have already stated in the House, on its way to Egypt. The wounded at the battle of Atbara were carefully placed in the shade, and only removed after dark.

  ENGLISH RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THE CONVEYANCE OF VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants,): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement that several English railway companies refuse to convey detachments of Volunteers to or from camps on any Saturday in July, August, or September; whether he is aware that this has caused great inconvenience to the Volunteers, many of whom have, in consequence, to travel on Sundays; and whether the Secretary of State for War can induce the railway companies to altar this rule?
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if all the railway companies have now withdrawn from the decision announced that they would no longer convey Volunteer corps upon Saturdays to the drills and musketry practice undertaken without payment for the service of the country; and, in the contrary case, if the Secretary of State will consider, in conjunction with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Postmaster General, the desirability of diverting from any such company the public moneys heretofore paid for the conveyance of troops, sailors, marines, guns, stores, and mails; and, further, have inserted in railway Bills for new or extended powers provisions against an exercise of power prejudicial to the public interest?
  MR. BRODRICK: The attention of the Secretary of State for War was drawn to

  1157
  the announcement, and in consequence a communication was addressed to the railway companies. Several of the companies have withdrawn from their decision; one company—the South Eastern—has made its withdrawal subject to the condition that no Volunteers are to be convoyed on the Saturday preceding the Bank Holiday in August; no official reply has yet been received from the Great Western Railway or the London and North Western. The War Office would regard the maintenance of the decision by these companies as seriously interfering with the efficiency of the Volunteers.

  ROBBERIES IN THE EUSTON ROAD.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a gentleman was robbed and assaulted in the Euston Road in broad daylight on 27th May; whether he is aware that the Vestry of St. Pancras have applied for extra police protection for the district; and whether steps have been taken to comply with the request?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,: Yes, my attention has been drawn to this robbery, which appears, however, to have been effected with little violence. An application for increased police protection was received some months ago from the vestry, but after full inquiry into the condition of the parish. I felt unable to accede to it. Crime and disorderly conduct in the streets have much decreased of late years, and the district does not compare unfavourably in these respects with other districts of a similar character in the Metropolis.

  FEES FOR CERTIFICATES OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.
  MR. AIRD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that under the Friendly Societies Acts certificates of births and
  1158
  deaths are obtainable on application at the cost of 1s. (instead of 3s. 7d.), similar privileges can be afforded to dependants of fatally injured workmen claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in oases where evidence may be required as to deaths, marriages, or births of children?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The fees for certificates of birth, marriage, and death are fixed by Statute, and to give effect to the honourable Member's proposal would require legislation. I am afraid I am not in a position to undertake to introduce a Bill—at all events, without further consideration.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND THE ESTATE DUTY.
  MR. AIRD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not the compensation awarded to the dependants of a fatally injured workman, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, is liable to estate duty; and, where no other property is left, will it be necessary that probate or letters of administration should be taken out?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER(Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Board of Inland Revenue do not regard money awarded as compensation to the representatives of a deceased workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, as passing on his death for the purposes of estate duty. So far as they are concerned, it will not be necessary that probate or letters of administration should be taken out where the deceased has left no other property.

  LOANS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the legislation of last year (60 and 61 Vic, c. 29), by which the time of repayment of loans contracted by local poor law authorities was extended to a

  1159
  term not exceeding 60 years, the Government have any intention of conferring similar advantages on county councils and other local authorities?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,: I do not find that any representations have been received, either from county councils or other local authorities, showing that there is any general desire for an extension of the period for the repayment of loans contracted by them. If any such representations are made they will receive my consideration.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that men who have served in the Army and then joined the Navy or Marines are allowed to count their military service towards the pension they receive on retiring from the Navy or Marines; whether men who have served in the Navy or Marines and then joined the Army are not allowed to count their former service towards a pension on retirement from the Army; and what reason is there for making such a difference in the pension regulations of the two Services?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,): Army service does not reckon towards naval pension except in the case of men who joined the Navy before 1st January, 1885. Service in the Navy or Royal Marines, in the case of men who joined the Army before 1st October, 1880, wholely, and in other cases up to a limit of four years, reckons towards Army pension.
  MR. JEFFREYS: Will the honourable Gentleman answer the last paragraph and say what is the reason for making a difference in the pension regulations of the two Services?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: There is little difference, as my honourable Friend sees, in the regulations as they apply to the two Services. It is not desirable to encourage men who have served a con-
  1160
  siderable time in the Navy to join the Army, because they are then at an undesirable age. Furthermore, the pensions of men who have served a considerable time in the Navy would be charged on the Army Vote, and it is not reasonable that this should be so when a man has served a large portion of his time in the Navy.

  THE CUSTOMS AND THE CREW OF H.M.S. ORLANDO.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause inquiry to be made of the Customs authorities as to why the seamen recently paid off at Portsmouth from H.M.S. Orlando, on her return from the Australian station, were subjected to the delay of having their bags and kits publicly searched on the railway station platform when about to proceed on leave with passes to their homes, instead of its being carried out in the dockyard, where the men could have been paraded for the purpose abreast of their ship if so desired; and whether he will give instructions which shall prevent the men of the Fleet who have been serving their county abroad from being subjected to such treatment in future?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Inquiries have been made through the Board of Customs into the circumstances attending the examination of the baggage of the seamen of H.M.S. Orlando on the recent occasion of their being paid off at Portsmouth, from which it appears that none of the bags and kits belonging to these seamen were publicly searched on the railway station platform, but that the examination took place on board or alongside of the vessel in the dockyard. About 30 small hand packages were examined at the railway station, but this examination was not made publicly on the platform, but, as usual, in one of the waiting-rooms, which the Customs authorities of the port have permission to use for such purposes. No delay was caused by this slight examination at the railway station.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will make a representation to the Customs authorities with a view to the discontinuance by them of the system recently adopted of searching the bags and kits of seamen, on paying off from any of Her Majesty's ships, on the public platforms of railway stations; whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will point out that such treatment is deeply resented by man-of-war's men, and whether their Lordships will offer to give instructions to facilitate all necessary searching of luggage in the dockyards or on board the ships of war, so as to avoid this exercise of authority under the existing law; and whether their Lordships are aware that the seamen recently paid oft from the flagship Orlando were thus treated on arrival at the railway station to proceed by train to their homes from Portsmouth, although the search could have been better carried out on the dockyard jetty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,: I think the reply just given by my right honourable Friend practically answers this Question also.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION IN LANCASHIRE.
  MR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Hoard whether he is aware that the boroughs within the administrative county of Lancashire do not receive by 53 per cent. their rateable proportion of the money under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, devoted to technical instruction from the Lancashire County Council; and whether he will take steps to ensure that all boroughs within counties are paid or credited with their proper shares of the grant in proportion to their rateable values in accordance with the Act?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I am aware that it has been stated that if the grant received by the county council for tech-
  1162
  nical instruction is distributed on the basis of rateable value, the proportion to be received by the boroughs will be increased. I am advised that the Act does not require that it should be distributed according to rateable value, and that the basis of distribution rests with the county council. The subject of the allocation of the grant is under the consideration of the Technical Instruction Committee of the county council, and it is a matter on which I have no power to give instructions or to take any action.

  KHYBER. PASS.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the estimated cost of the reconstruction of the forts in the Khyber Pass, and what is the probable cost of the proposed construction of fortified posts in the Lundi Kotal, at the western extremity of the Pass, together with the proposed strengthening of Kila Drash, on the Chitral Road; and whether this renewed permanent outlay beyond the frontier of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions is in accordance with the dispatches of the Government of India laid before Parliament in February last?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,: Nothing has yet been settled as to the reconstruction of the fortified posts in the Khyber or the post at Kila Drash. Any necessary outlay on these posts would not be inconsistent with the policy laid down hi my dispatch of the 28th January last.

  MILITARY STORES FOR INDIA.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in cases where, at the instance of the War Office or any other British authorities, ordnance or any other military stores that may have been superseded or become obsolete in the use of the British army have been transferred or supplied

  1163
  to the Indian armies, the Director General of Stores at the India Office has full discretion as to accepting or taking over such disused or discarded stores; whether the auditor of the accounts of the Secretary of State in Council has full opportunity of testing the valuation at which such disused British stores are taken over for issue to the Indian armies; and whether the auditor at the India Office in his Annual Report to Parliament specifies any irregularities which may arise in connection with the taking over of such stores charged to the Indian Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: In cases such as are described in the first clause of the honourable Member's Question the Secretary of State for India in Council has a complete discretion as to accepting or refusing disused stores. The Director General of Stores is his officer, and, as a rule, his representative in matters of this kind. The auditor has, to guide him in testing the valuation of such stores, all the papers at the disposal of the India Office; he cannot have access to any other papers except by the permission of the head of the department to which they belong. He invariably draws attention, in his annual Report, to any irregularities in this or in other matters which he may have noticed.

  BRITISH RESIDENT AT THE NIZAM'S COURT.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state for what length of time the present British Resident at the Court of His Highness the Nizam, Mr. Plowden, has held that post; at what date will his tenure of office terminate; whether last year the relations between the Residency and the Nizam were strained; whether any of the recent orders relating thereto, presented by the Government of India, will be presented to Parliament; and whether a copy of the Resolution, recently presented by the Council of the Umras, appointed by the Nizam in Octo-
  1164
  ber, 1897, relating to the Report by the local Comptroller General on the finances of the Hyderabad States, will be shortly laid before Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The present Resident was appointed to his post in March, 1892, and, subject to the pleasure of the Governor-General, may continue to hold it until, under the rules, he retires from the service. In the interest of the public service I do not think it advisable to make any statement as to the relations between British Residents and the Native Princes with whom they have to deal, nor do I propose to present any papers on the affairs of Hyderabad.

  KENTISH VOLUNTEERS AT SHORNCLIFFE.
  MR. HARDY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State far War whether three battalions of Volunteers, namely, the 1st Cinque Ports Rifles and the 1st and 2nd East Kent Battalions, were recently encamped in brigade at Shorncliffe; whether any brigadier of either the regular or auxiliary farces was appointed to command these battalions; whether they were during the whole period of their training given any opportunities of being exercised in brigade or allowed to take any share in any garrison duties, or visited even by any member of the garrison staff; whether he is aware that these battalions, even in the recent very wet and stormy weather, though encamped on Government land, were strictly forbidden to dig any trenches round their tents; and whether, with a view to the efficiency of the Volunteer Force, he will take steps to prevent such treatment of Volunteers in future?
  MR. BRODRICK: The three Volunteer battalions referred to were encamped at Shorncliffe from the 27th May to the 4th June. They were encamped with the regular forces, and were under the temporary command of the senior officer present, owing to the death of Major-General Wood, who commanded at Shorncliffe. They could have been exercised in brigade at any time by the senior

  1165
  officer present; the General Officer commanding, however, reports that, for apparently sufficient reasons, they specially wished to be exercised in regimental rather than brigade work this year. The battalions were visited by the General Officer commanding the South Eastern District, who also inspected one of the battalions, by the officer commanding the 3rd Regimental District, who inspected them, by the officer commanding the troops at Shorncliffe, and by his Brigade Major. It is not the custom to allow trenches to be dug round tents except in very severe weather.

  ARMY ORDNANCE IN EGYPT.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the 12.5 quick-firing Maxim field guns supplied to the Egyptian Army have proved satisfactory; whether both the German and the French Field Artillery are extensively armed with quick-firing guns; and whether our Field Artillery has any such armament whatever?
  MR. BRODRICK: The 12½ pr. B.L. gun referred to is not a quick-firer. A report on the gun has been received from the Sirdar, but the trials, though they are believed to be satisfactory, have not been sufficient to establish its character. It is reported that the German and French Field Artillery are being armed with quick-firing guns, but there is no absolutely reliable information concerning their efficiency. No pains are being spared to supply our Field Artillery with a quick-firing gun.

  EXEMPTION OF THE NAVY FROM LIGHT DUES.
  SIR J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed that all the steamers and ships of Her Majesty's Navy, under the provisions of the Mercantile Marine Fund Bill, are to be entirely excused from light dues, and the whole of the costs and
  1166
  charges of the maintenance of lights and lighthouses to be thrown on the Mercantile Marine?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The position of Her Majesty's ships under the Bill will be exactly what it is at present—namely, that they will be exempt from payment. No additional burden in that respect is thrown on the Mercantile Marino by the Bill, which, on the other hand, confers relief from certain payments now chargeable.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the Bill not also impose certain other payments?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir; but even then the balance is largely in favour of the Mercantile Marine.

  THE LEISLIP NATIONAL SCHOOL-MISTRESS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the suit of O'Sullivan v. Hunt, tried before the Lord Chief Baron and a special jury at Dublin on the 20th ult., in which the plaintiff, who was head mistress of the Leislip National School for 28 years, got a verdict of £221 10s. for wrongful dismissal and slander against the Very Reverend Canon Hunt, P.P., manager of the said school; is he aware that Mrs. O'Sullivan was dismissed at a moment's notice without any justifiable complaint against her as a teacher, and thus deprived of her means of living and the opportunity of completing the three years' time qualification to entitle her to the maximum retiring pension; whether, in view of the very high certificates as a teacher which Mrs. O'Sullivan holds and all the circumstances of the case, he will see that the Board of National Education will allow her the full pension to which, but for this illegal dismissal, she would have become entitled in a few years; whether under the rules of the Board of National Education in Ireland managers have this power of dismissing teachers without any right of appeal; if so,

  1167
  whether he proposes to make any change in the system for the protection of teachers against the exercise of that power?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): My attention has been directed to a report of the proceedings in the case mentioned in the first paragraph. The teacher was dismissed by the local manager in pursuance of Rule 99 (b) of the Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education, which provides that the local manager is the person who is charged with the direct government of the school and the appointment and removal of teachers. The official agreement executed in this case gave the manager absolute power to determine the employment of the teacher at any time without previous notice to the teacher, but in every such case he was bound to pay to the teacher three months' salary. The manager was also empowered to determine the employment without previous notice for misconduct or other sufficient reason, in which case the teacher would not be entitled to any compensation. The Commissioners could not continue grants to the teacher after her discontinuance of school duty, and, considering her age, should she not find re-employment as a recognised National teacher, she could not claim the maximum pension. It is understood from a letter to the Press, signed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, though there is no official information on the subject, that Mrs. O'Sullivan will be reinstated in the position of teacher. The amount of the pension which she could now claim would be £20 12s. 8d. a year, whereas if she be reinstated as teacher, either at Leislip or other National school, she would be in a position to qualify for the maximum pension of £35 a year. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, I am informed that in 1895 the Commissioners deemed it desirable to afford managers and teachers who might desire it a means of appeal to a third party, so as to guard more effectively against the possibility of inconsiderate action on the part of teachers or managers, and accordingly new forms of agreement were introduced providing for the appointment of a referee, without
  1168
  whose consent in writing a teacher cannot be dismissed. I have no power to make any change such as suggested in the concluding paragraph.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that since this case was decided there have arisen several other cases of dismissal without right of appeal to any authority? Will he get Parliamentary power to protect teachers against the exercise of this arbitrary power?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the honourable Member means will I introduce a Bill on the subject, my reply is that I am not prepared to do that; any alteration of the rule should be initiated by the Commissioners themselves.

  MONTSERRAT RIOTS.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information concerning the recent riots in Montserrat; whether the rioters dangerously injured Commissioner Baynes and the Inspector of Police, and stoned the blue-jackets who were landed to check the disorder; whether some of the rioters were shot and some 40 arrests made; whether he has any information regarding the condition of the labourers in Antigua now crop is over, by reason of the dearth of provisions owing to the bad season and lack of means to leave the island; and whether he can now intimate the approximate date when the Government proposals for West Indian relief will be disclosed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The disturbance referred to arose out of the seizure of an illicit still and proceedings for the arrest of the distillers. The arrest was resisted by a crowd armed with stones and sticks, who severely injured the Commissioner, Mr. Baynes, and the Inspector-General of Police. Blue-jackets were landed the following day; they were not, according to the reports received, stoned; their arrival restored order. Four of the

  1169
  rioters were shot, none fatally as at present reported. About 76 persons accused of taking part in the riots have been sent to Antigua for trial. I have no recent information as to the condition of the labourers in Antigua, or of any dearth of provisions owing to a bad season. I am unable to say when I shall be in a position to make any further statement of proposed measures of relief.

  THE QUEEN v. HARRIGAN.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why, in the case of the Queen v. Thomas and Patrick Harrigan, at Askeaton Petty Sessions on 10th May, the charge in the summons was altered on the morning of hearing by District Inspector Webster from that of unlawful assault and wounding to that of common assault, and why the medical certificate was withheld from the magistrates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not yet completed my inquiries in reference to this matter, and will ask the honourable Member to repeat the Question to-morrow.

  WOUNDED OFFICERS IN THE SOUDAN CAMPAIGN.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether complaints have reached him that the medical arrangements for the reception of the wounded British officers at Cairo after the recent campaign were insufficient and unsatisfactory; that seven wounded officers were put into one small ward, and that the nursing staff was entirely inadequate; and whether the Government will order a searching inquiry to be made into this matter?
  MR. BRODRICK: The ward in the Citadel Hospital, Cairo, in which the seven wounded officers were placed is large and lofty, and the cubic space and superficial area ample. The nursing staff
  1170
  consisted of five female nurses and over sixty men of the Medical Staff Corps, all of whom are trained as nurses. Every attention is being paid to the men wounded in the recent action.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that there was only one female nurse told off to attend to the officers?
  MR. BRODRICK: I think my honourable and gallant Friend is in error. What happened was that the superintendent nurse desired to wait on the wounded officers herself, and for that reason the wounded officers got the idea that there was only one nurse able to attend upon them.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the Question?
  MR. BRODRICK: No inquiry is needed. The staff of nurses is ample. There is no suggestion at all of any inattention.

  RONTGEN RAYS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether no apparatus for the application of the Röntgen rays was carried with the field army during the recent operations in Egypt; whether there is every reason to believe that some lives of wounded officers and men might have been saved had these appliances been available; and whether in future the Government will take steps to prevent any question of economy in transport interfering with every precaution being taken to save valuable lives?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Röntgen ray apparatus, which is a very recent invention, is very difficult to adapt for field service, and was not carried with the field army in the recent operations. From the Returns, the medical authorities do not consider there was a single case in which life could have been saved by the use of the apparatus. Two sets are now in Egypt, and one more will be

  1171
  sent out shortly. Two have been adapted as far as possible for field service, and one is for use in the base hospital.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Seeing that 400 men were wounded by bullets, would not the apparatus have been most useful in locating the bullets?
  MR. BRODRICK: The senior medical officer has gone carefully into the cases, and has been unable to trace any single case in which the apparatus would have been specially useful, or in which it is clear that an operation would have been carried out more successfully by the use of the rays.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD STAFF.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that he stated at Lincoln on 7th January last that the staff of the Local Government Board, which then numbered 467 officers, was to be immediately increased to 572, whether these extra 105 officers have been appointed; and, if not, how many of them, and whether those appointed have been taken from other branches of the Civil Service; and whether any opportunity has been offered to experienced municipal and poor law officials to qualify for any of the extra 105 vacant posts; if not, whether there is any objection to such a course being adopted?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The arrangements referred to have already been made, with the exception of two appointments of professional officers. The additions to the clerical staff have consisted of persons assigned to the Department by the Civil Service Commissioners, in accordance with the regulations which govern the Civil Service, and they have been almost exclusively second division clerks or assistant clerks. Additions have also been made to the staff of clerks to auditors, who are appointed by the auditors themselves. There have been other appointments, some of which were temporary, of professional officers,
  1172
  such as engineering inspectors and auditors, and in connection with the appointments every effort has been made to secure the services of persons who have had the experience which qualified them for the position.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in order to overtake the arrears of work in his Department, 12 Second Division clerks have been appointed; and whether, in view of the fact that Sir Hugh Owen has intimated that it will take these clerks upwards of 12 months to clear off the arrears, and in view of the great importance of the matter to municipal and poor law authorities, he will undertake to provide additional and more competent officers, so as to lessen the period of delay?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I do not think that the question quite accurately represents the statement in the Report of the Committee. By means of the additional staff which has been assigned to the Board, in some of the Departments where the arrears had occurred the arrears have already been cleared off, and in the others great progress has been made, notwithstanding the continued increase in the work of the office.

  NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the amount expended in Naval Works during the five years from 1892 to 1897 in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am unable to say, as the accounts are not kept in such a form as to enable the distinction to be drawn.

  BOUNTIES IN BRITISH COLONIES.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any British colonies pay bounties on the export of agricultural

  1173
  produce; and, if so, what are the names of the colonies and what are the products on which bounties are paid; and whether Her Majesty's Government will invite a conference with the representatives of the bounty-paying colonies, with a view to putting an end to tins unfair competition with British and Irish agriculture?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I must refer the honourable Member to the Parliamentary Paper of 1896, C.7960, which gives full information up to that date. There appears to have been little subsequent legislation in the colonies affecting the subject. The matter is essentially one for the consideration of the colonial legislatures, and Her Majesty's Government see no sufficient reason to propose a conference on the subject.

  WORKING MEN'S TRAINS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he received a memorial on the 15th day of June, 1896, under the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, signed by 1,000 working men, chiefly engaged in the Post Office and the London markets, praying for an early service of workmen's trains on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway between Croydon and London Bridge and Victoria Stations; and whether the Board of Trade will exercise the powers conferred upon them by the Cheap Trains Act of 1883 to compel the railway company in question to provide the necessary service of workmen's trains?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade received the memorial referred to; it was transmitted by a Mr. Farrell, and the Board communicated from time to time with that gentleman upon it. In the course of the negotiations the memorial for a workmen's train was withdrawn, and a request for an ordinary train to arrive at London Bridge before 5 a.m. was substituted. The request was submitted to the company, who regretted that they were unable to comply with it, because
  1174
  it would involve the very serious additional expense of having to keep the station and intermediate stations open all night, and necessitate the employment of additional hands. I am always ready to use the powers of the Cheap Trains Act, and if the Board of Trade are supplied with evidence that the prayer of the memorial for a workmen's train is revived, and that the memorialists would be represented at an inquiry, I shall be glad to adopt that procedure in order that the Department may come to a fair conclusion on the merits of the case.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are no workmen's trains running between Bromley (Kent) and London; Bromley is only 10¾ miles from London, and the cheapest fare for workmen is 11s. per week; and whether he will communicate with the London, Chatham, and Dover and the South Eastern Railway Companies with a view to workmen's trains being run between Bromley and London?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I shall be happy to communicate with these Railway Companies, but before I do so the Board of Trade should be supplied with information indicating the times at which the workmen desire the trains to leave Bromley, and the number of men who are likely to avail themselves of the service.

  UCKFIELD PARISH CHURCH SCHOOL.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the managers of the Parish Church School at Uckfield, in East Sussex (a school which has been declared free under the Assisted Education Act of 1891), are now charging fees to children from the workhouse who are attending the above school and whether the Education Department has sanctioned the charging of fees for children attending from the workhouse; and, if so, whether the Department will consider their action in the matter, and

  1175
  allow these children to receive the same free education as is given to over four millions of day scholars in England and Wales?
  THE VICE - PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,): The answer to paragraph one is in the affirmative. These fees were sanctioned by the Education Department. The Department are not prepared to throw the burden of providing free education for workhouse children upon the parish in which the workhouse happens to be situated, as the guardians have power, and are under obligation, to provide education for the children under their care.

  THE UNITED STATES AND SPAIN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Julian Pauncefote asked President M'Kinley what terms of peace the United States would grant Spain; and, if so, whether by the instruction of the British Government or on his own initiative?
  MR. CURZON: The answer to the Question is in the negative.

  LEAD POISONING.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Horns Department whether his attention has been called to a prosecution at Dukinfield Police Court, on 26th May, in which a company was fined £3 for failing to provide a bath for workpeople, the Government Inspector stating that over a dozen cases of lead poisoning had occurred among their workpeople; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the penalty, and of other cases in which inadequate penalties have been inflicted for breaches of the Factory Acts, he will consider the advisability of addressing a circular letter on the subject to the magistrates?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention
  1176
  has been called to this case. The penalty appears certainly to be a small one, but in view of the strong remarks reported to have been made by the Chairman, I trust it may not prove inadequate to secure obedience to the rules. While I regret the inadequacy of the penalties sometimes inflicted in cases under the Factory Acts, I fear that I cannot properly issue such a circular as the honourable Member suggests. In individual cases I have sometimes thought it my duty to express my opinion somewhat decidedly.

  SCOTCH POOR-HOUSE COMBINATIONS.
  SIR R. REID: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, under the existing law, it is competent to dissolve a poor-house combination and sell the poor-house in cases where all or the majority of those concerned desire it; and if it is not possible under existing law, if he will consider the propriety of providing for such cases in the Bill now before the House?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Under the existing law there is no power to dissolve a poor-house combination, and even assuming the propriety of such dissolution, it seems to be outside the scope of the Bill in question, which deals with settlement and removal only.

  FACTORY INSPECTORS' REPORTS.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to lay upon the Table the Report of Miss Patterson and Miss Deane, referred to in his answer to a deputation on 19th May?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: It is contrary to all practice to publish departmental reports of this character. They must necessarily contain information and observations about individual firms of a confidential character, and their object would be frustrated if they were habitually made public.
  SIR C. DILKE: Would it not be possible to publish the general portions of the reports and extracts without giving the confidential parts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I shall be prepared to consider if that can be done, but I do not personally think it a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

  MANCHESTER POSTMEN'S GRIEVANCES.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the reason for refusing to pay Manchester postmen overtime worked on Sunday, 2nd January? And is he aware that the usual time worked and paid for on Sundays in the city is three hours, but that on this day several men worked three hours and fifty minutes; that in the district four hours are usually worked and paid for, but that on the particular day (2nd January) many men worked for half-hours and one and a-half hours longer, and were refused payment of the same; that in the south-west district six men not on duty in the ordinary course were sent for and directed to assist with the heavier walks; and that, although they have claimed for the overtime worked (viz., from two to three hours), they have been unable, up to the present, to get any pay whatever for the extra time worked?
  MR. HANBURY: Attendance by the Manchester postmen on Sundays is paid for, not according to the actual time occupied on any particular Sunday, but according to the average time occupied on Sundays. On Sunday, the 26th December, however, being the day after Christmas, exceptional payment was made in consideration of the heavy Christmas work, but it did not appear right to extend this privilege to Sunday, the 2nd January. Inquiry shall be made into the other details mentioned by the honourable Member. There is no information in London on the subject.

  RUSSIAN AGREEMENT WITH CHINA.
  MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russo-Chinese Agreement prohibits the entrance of British men-of-war into Port Arthur and Talienwan; if so, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to uphold British rights, expressly given under the Treaty of Tien-tsin, which are thus violated? And whether Her Majesty's Government will continue to send British men-of-war to Port Arthur as heretofore?
  MR. CURZON: We are not in possession of the text of the Russo-Chinese Agreement. But, according to the statement of Count Mouravieff, in the concluding dispatch of the recent China papers, Russia intends to maintain the rights of the sovereignty of China over Port Arthur and Talienwan, and to respect the Treaties existing between that Empire and other States. Count Mouravieff further stated that respect for the sovereign rights of China implied the scrupulous maintenance of the status quo existing before the lease of those ports; and that the facility of entry for foreign men-of-war and merchant ships, in certain cases provided for by the Treaties, even into the closed ports of China, would be assured to them by the new regulations. It follows from this, he went on to say, that Port Arthur will be open to English ships on the same conditions as it always has been. In these circumstances Her Majesty's Government have addressed an inquiry to the Russian Government as to the exact terms of the Agreement. British ships of war will continue to avail themselves of the Treaty rights of access to all ports in China whenever the interests of Her Majesty's Government may render it desirable.

  RAILWAY BETWEEN PEKIN AND HANKOW.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, after repeated applications made by British engineers and capitalists for permission to build a railway between Pekin and Hankow, a concession for the making of the railway

  1179
  was granted two years ago on condition that Chinese capital and native labour only should be employed in its construction; whether a concession has now been granted by the Chinese Government for the making of a railway between Pekin and Hankow under Russian supervision and with capital ostensibly provided by the Russo-Chinese Bank, which supplied the capital for the building of the Manchurian Railway; whether the Russo-Chinese Bank is the property of the Russian Government or a private enterprise; whether the construction of this railway will enable the Russian Government to carry troops to the valley of the Yang-tsze; and what steps the Government are taking, in view of these circumstances, for the protection of British trading interests in the valley of the Yang-tsze?
  MR. CURZON: The statements contained in the first paragraph of the honourable Member's Question are not borne out by the information in our possession. Though I believe that the Hankow-Pekin line has excited the interest of some British capitalists, I am not aware that any bonâ-fide British proposal has ever been submitted to the Chinese Government for its construction. The concession granted to the Belgian Syndicate in 1897 did not contain the condition referred to, but, on the contrary, provided for the employment of foreign as well as of Chinese capital and labour. The Chinese Government state that the syndicate will still carry out the original agreement, and that the control remains with the Chinese Director General of Railways. The Russo-Chinese Bank, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, is a private enterprise, but it is in close connection with the Russian Government. It will be a long time before the Pekin-Hankow line, if ever constructed, will reach the Yang-tsze Valley, and it is perhaps premature to answer the last two Questions of the honourable Member. But I may point out to him that the sending of Russian troops into the Yang-tszo Valley by a railway or otherwise, unless with the assent of China, would be an act of war. In such an event Her Majesty's Government would take the requisite steps for the protection of British interests.

  THE RIOTS IN BELFAST.
  GENERAL H. MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the probability of serious riots occurring in Belfast, why steps were not taken to stop the procession on last Monday to Hannahstown, where inflammatory speeches were delivered which were calculated to cause breaches of the peace?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Before the right honourable Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him whether the Lord Mayor of Belfast wrote to the authorities at Dublin Castle strongly advising the proclamation of the intended procession, on the ground that a procession organised to commemorate the incidents of one cruel and disastrous rebellion, and to promote the early outbreak of another, was certain to prove provocative in a city in which the vast majority of the inhabitants have no sympathy with rebellion past or prospective; whether it is not in the power of the executive to proclaim any meeting or procession which they have adequate reason to believe will lead to a breach of the peace; and, if so, why the request, of the Lord Mayor of Belfast was not complied with?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Lord Mayor of Belfast and the justices of that city had all the circumstances connected with the procession to Hannahstown which took place on Monday, the 6th inst., before them for some weeks past. They were informed on the 20th May that they could take, and were under obligations to take, all such steps as they deemed necessary for the preservation of the public peace of the city, and that if prohibiting proclamations of any kind were deemed necessary they should be based on sworn information. They were further informed on the 23rd ultimo that in carrying out measures for the preservation of the public peace they would receive, as in fact they did receive, the fullest support and assistance from the Irish Government. They did not prohibit the procession, but prescribed the route which it should take. For the Government to have superseded the magistrates in Belfast, as apparently suggested in the Question, would have been contrary to all precedent. In reply to the

  1181
  honourable Member for West Belfast, I have to say it is, of course, in the power of the Executive to proclaim any meeting or procession which they may have reason to believe will lead to a breach of the peace; but, as I have already stated, if they had done so in this instance they would have departed from precedent and superseded the local magistrates. I think the honourable Member is confusing two things. A meeting may be prohibited because its object is illegal, or it may be prohibited on the ground that if it takes place it may lead to a breach of the peace. The Government are not of opinion that this was a procession which could be prohibited because its object was illegal, and to have prohibited it on the ground that it was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace would, without any question whatever, have been to supersede the magistrates of Belfast in the exercise of their powers.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many men of the Royal Irish Constabulary were injured in the rioting in Belfast on Monday night; whether any extra police had been drafted into the city for Monday last; whether any application was made by the city magistrates, or by the city inspector, for extra police; whether any inquiries were made by the authorities in Dublin as to the sufficiency of the police arrangements to cope with any disturbances which might arise; whether he will lay before the House any communications which passed between the authorities in Dublin and those responsible for the preservation of the peace in Belfast on this subject; whether there were 300 police outside the city boundary within three miles of the rioting; whether they were moved to support the police on the Shankhill Road; and, if not, why not; and whether, at the height of the rioting, the police were withdrawn from the Shank-hill Road; and, if so, at whoso request this was done?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: One hundred and three men of the Royal Irish Constabulary were injured in the riots at Belfast on Monday night last. Of these, two are still in a critical condition, and nine are suffering from
  1182
  serious injuries; the remainder were slightly injured. Of the total number rendered non-effective after the riots 53 have resumed duty. No extra police were drafted into the city on Monday last. No application was made by the city magistrates or Commissioner of Police for extra police. Communications passed between the authorities in Dublin and the authorities in Belfast on the subject of the arrangements for the preservation of the peace. Inquiries were made as to the sufficiency of the police arrangements, and all assistance that might be desired was offered to the local magistrates. The general effect of these communications has been stated by me in answer to the Question of my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for North Antrim. Actual communications are confidential documents, and, as at present advised, I see no sufficient reason for laying them on the Table of the House. There were 300 police detailed to preserve the peace during the progress of the procession from the borough boundary to Hannahstown, and its return from Hannahstown to the borough boundary. When the duty upon which these men had been engaged was discharged, they returned to their stations, with the exception of a small detachment. They had left the neighbourhood of Hannahstown and Belfast before the rioting had commenced on the Shankhill Road. They were not available to move to the Shankhill Road even if such a course had been considered desirable. The Commissioner of Police reports that he declined to withdraw the police from the Shankhill Road, although requested to do so by the Rev. Mr. Garston, rector in the locality. It would, however, appear that the men on duty on the road were compelled to retire temporarily by an overwhelming mob of rioters, but, subsequently, on being reinforced, and on the arrival of the military, they resumed duty on the road.
  MR. DILLON: Does the right honourable Gentleman know where the police were when the rioting commenced? I refer to paragraph 6 of my Question.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say.

  DANGEROUS FLASH OIL.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that since the 17th of May last there have been no less than three deaths in the metropolis and numerous fires caused by the use of dangerous low flash petroleum oil; and whether the Government intend to deal with the question and introduce a Bill at the earliest possible moment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have no information on this point. The Government can, of course, make no promises in regard to legislation until the Select Committee has presented its Report.

  CASE OF JOSEPH WILSON.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Joseph Wilson, aged 18, of Failsworth, who, on the 23rd of February last, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, and committed to the Strangeways Prison at Salford; is he aware that Wilson complained that he was ill and unable to do the work, and for same was reported to the Governor, and that on the medical officer examining him and stating that he was shamming he was sentenced to three days' confinement in the dark cells with a diet of bread and water; that on the 24th of March he was removed to the hospital suffering from enteric fever contracted in the prison, from which he subsequently died; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have not received information on this matter yet, and I must ask the honourable Member to repeat the Question next week.

  FOREIGN TROOPS IN CRETE.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a telegram from Odessa recently pub-
  1184
  lished, stating that in the course of this fortnight over 1,000 Russian soldiers are embarking at that port for Crete, and whether the Government have any information on the matter; and if he can state the number of man belonging to this country and to each of the European Powers at present in garrison in Crete?
  MR. CURZON: From information which has reached Her Majesty's Government it appears that a certain number of Russian soldiers are being sent to Crete to replace others who are about to be withdrawn from the island. The number of troops of each of the European Powers at present in Crete is believed to be as follows:—British, 693; French, 1,400; Italian, 1,412; Russian, 1,620.

  FOREIGNERS IN THE BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE.
  SIR T. RICHARDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in consequence of the number of British ships sold to foreigners and the numerous British ships sailing under foreign flags, and the employment of foreign officers and seamen on ships owned by British subjects, great numbers of master mariners, officers, and seamen have been thrown out of employment; whether he is aware that great distress exists amongst such persons in seaport towns; whether the Government is prepared, with a view to alleviate such distress, to give facilities for the discussion of the Merchant Shipping Act (1894) Amendment Bill; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to same?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am not aware that any exceptional distress or want of employment exists at the present moment among the officers and men of our Mercantile Marine, though the increasing number of foreigners employed in the merchant ships does, of course tend to restrict their opportunities of employment. I am not prepared to adopt the proposal contained in the Bill to which the honourable Member refers which would mean a reversion to the policy of the Navigation Laws.

  POSTMEN'S WAGES AT MOTHERWELL.
  MR. COLVILLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why at the post office, Motherwell, which serves a population of nearly 30,000, in a district where the rents of houses and cost of living (owing to the very rapid growth if the town) are quite exceptionally high, the postmen are paid on the lowest scale of wages, not exceeding 22s. per week, while in the neighbouring towns of Hamilton and Coat bridge the scale rises to 24s. per week?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of raising the scale of pay for the postmen at Motherwell is already under consideration.

  TOURMALINE.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of States for War whether Major A. Gybbon Spilsbury had applied for and obtained from the War Office full and particular leave to travel in the Sus country at the time of the affair of the Tourmaline?
  MR. BRODRICK: Mr. Gybbon Spilsbury had leave to travel in Morocco.

  MAINTENANCE OF RESERVISTS' WIVES.
  MR. SEELY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office proposes to give any allowance to the wives of men who may be called out under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Bill now before the House?
  MR. BRODRICK: Any married reservist called out under the Bill would have separation allowance for his wife and family, like any other soldier of the regular forces so separated from his family.

  FRENCH RAILWAY CONCESSION IN CHINA.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has further conceded to France a railway line connecting the Chinese Treaty port of Pak-hoi, in the province of Kwangtung, with the valley of the West River at Nanning-fu, thus completing the system of trade routes from Tong-king and the neighbouring regions into Southern China framed by the French Government; if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will insist upon the opening of the West River and its tributaries to their navigable limits, also the making of Nanning a Treaty port in order to safeguard British trade interests in Southern China; whether Her Majesty's Government have secured railway concessions enabling the laying down of a railway to connect British Burma with the Upper Yang-tsze; and whether the correspondence with the Chinese and French Governments in regard to British interests in Southern China will be presented to the House?
  MR. CURZON: I understand that a concession for a railway from Pak-hoi to Nanning has been granted to the French. I cannot make any statement at present as to the measures which are in course of adoption in Southern China by Her Majesty's Government. The railway to the Burmese frontier is being pushed on, but the question of the direction which its extension should take on reaching the Chinese border is a very difficult one, and until this has been decided it is clearly impossible to apply for any concession from the Chinese Government. There has been no correspondence with the French Government on the subject. The correspondence with the Chinese Government is still proceeding, and cannot be given at present.

  CORDON AT CANDIA.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will he state when and where the Christian leaders of Crete agreed to the recent extension of

  1187
  the cordon outside Candia which originated with and was acquiesced in by Sir Herbert Chermside; whether the Christian leaders sent a formal protest to the Consuls and Admirals against such advance, and especially against the occupation of Juktaki, a spur of Mount Juktas; and whether Juktaki dominates Kani Kasteli?
  MR. CURZON: The meeting at which the arrangements for the extension of the cordon were explained fully and in detail to the Christian chiefs took place at Archanes on April 21st. There were present on the one side Sir Herbert Chermside, Sir Alfred Biliotti, and the senior British naval officer, Captain Marrack; on the other side the Christian chiefs of Temenos, Malevizi, and Pediada. Sir Herbert Chermside left with them a Greek map of the proposed arrangements. Nineteen days later the chiefs protested against the planting of Turkish troops. I have seen a copy of the protest, but I cannot find in it any reference to the occupation of Juktaki. In a dispatch dated May 26th Sir Herbert Chermside reported that the heights of Juktaki have not been occupied by Turkish troops; and that the nearest posts to Juktaki is a British one at Zagaraki, between it and Kani Kasteli.

  DANGEROUS INDUSTRIES.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it is in the power of a Secretary of State to make rules prohibiting the employment of any class of persons in a process certified by him to be dangerous or injurious to health, under section 8 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1891, as amended lay section 28 of the Act of 1895?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: The Secretary of State has no power to make rules as suggested by the Question of the honourable Member. Rules can be proposed by the Secretary of State or chief inspector, as the case may be, but they can only be established either by consent of the occupier of each factory or by arbitration.

  LONDON MUNICIPALITIES BILL.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state whether the London Municipalities Bill will be introduced in the course of the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I cannot give an answer.
  MR. DALZIEL: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when he will be able to make the statement?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: At a very early date.
  MR. DALZIEL: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the great inconvenience which Members of this House suffer in consequence of the proofs of Questions put by them to Members of the Government not containing the answers given to such Questions; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to instructions being given to the Editor of the "Debates" to supply the answers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe some occasional defects have occurred, and that my honourable Friend has been a victim; but the system, I am told, is now in smooth working, and I hope such mistakes will not again occur.

  IRISH CROWN SOLICITORS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what number of Sessional Crown Solicitors and Crown Solicitors have been abolished in Ireland since 1866, and what sum of money the Treasury have saved thereby; and what is the present yearly

  1189
  saving by the abolition of the Sessional Crown Solicitors and the amalgamation of counties and appointment of one solicitor as Crown Solicitor for several counties?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With the permission of my right honourable Friend I will reply to this Question. The number of Crown Solicitors in 1866 was 16, and of Sessional Crown Solicitors 33. The number of Crown Solicitors now is 30, and of Sessional Crown Solicitors 17. There has, consequently, been a reduction of two in the total number of Crown and Sessional Crown Solicitors. The Estimates for both services for the current year, as compared with the year 1866–7, show a saving of £5,156, though this amount does not include the savings effected by the abolition since the year 1883 of payments for special duty which could not be given at present with any approach to accuracy.

  PEMBROKE TOWNSHIP COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Pembroke Commissioners gave any satisfactory explanation to the Local Government Board in the year 1882, or since, as to the serious defalcations which had occurred in the township accounts; whether, at the same time, there was a deficiency of £8,000 in addition to the defalcations; whether he is aware that the Board recently refused by the casting vote of the chairman to inquire into and report upon this matter; and whether a sworn inquiry will be instituted, so that a correct statement of township affairs may be given to the incoming district urban council?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A warrant was issued in 1883 against the absconding Secretary to the Pembroke Commissioners, who proved against his estate for £800, of which a sum of £605 has been realised. The Local Government auditor certified the amount due by the absconding bankrupt to be £1,159, and the Com-
  1190
  missioners recently instructed their solicitors to amend their claims to this amount. Owing to a low rate struck in 1882 liabilities exceeded assets in that year by about £8,000. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative. No further inquiry such as suggested in the last paragraph of the Question is called for or necessary.

  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACT.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the necessity of introducing and passing the extension of the Day Industrial Schools Act to Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am quite prepared to look into the matter referred to in this Question, but it is not one to which I can at present give a reply.

  ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE SCHOOL.
  MR. MENDL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the teacher of an elementary school at Ashton-under-Lyne recently attempted, by means of pressure and persuasion, to deprive the parents of children attending the school of the rights conferred on them by Memorandum 3 of the Education Department, 1893; and whether he will direct inquiries to be made into the facts of the case, with the view of enforcing the law?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have received no information on the subject, but I will have inquiries made.

  INSTRUCTION IN INFANTS' SCHOOLS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether infants' schools, where the majority of

  1191
  the children are from three to six years old, come within the meaning of paragraph 5 (g) of the instructions to inspectors; whether the term "plan of work" means the division of the subjects taught into parts, each part to be allotted to a defined period of time; and, if infants' schools are comprised within the meaning of the said paragraph, does the part referring to periodical examinations apply to such schools?
  SIR J. GORST: Paragraph 5 (g) of the instructions was not intended to apply to infants' schools. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question, is in the affirmative.

  THE BENEFICES BILL.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: Can the First Lord of the Treasury give the House any indication as to when the Benefices Bill is likely to be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope, Sir, on an early day.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  THE BELFAST RIOTS.—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. DILLONrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the rioting which has taken place in the streets of Belfast on Monday and Tuesday last, and the inadequacy of the arrangements made by the city authorities and by the Executive Government for preserving the peace and protecting property;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified,
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places. Not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen—
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. DILLON: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is felt in all parts of the House that we could not rest satisfied with the information that has been given us by the Chief Secretary in reply to questions which have been asked. We have already heard from the Chief Secretary that 103 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were injured on Monday night on the Shankhill Road, and that on Tuesday night other policemen were seriously injured. I do not intend to enter into controversy on the merits of party processions in Ulster, for whether such are organised to celebrate the battle of Antrim or the battle of the Boyne they have nothing to do with the present question. The procession to which reference has been made in questions to-night was one organised by the Nationalists of Belfast to celebrate the battle of Antrim, on June 6th, 1798, and the magistrates of Belfast, having all the circumstances before them two or three weeks before June 6th, laid down for the procession a certain route, which the Nationalist Committee promptly accepted. After they had made that arrangement, and about four days before the date of the procession, the magistrates, in consequence, we are informed, of threats which had been made in the interval, hurriedly assembled, and, being informed by the City Commissioner of Police, Mr. Moriarty, that he could not be answerable for the preservation of peace if the procession followed the route laid down, altered the arrangement, confining the procession entirely to the Catholic quarter of the city. In the interests of peace, the Nationalist Committee, although they were of opinion that they had not been treated fairly, and that the magistrates were acting exceedingly unwisely, consented even at the last moment to accept the new arrangements. The Nationalists protested against the change as a concession to a spirit of intolerance, and as being very likely to defeat the very object the magistrates had in view, and the events which have taken place since have fully justified the opinion which had been formed by the

  1193
  Nationalist Committee. The first point I want to direct the attention of the Government to is that for a fortnight or three weeks the magistrates were aware that threats were being made by the firebrands of the Orange party that disturbances would be caused if the Nationalist procession were allowed to go through any part of Belfast. They decided—and most properly decided—that the procession should be allowed to proceed. The magistrates recognised that if they prohibited the Nationalist procession they would be bound, in common justice, to prohibit the 12th of July procession. I presume that there are only two alternative policies possible for any Government, or any body of men responsible for law and order in Ulster—namely, to prohibit all party processions, or to allow processions on both sides, and to let everyone whom it may concern, be he Nationalist or Orangeman, know that the processions must be allowed to take place, and must not be made an occasion for a breach of the peace. The policy of prohibiting processions has been advocated, and has been tried, but after being tried has been deliberately abandoned by the Government of Ireland, and abandoned mainly in consequence of the persistent protests of the Orange Party. I heartily sympathise with the Orangemen in their protest, and I think the policy now adopted by the Government is the correct policy—the policy, that is, of allowing each side to have their demonstrations, and of insisting, in theory, at any rate, that the pence must be preserved. What was the action of the magistrates of Belfast with all this knowledge before them? Remember that on the very eye of the procession—four days before the procession took place—the City Commissioner of Police attended the meeting of the magistrates, and told them he would not answer for the peace of the city if the route laid down by the magistrates themselves were followed by the procession. In spite of that fact, and in spite of their long experience of the character of the Belfast mob, they did not apply for a single extra policeman to help in the preservation of the peace of the city. If I rightly interpret the answer of the Chief Secretary, there was, at the very
  1194
  outset of these proceedings, sent through the city of Belfast full notice to the mob that the magistrates had given way before them, and had altered, under threats of violence, the arrangements which they had come to for the carrying out of tins procession, because the Commissioner or Police had told the magistrates Hint he would not be answerable for the peace of the city. Sir, I say that policy is a fatal policy, and that it is directly responsible for all that has occurred since. I now come to the incidents of the procession. I was myself with the procession from the moment it started from Smithfield Market for the place of meeting until its return, and I drove among the processionists in the town after all the banners had passed, so that I am in a. position, almost from personal observation in every case, to state what occurred as regards the procession. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not moving the adjournment of the House to make any complaint of the lack of protection given to the processionists. They were able to protect themselves, but it was the duty of the Government to keep all attack from that procession. As a matter of fact only at two points—namely, at Dover Street and Broadway—was there, the slightest attack made on the processionists by the Shankhill Road men, and those were of a trifling character. The crowd who attacked the procession at Broadway were instantly driven buck by the processionists, who only fired a few stones and then took flight. In Dover Street, where the crowd of Shankhill men numbered about 300, there were only four constables holding that thoroughfare, and if the Shankhill men had closed with the procession a most bloody riot would have taken place. As it was they were instantly driven back. These were the only two instances in which the procession was interfered with. Nobody was hurt, except one unfortunate policeman in Dover Street. The Nationalist procession then went into the country, and held their meeting, and then returned to Belfast. On the return there was not the smallest attempt at disturbance, so far as I could observe. Let me call the attention of the House to this fact—that throughout that day, when a multitude

  1195
  of people passed through, the streets of Belfast, no Protestant was hurt, no stone was thrown, no offensive word was said, and there was no attempt at disorder; but at six o'clock, on the Shankhill Road, when the Nationalist procession was over, and the Nationalists had gone home peaceably and quietly and wisely, the warriors of Shankhill, who had been afraid to attack the police when the Nationalists were parading down the Falls Road, took the field in all their loyalty, not against the Nationalists, but against the Queen's police, in order to prove, on their unfortunate bodies, their unquestioned loyalty to the Throne. A more monstrous, despicable, and unheard-of proceeding could not be found even in the annals of Belfast. I am most anxious to remove the impression which has to some extent gone abroad that our complaint is of any attack made on our procession. Nothing of the sort. The processionists went home peaceably, and not one of them was hurt. I venture to say that if you search the police books, and the books at the hospitals, where, perhaps, 300 or 400 persons had their injuries dressed, you would find that they were all Shankhill Road men and the police. I have hero a short account of the proceedings on that extraordinary night. I have taken this account from the Belfast News letter, the organ of the Orange Party, which is owned by the Lord Mayor of Belfast. I do so because I know that in order to impress this House I must, to a large extent, quote from the organs of the Conservative Party. Referring to the procession, the Belfast Newsletter says:—
  "The return journey to Belfast was practically without incident. The rain poured incessantly, but, although the processionists were, in colloquial phrase, 'wet through,' they were nevertheless cheerful, and one could not help admiring their indomitable enthusiasm. When passing along Falls Road, near the Giant's Foot, somebody hurled a huge stone over the wall. The missile passed immediately over the heads of a party seated in a car, and fell between the vehicle and the processionists. Later in the journey, five revolver shots were heard, but these appear to have been discharged, as in the Wild West, with the object of expresssing exuberance of spirits. Smith-field was reached at 6.20, and about half an hour later the processionists, who had met with a cordial reception on their way thither, dispersed."
  1196
  That is the end of the procession, and then comes the next stage. They go on to describe the proceedings at Shankhill Road—
  "The procession had not long passed down the Falls Road to the rendezvous at Smith-field before the police were actively engaged in another quarter."
  Mark you, not the quarter connected with the procession, but another quarter altogether.
  "As we have stated elsewhere, the return journey was without any marked display of hostility; but if the advance guard of the main body of the processionists passed without any concerted attack being made upon them, an effort was made to prevent the tail end from escaping so easily; and it appears that one or two determined rushes were made down Percy and Dover Streets by numbers of young men and boys. The admirable arrangements made by the police, in view of such contingencies, were ample to protect those taking part in the demonstration, but the inevitable result of these attempts was that the police came in for very rough handling."
  Now, those rushes must have been of a very insignificant character, because I happened to be in the tail end of the procession myself, and I saw no scene of any kind of that description. Then they go on to describe what took place in the Shankhill Road—
  "It was not long before the whole district was aware that serious fighting was proceeding; and crowds gathered with that celerity that one would expect under the circumstances, their numbers being increased every moment. There was no scarcity of missiles in any of the side streets, and when the conflict had assumed really serious proportions brisk fusillades of paving-stones were soon directed against every policeman in sight. Whilst the stone-throwers were incensed at the opposition shown by the police in the streets adjoining the processional route and manifested no hesitation in attacking them, it would appear that the animosity of the mob had been excited at an earlier hour in the day, when, at about four o'clock, three policemen were compelled to seek safety in Brown Square Barrack. After reporting the conduct of the mob, they obtained reinforcements, and went out again. The rioters were doubly indignant at this increase of the force, and a more vigorous attack was made upon them."
  The Newsletter then goes on—
  "It is stated that there had been some ill-feeling against the constabulary in this neighbourhood of late, owing to their action in dispersing the small crowds that usually accompany the bands which occasionally parade in

  1197
  the evenings, and expression was given to this dislike by stoning the police out of the streets.'
  That is the expression of the Newsletter. It was not because they had been attacked, but because they disliked the action of the police on former occasions, and they gave expression to their dislike by stoning them out of the streets. They then go on to say—
  "When the police had retreated from Dover Street"—the police had retreated from Dover Street several times—" a few mounted men were drawn up at the corner of Carlow Street, which is about 50 yards further up the road."
  Now listen to this, and, mark you, up to this particular incident the police had made no attack whatever; they had merely been standing on guard.
  "Here a most vicious and determined attack was made upon them, and, being outnumbered 20 to 1, they had absolutely no chance in the midst of the thick hail of stones which was poured upon them from three or four quarters at once. During the mêlèe a mounted policeman named Torrens was struck a severe blow on the head with a stone and unhorsed, and the animal which he had been riding was also struck several times. When the man fell, a postman ran over to him, and picked him up endeavouring at the same time to secure the man's helmet and baton. This was the signal for a most cowardly and renewed attack upon the injured man, who was insensible. The postman carried Torrens on his back for some little distance, also carrying his baton, when some onlookers ran forward and endeavoured to wrench it out of his hand. One man struck the postman twice in the mouth, whilst others endeavoured to kick the policeman. Eventually the latter was carried into the house of a Mrs. Bruce, who was also assaulted for affording him shelter. Head-constable Hussey was present at the time, and he, too, was struck two severe blows with stones. He stood by his comrade, however, and kept the crowd at bay with his revolver, while the ambulance was summoned, and afterwards superintended the removal of the injured man to the Royal Hospital. Our representative saw the postman who so courageously interfered on Torrens' behalf, but he, for obvious reasons, did not wish his name to be published."
  That is what they consider, presumably, a reasonable state of affairs in Belfast, and a man who had the audacity to pick up and carry off a wounded officer of the police does not, for obvious reasons, wish his name to be mentioned.
  "His narrative of the occurrence is practically identical with that furnished by the police. He stated that Torrens was struck
  1198
  with his own baton after he fell, and that Mrs. Bruce had several teeth knocked out when giving the injured constable shelter in her house."
  Now, this was all done, not for the purpose of driving a rebellious procession off the streets, because that had been allowed to proceed; but when this mob had intimidated the magistrates of Belfast, and when they found that they could outnumber the police by 20 to 1 in the Shankhill Road, they proved their undying loyalty to the Queen by pummelling Her Majesty's police in this most brutal manner which I have described. Now, I come to the extraordinary incident as to which I put a question to the Chief Secretary. When the riot was at its height, after the ambulances proved insufficient to carry off the injured, and numbers of cars had been pressed into service for that purpose, the Rev. Mr Gas informed the magistrates and the Police Commissioner that the gentlemen of Shankhill Road would keep the peace if the police were withdrawn, and that was done.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OP IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No, the Police Commissioner refused to withdraw them.
  MR. DILLON: As the Chief Secretary says, the Police Commissioner refused to withdraw the police; but they were withdrawn, nevertheless, because, although the Commissioner refused to withdraw them, they were compelled to withdraw. They were driven out of the field. Now let me come to a point which appears to me to be of exceedingly great importance. For two or three weeks before the Belfast authorities were aware of what was going to take place, and they knew that the dangerous time was not in the day. They knew the danger would be when the men came out of the ironworks in full force, and when all the elements of disorder were let loose; but in the face of all that they neglected to take measures to keep the peace. I venture to say that 20 police would have been able to keep the peace so far as the procession was concerned. The procession was not attacked. We had 15,000 men there, and out of those we had

  1199
  10,000 of as good lighting men as ever I have laid eyes on. The idea of the crowd coming out to oppose us when we were on the hill is the height of absurdity. The police came in amongst us, and we were very glad to see them; but they were not necessary. It was quite unnecessary for them to be there at all. But when we came back at live o'clock into the city, when the dangerous time was approaching, when the iron men were leaving their work, I passed masses of police and their officers, turning from the city and going back into the country. That was about an hour before this riot took place. Now, those men could not have been very far distant when the riot became severe; it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have got them back again; but the right honourable Gentleman says that they were not available. They were not available because the gentlemen of Shankhill Road had given notice to the magistracy, and informed them that if any extra police were brought into the city they would be assassinated. The fact is, the city inspectors and the magistrates were intimidated from bringing in any extra police lest they should be assassinated in the streets. Now I want to know, and I think this House is entitled to an explanation, why a manifestly insufficient force was exposed to the various mobs for hours, when a sufficient force to restore order was within easy reach at that very moment. I have only this to add—this was on Monday night. On that night, the rowdies, having wreaked their vengeance upon the police, attacked two Catholic public-houses, breaking open the windows and the doors. Having got into the houses, they tapped the whisky barrels, and when some of them who were captured in the houses were brought to the police offices they were found to be not only drunk with stolen whisky but to have their pockets stuffed full of money taken from the tills. Now, one would have supposed that the proceedings of Monday night would have been sufficient to have given warning to the authorities as to what might occur on the Tuesday. Before I pass from the Monday let me just quote a short notice from the Northern Whig, a journal hostile to our cause—
  "No words could be too strong to condemn the conduct of the roughs and rowdies, who by
  1200
  their repeated and determined attacks upon the police yesterday evening made the scene on Shankhill Road painfully reminiscent of the evil times of the last great riots. There is surely no excuse whatever for these fellows, who, because they were prevented from attacking those engaged in celebrating an incident of rebellion, turned themselves to assail the representatives of law and government."
  Now let me turn for a moment to what occurred on Tuesday night, because what occurred upon that night was worse still. On Monday night the Shankhill Road was given up for four hours to a revengeful mob. Now, one would have supposed that, such a thing having happened on the one night, on the subsequent night the authorities would have taken ample precautions to secure the city from a recurrence of such proceedings; but what happened on Tuesday? On the Tuesday night the Island men came home, as they usually do in times like these, in a procession, and this is the description given in the Freeman's Journal, which gives the fullest and best report of the matter that I have seen—
  "The workers came up first in a loose stream and then in a compact phalanx over 2,000 strong. In Carrick Hill and Millfield about 400 or 500 Nationalists were assembled. The demeanour of the Island rowdies was defiant, and they halted at Carrick Hill, crying party expressions and waving caps. A green flag was displayed in the Nationalist quarter, and instantaneously the two parties came into conflict. A terrific fusillade of stones and other missiles were exchanged. Numbers of Loyalists flung iron bars over a foot long, and formidable nuts and rivets. Only four or five police were present, and on ail sides complete amazement was expressed at the want of foresight shown by the authorities. The handful of constables were utterly powerless, and for nearly 20 minutes a regular pitched battle fiercer than any seen in Belfast for years raged with unceasing fury. The Island heroes assailed a woman standing at the comer of Boyd Street, and stoned her until she fell. An old man was mercilessly assailed. Many of the workers sustained most serious injuries. They were assailed with a hurricane of stones from Carrick Hill and Millfield at once, and were nonplussed under the flank attacks. Several times they were driven right up into the Shankhill locality, but returned to the charge only to be furiously repulsed by their opponents, whom they far outnumbered, but who stood in a commanding position. Nearly every house in Boyd Street is damaged; Messrs. McGlades' fine public-house was practically wrecked; the windows in Mr. Connolly's, on the other side of the street, were demolished. Marvellous to relate. Brown Square Barracks is stationed only five hundred yards away from the scene of this formidable street battle, and it is alleged that a force of

  1201
  policemen, ranging from one to two hundred, were stationed there at the time of the encounter."
  That is the description of the state of things which prevailed on Tuesday day night. On Wednesday morning the Lord Mayor issued a proclamation, an appeal to the citizens, which is a very remarkable and important document, because the Lord Mayor directs his observations directly to the inhabitants of the Shankhill Road. There is not a single word in the proclamation to indicate that he blames the Nationalists in anyway, from beginning to end, for being the cause of those disturbances. On the contrary, the proclamation is addressed "to the peaceable inhabitants of the Shankhill Road and district," and he says—
  "I appeal to the men of Queen's Island, when returning home from work, to go in the ordinary milliner, and not in large bodies, as the latter way is calculated to lend to disturbance. Ample protection will be afforded to the men who, by complying with this request, will maintain their own reputation and the credit of the city."
  Now mask what follows—
  "The Queen's Island men came home from their work in practically a solid body."
  And that is the respect they pay to the appeal of the, Lord Mayor. What does it all amount to? It is idle for anyone to say that the blame for this disturbance should be laid upon the shoulders of the Nationalists. If you give liberty to the people of Ulster to form processions you must give it to both sides. When you allow these processions to take place you are also responsible not only to protect the demonstration, but to prevent any person breaking the peace, and to show a man, whether he be a Nationalist or an Orangeman, that if he attempts to break the peace, or attack those who are civilly walking down the streets under the regulations given out by the magistrates, or wantonly at any time breaks the peace, he should suffer for it. I have made no complaint in regard to this matter, and I do not make any, because no attack was made on the Nationalist procession. It passed through the city without the men uttering a word of offence or saying anything to anybody, and without in any way breaking the law. What we complain
  1202
  of is this—that the Nationalists of Belfast, having set an example of which we are entitled to be proud, of respect for the law and strict observance of the rights of others, are now to be subjected to nightly outrage and robbery, and plundering and wrecking of houses, which now prevail in Belfast, and which is more like living in a state of primæval chaos than in a civilised community. I do not think anybody can object to my bringing these facts before the House. I justify my action upon this ground—I think those who are the principal citizens of Belfast are entitled to the protection of the law, and I say that the Nationalists of Belfast have not got the protection of the law, and consequently, when a collision takes place, there is bound to be the most bitter feeling engendered. On the night of Tuesday they were obliged to protect their homes to prevent them being broken into and sacked by the Orange crowd, and the Government placed four constables in that district to protect them from the crowd of Island men returning from their work. That is no way for men to have to live in a civilised country. It is monstrous that the Nationalists of Belfast should had their houses smashed and robbed and the tills of their shops rifled unless they can protect themselves. They are entitled to the protection of the law, and they ought to have it. On Wednesday night, when the Island men came home again in a large procession, they found a large force of men drawn up across the road. Why was not that force of men there before when the Nationalists were attacked? If they had been there this riot would not have taken place. But they allowed this bloody and ferocious riot to remain unchecked and uninterfered with—not without warning—for fully half an hour. In addition to that six Catholic houses had been sacked, all the liquors in the grog shops had been stolen and drunk, scenes of unparalleled debauchery and drunkenness occurred in the streets, and men who were afterwards captured while drunk with the stolen liquor were found to have their pockets stuffed full of the money which they had taken front the tills. The Nationalists have shown that they can, upon occasion, defend their rights with their own arms, but it is not the way in which they should live under the law. They

  1203
  should be assured of protection for their lives, limbs, and pockets. I do not think the magistrates have done their duty, and what I ask now is that the Government shall make some declaration as to their determination to see, at whatever cost, that the peace shall be maintained in the future in Belfast, and that such occurrences as these will not be allowed to recur. Now, I turn to the telegram of to-day, which says—
  "No renewal of the rioting took place up till 11 o'clock—a circumstance due entirely to the fact that the disturbed districts were under the control of the military. The cavalry have patrolled the main thoroughfares and the infantry have been standing in the side streets. Large crowds collected, but no serious attempt has been made to disturb the peace. The military will be withdrawn after midnight."
  It also says—
  "Excitement still runs very high, and attacks upon the police will no doubt be made whenever opportunity offers."
  Is that a condition in which to live in the city? Are they now to submit to the intolerable insolence of this Shankhill mob, who say they will not keep the peace? They must have soldiers to keep the peace. They like the soldiers, and fraternise with them; but the moment a policeman's head is seen it is fractured with a stone. What I demand in regard to Belfast is that some assurance shall be given by the Legislature that if the city authorities neglect their duty the Executive will insist, at all events, in future, that peace shall be maintained. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not wish to detain the House long, but there is no doubt whatever that this is a very serious question, and in the absence of my colleagues I think I ought to say a few words. I am not going to traverse a great deal of what the honourable Member for East Mayo has said. It is quite impossible for anyone to speak in any terms in defence, or in any terms except those of unqualified condemnation of the rioting that has taken place in Belfast. I have had reason to reproach honourable Members opposite and their predecessors for not having condemned
  1204
  acts which took place when they ought to have condemned them, and I do not feel justified myself in refraining from condemning, almost as unconditionally as the honourable Member opposite, the horrible outrages which have occurred in the streets of Belfast. I do not say that there is no excuse for them, but I do say they are uncivilised and that means should be taken to punish the persons who engage in them, and to stop them and to prevent them recurring in the future. Everything that I have heard from Belfast leads me to think that what I have said expresses the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the loyal people of all classes of society in Belfast. But I owe it to my constituents that I should call attention to one or two circumstances connected with this deplorable state of affairs, which it is necessary that the House ought to be acquainted with. Before we pronounce an absolute verdict upon this subject we ought to investigate it a little more fully. Of the attacks upon the police nothing can be said, and I am glad the honourable Member has called attention to one act of heroism which occurred in the street, as I think it is one that ought not to pass without mention. A postman at the risk of his life endeavoured to rescue one of these policemen, and I take this opportunity of expressing my great satisfaction that that act of heroism did take place. The honourable Member for East Mayo put a large amount of blame upon the authorities of the city of Belfast. Inquiry will show how far that statement is justified or not, but I think it ought to be pointed out that the whole circumstances which undoubtedly contributed largely to these riots are not known and could not have been known to the Belfast authorities at the time they made their disposition for controlling the riot when it did take place. That they did anticipate that something of the kind might happen I think is proved by that fact that the Lord Mayor asked the Chief Secretary to proclaim the demonstration, and that the procession should not take place. I think it must be in the memory of nearly all the Members of this House that over and over again the Executive has proclaimed meetings—not in Belfast, but in other parts of Ireland—without making the

  1205
  local magistrates responsible. This procession was organised for one purpose, and one purpose alone. It was a deliberately provocative assembly.
  MR. DILLON: Oh, oh!
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I can quite understand that that is the view which the honourable Member takes of this unfortunate and cruel rebellion. This demonstration was organised in the centre of a large city which returns to Parliament four Members who represent the opinion of that City, all of whom are strongly opposed to the principles of those forming that procession. In that procession there took part one or two gentlemen, of whom one was the honourable Gentleman opposite. Now, it must be remembered that it was not until the speeches had been made that the people of Belfast were aware of the nature of the proceedings.
  MR. DILLON: The rioters had never heard a word of the speeches. They could not have heard of them till the following morning.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have here a copy of the speech of the honourable Member. The two principal speakers were the honourable Member for East Mayo, and Mr. Joseph Devlin, who I must say, under the circumstances, expressed very strong sentiments. Mr. Devlin spoke of the proposed alliance between the United States and the people of this country, which I may say the people of Belfast are desirous to see. He then went on to tell them that in his opinion the rebellion of 1798 would never be forgotten. Now, Sir, that statement had one meaning alone, and it was intended and understood that the memories of 1798 were to arouse and be provocative of something of the kind in the future.
  AN IRISH MEMBER: Hear, hear!
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I note that my statement is confirmed by the honourable Member opposite. The honourable Member for East Mayo was not at all behindhand in congratulating these gentleman on their fighting spirit and the events of 1798, and he concluded by saying that Irishmen had demon-
  1206
  strated to the world that the old Irish spirit was still alive and kicking in Belfast, and was as eager for the fight as ever. Therefore, I do not think that the whole of the fighing spirit was on one side, but there appears to have been a fair share of it on the other. We must not overlook the fact that this was a disloyal procession.
  MR. DILLON: No, no!
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Well, we do not all take the view which the honourable Member opposite wishes us to take, that no discretion is to be shown in these matters. I say that there is no country in the world where such a procession would have been allowed, not even the United States of America. I undertake to say that in the streets of New York such a procession would have been at once suppressed.
  MR. DAVITT: Why, a procession of that kind is held every year in New York!
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Had this demonstration taken place amongst a population known to be favourably disposed to its principles, there might have been less to say against it, for instance, in Cork, Dublin, or Limerick. If a procession were organised in these towns where the majority of the people share the views of the honourable Member for East Mayo, they might listen to congratulatory speeches about the rebellion of 1798, and I think nobody would have been more ready to admit this than the honourable Member for East Mayo himself. I cam honestly say that I have never taken part in provocative demonstrations of this kind; and it does seem to me to be an unfortunate thing that they should take place in those parts of Ireland where they are not welcome, and where they are not in harmony with the general spirit of the population. I regret that it was thought necessary to undertake one of those processions in a part of Ireland where it was well known that those sentiments were not popular; where it was known that the people strongly detested them; and where it was felt that the desire for a renewal of the disturbances of 1798 was about the greatest calamity that could overtake the population. I think those

  1207
  opinions ought to be borne in mind and respected. With regard to the conduct of the people of Belfast, I am not going to say a word in defence of it. It must not, however, be forgotten that there is a certain explanation of that conduct. It is a fact which everybody acquainted with Belfast is well aware of, that there is some foundation for the dislike of the people of Belfast to policemen imported from outside. I have no doubt that it will be explained how the confusion and the misconception arose which accompanied the importation of police in Belfast. I know that the police in one case, upon a previous occasion, were entirely mistaken, for they attacked people coming out from their workshops under the impression that they were a riotous crowd, and their action upon that occasion has left a very bitter recollection amongst the people of Belfast. I do not intend, however, to retaliate in this matter, but I do say that that is the explanation which to some extent may account for the action of the magistrates in bringing a large body of alien police. [Laughter from the Irish Benches.] Well, that is my opinion, although I have not a word to say against the Irish constabulary. The honourable Member for East Mayo must be perfectly aware, and everybody in this House is aware, that the whole of this trouble was initiated by this procession. Language was used of a provocative character. No doubt from that small beginning came these lamentable disturbances, and it is certainly right to take the most effective measures possible for putting a stop to this disorder. But there is one point to which I wish to draw attention. There is no evidence, and it is absolutely certain that the Orange body alluded to by the honourable Member had no part in these disturbances. I am not here to champion the Orange body—I am not even a member of it—but I do say this, that as far as my knowledge goes there has been, on the contrary, a very earnest and anxious endeavour made with regard to these disturbances to prevent their occurrence, and to prevent these offences from being committed. With regard to the rest of the population of Belfast, I can only say that I know there is nothing more lamentable in the eyes of the people of Belfast than these disturbances, which are the work of
  1208
  a class of rowdy boys and young men, who have, unfortunately, long existed in Belfast. These riots were initiated, and for the most part carried out, by the class I have described. It is perfectly true that the Island men returning from their work were assaulted, and it is also true that they retaliated, but this wrecking and robbing has been the work of the boys and rowdies who have long been known to exist in Belfast on both sides. What occurred is perfectly well expressed in the newspaper which the honourable Member has read, and the other newspapers are absolutely at one in their condemnation of these outrages. I hope have clearly explained the circumstances to the House. I may also add, in conclusion, that it is within my own knowledge that an enormous majority of the people of Belfast regret these disturbances, and are as much opposed to what has taken place as anyone could possibly be.
  MR. DAVITT: I have listened with attention to the speech which has been addressed to the House by the honourable Member who has just sat down, and I think I can say that a weaker speech has never been addressed to this assembly, even by the honourable Member opposite. He endeavoured to palliate the conduct of his political supporters by talking of a provocative procession, and referred incidentally to what he called a "bloody rebellion." It is not necessary, in consequence of his remarks, to go into the circumstances of the rebellion of 1798. I would remind the honourable Member that the leaders of that rebellion in the north of Ireland were not Catholics, but Protestants. But, Sir, one of the most extraordinary remarks I ever heard in this assembly was his declaration that what he called the strong incendiary speeches of my honourable Friend and Mr. Devlin, which were reported in the Nationalist papers on Tuesday morning, papers which Orangemen never read, were the cause of the attacks made upon the Nationalists, and upon the police, the previous evening. That is a species of reasoning the like of which I do not think it is in the memory of any man in this House to recollect. The fact is, disguise it as the honourable Member may, that

  1209
  this was disgraceful conduct on the part, of his political supporters in Belfast. From the contention of the honourable Member I understand that my honourable Friend behind me incited the law and order disciples of Shankhill Road and Island Main to go and attack the policemen. Although I have not had the privilege of reading my honourable Friend's speech, I say that he never incited them to attack the police officers of that city. The honourable Member said further that it is a provocation to these gentlemen of Shankhill Road to bring policemen from outside into Belfast. I believe the contention is that Belfast is a model city in its loyalty to the British Crown; but if the sentiment of the city is so wonderfully loyal, if the desire of the citizens is to uphold law and order, why should they have an animus against those who wear Her Majesty's uniform? I put it to the honourable Gentleman, who is a man gifted with a great deal of intelligence, whether a lamer excuse than that could be addressed to this House. I am satisfied that these gentlemen of Shankhill Road did not intend to attack the procession. What they wanted was an opportunity of attacking the police, upon whom they made a murderous assault in 1886. Under these circumstances, I agree with my honourable Friend that the blame rests upon those who, knowing what the reputation of the Shankhill men has been in the past, did not take the necessary precautions to ensure the preservation of the peace.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The speech of the honourable Gentleman denounced in very severe terms the conduct of the Belfast mob. Nobody attempts to defend the action of the Belfast mob, and I will not waste further words upon that matter. The Motion of the honourable Member opposite had special reference to the inadequacy of the arrangements made by the city authorities and the executive government to preserve the peace and protect property; and it is only on that point I wish to address myself. It is not my business, as representing the executive, to defend in every point the action of the local authorities with whom the arrangements of the details of such cases
  1210
  naturally and necessarily lay. It may be that their action was not in all respects the most prudent, judging by the light of subsequent events; but the real question is whether any really grave error was committed, and whether any really important measure which ought to have been taken was not taken. Well, now, in connection with this, let me remind the House that the honourable Member for East Mayo has himself expressed over and over again the opinion that the procession itself was adequately protected.
  MR. DILLON: I went further than that, and stated that, except in the interests of the public peace, the procession needed no protection, being quite able to protect itself.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The procession itself was quite able to defend itself. Of course, if the procession had been attacked, no doubt it would have retaliated. The riots that would hare resulted I will leave the House to imagine. But as a matter of fact the procession went to Hannahstown and returned without any incidents, except such as the authorities were able to grapple with. The really serious rioting occurred after the return from Hannahstown, when the procession had dispersed. The really serious rioting, as the honourable Member has stated, was the attack upon the police, and not upon the procession. The honourable Member for East Mayo said there was a certain number of extra police outside the town, and asked why they were not brought into the town. As the honourable Gentleman opposite knows, there is the strongest objection in Belfast to the introduction of police from the outside, but, so far as the Executive is concerned, no obstacle would have been placed in the way of the magistrates if they had wished to adopt that course. In fact, the offer was made and refused by the magistrate on the ground that such a step would be likely to increase the turmoil. The moment the riot became serious the military were sent for, and a troop of cavalry and 100 infantry appeared with out further delay upon the scene. All the arrangements were made for the

  1211
  preservation of the peace by the Belfast magistrates, the Commissioner of Police, and the general commanding the district. It was anticipated that it might be necessary to call in the assistance of the troops. They were confined to barracks all day, and were ready to appear at a moment's notice. They did appear and cleared the streets, and shortly after their appearance the riot was quelled. No doubt one of the most remarkable things in connection with the riot was that, while the most intense animosity and hostility was shown against the police, no such animosity was shown against the troops. If the advice of the Executive had been followed in all respects, the magistrates would, from the first, have made a larger use of the troops, who would have been asked to block the streets at an earlier period. I regret myself that that was not done. If it had been done, I think the rioting, at all events, would have been diminished, if not prevented altogether. I am not prepared to say that in not taking the advice of the Executive the magistrates committed a great error of judgment. It is a debatable point, and it is known that the military have an objection to performing what are described as police duties. To form a cordon in the streets was naturally a duty more for the police than the military, and on that ground, probably, the general commanding was reluctant that the duty should be undertaken by the troops. Still, I regret that it was not undertaken by the troops from the first. Subsequently they were brought into request more than before, with perfectly satisfactory results. The honourable Member for East Mayo read a report from the Times, describing the tranquil state of things in Belfast last night.
  MR. DILLON: The continuance of tranquillity depends upon the presence of the troops, and at any available opportunity the police will probably be attacked again.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I earnestly trust that that will not be the case. Of course, at the present time there is still a great deal of excitement, and it is right to take all the precautions the circumstances call for. I am glad to say
  1212
  that the tranquillity referred to by the honourable Member has continued. The last information which I have received is that everything passed off most satisfactorily in Belfast last night; that there was no disturbance of the peace, that the military had been brought out at an early hour in the evening to block the streets and support the police, and that the same course will be followed this evening. I trust that special precautions will no longer be necessary. Now, let me say one word in conclusion.
  MR. DILLON: The right honourable Gentleman has not referred at all to the battle of the Island men on Tuesday, when only four constables were on duty in a very dangerous locality.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not accept the honourable Gentleman's statement as correct until I have received information on the point. I may not make a statement to the House upon it. Nobody cam regret more than the Executive this outbreak. I am certain that every right-minded man must condemn in. the strongest way the action of the Belfast crowd on this occasion. In my opinion the extraordinary animosity shown against the police must have had some other origin than the speeches delivered on Monday afternoon. But whatever might be the cause of this feeling against the police in Belfast, I feel sure my honourable Friends will join with me in regretting the existence of this feeling, whatever the cause may be. The occurrences in Belfast were a discredit to a great commercial town, and I am sure they will be felt to be a discredit by all the respectable citizens of Belfast. I trust that all parties and all creeds in Belfast will endeavour to put an end for the future to such disturbances as have taken, place there during the earlier part of the week. I should like to refer to what I will describe as the peculiarly cowardly conduct of the constituents of the honourable Member for Belfast. They made no serious attack upon the procession; they knew the procession could defend itself; but when they found two policemen in the street by themselves they attacked them and did their best to murder them. They did not attack the

  1213
  Catholic quarters, but when they found a Catholic house in the Protestant quarter without a sufficient force of police to protect it they attacked the house because they knew it was safe sport. Under these circumstances I think for the honourable Member—who, perhaps of all Members of this House, has been the most studiously offensive for the last 10 years in condemning Nationalist Members as having had share in any outrage committed in any part of Ireland—to rise in his seat and make the sort of half defensive and half condemnatory speech that he has made to-night, is a pretty comment on the sincerity of his long course of denunciations of the Nationalist Members. An honourable Member has said that there is a very natural feeling against the police because they used their rifles, I must say, in self-defence, some 12 years ago. I confess that if that is to be considered an excuse—the honourable Member used the word "excuse"—for the conduct of these rioters; if we are to be told in the House of Commons, by their representatives there, that that is an excuse for the attack on the police, it will be unfortunate. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland does not understand how it was that the mob did not molest the soldiers on the withdrawal of the police. The reason is very simple. They think that when the soldiers come and the police are withdrawn they have beaten the police, and they treat their withdrawal as a victory. They look upon the policeman as their natural foe, and when they see that he is withdrawn and the soldiers put in his place they regard that as a sign of their victory. At the present moment the situation in Belfast is that the mob have beaten the police. I do not believe that is a very satisfactory situation from the point of view of the Executive Government. One thing may be mentioned. By a peculiar accident, some years ago in a private Bill the Corporation of Belfast excepted Belfast from the general law that prevails in the rest of Ireland as to compensation for such injuries as those caused to the 103 policemen in the town, but by an Amendment accepted to the Local Government Bill the Government have agreed that for the
  1214
  future the law shall be the same for Belfast as for the rest of Ireland. But what I demand is that such provision shall be made retrospective, and those people of Belfast shall be made to pay, in the same way as the people in any other part of Ireland would have had to pay if they had done the same thing, for the ill-deeds of the crowd.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I am glad to think that this unfortunate riot in Belfast was not due in any way to the Nationalist Party. We have been accustomed for some time to denunciations of the Nationalist Members and of their constituents whenever any unfortunate disturbance occurs, and it is impossible not to contrast the very unfavourable tone of the Debate towards the action of the mob in Belfast with the tone of the Debate whenever such an occurrence takes place in other districts of Ireland. Since I have been in this House, representing the Eastern Division of Clare, Nationalist Members have been subjected to denunciations of the fiercest kind when from time to time comparatively small disturbances have occurred in the county towns; but here we have the fact acknowledged that in this case 103 policemen were seriously injured by a riotous mob in Belfast. I must say that a deliberate attempt has been made to pass over the action of the mob that injured these policemen, simply because they are what is called "Loyalists" in Ireland. I ask anybody to imagine what would be the indignation expressed in this House by the supporters of the Government if news came to hand that in my constituency, or in the county of Cork, or in any part of Ireland, a riot had taken place whereby 103 policemen were seriously injured by a Nationalist mob? Not only would there be indignant references, not only in the House, but in every newspaper in England and Scotland, to the open lawlessness that prevails in Ireland, and which led to the wounding of 103 policemen, and it would be served up from day to day as an argument of the unfitness of the Nationalist population for self-government and the management of their own affairs that they were liable from time to time to break out in this violent way and injure

  1215
  many policemen who were simply trying to do their duty. But because this has taken place in Belfast apparently no indignation is to be expressed at the occurrence. I must say that Nationalist Members have sometimes been denounced for not having been, in the opinion of some persons, sufficiently outspoken in their denunciations of the disturbances and violence in the Nationalist portions of Ireland. However true that may be, I think that many English Members in this House not in sympathy with Home Rule must have listened with great surprise to the tone adopted by the honourable Member for West Belfast in his speech on this matter. No one listening to that speech, no one reading that speech in print, can fail to see that it was, from beginning to end, an excuse for an attempt to palliate the action of this mob, which has committed what I must call this most unparalleled and unexampled outrage upon the police force in Ireland. I have seen the police in the South and West of Ireland behaving, in my opinion, in a most unjustifiable way, but if the police there were assaulted in the same way as were the police in the streets of Belfast they would have used their firearms to protect themselves. I remember Mitchelstown, and I have heard the order given repeatedly to the police that if the mob did not desist they were to use their firearms. Such a thing could not have happened in the south or west of Ireland as 103 policemen being struck down without using their firearms, but because it has happened in the streets of Belfast, where the people who are the rioters are supposed to be the supporters of the Unionist Party, and whose representatives in this House are supporters of the Government, the unfortunate police are obliged to stand these assaults, and we never hear a whisper of anything in the shape of an order such as was given in other parts of Ireland—to shoot unless order was restored. I remember, some years ago, when there was a disturbance in the South of Ireland, and before the police were seriously attacked at all, the Government of that time sent a telegram to say that, if the police were assailed, they were not to hesitate to shoot. But these policemen in Belfast were obliged
  1216
  to stand, practically defenceless, in the streets, without using the weapons in their hands, while 103 of their number were struck down, and some of them, seriously injured, by a riotous Orange mob. I can only say that I hope the opponents of the Nationalist Party in this House, and in the country, will take due cognisance of the fact that this riot has not been the result of the action of the Nationalist Party, and that, if 103 policemen have been seriously injured, it has been the result of the action of the Orange mob. We are told that the Nationalist Party gave provocation by holding a procession in commemoration of what the majority of the people of Ireland consider to have been a gallant struggle of 100 years ago. This is the first time for 100 years that anything has been done in the way of celebrating the rebellion of 1798; but what have the Orangemen done? It is not only a centenary celebration they hold, but every year they hold demonstrations of the most provocative character. I regret these disturbances as much as any supporter of the Government, or anybody in this House, because everybody who comes from Ireland, whether from Cork, or Dublin, or Belfast, must regret to see reports in the newspapers of fierce and bloody combats in the streets amongst people who ought to, and would, under proper government and under normal circumstances, live together in good-fellowship as citizens of one country. We draw attention to the fact simply because it is our emphatic belief that these recurring riots in Belfast take place because the Government will not, in the case of Belfast, take proper steps to prevent them. How is it that in Belfast alone we have periodically these bloody riots in the streets? It is because the rioters in the city of Belfast have been taught, time after time, to believe that their action will be practically cloaked up by the Government of the day. ["No."] Yes, yes, yes; and that whatever damage they do will be as far as possible overlooked, because they are the supporters of the Government and the Unionist party in England. We are told in a lofty manner by the Member for West Belfast that the police are not popular in Belfast. Well, I must say that from a supporter of law and order, who has never done

  1217
  railing at the Nationalists of Ireland, a statement of that description is rather startling. Why are the police not popular in Belfast? Because the police in Belfast have the audacity to try and prevent sometimes lawless mobs of Orangemen from wrecking property and attacking houses. No doubt the police ought not to behave in that way to the Orangemen. If the Nationalists meet together to promote any cause that they may think good, the police should attack them, but to interfere with the sacred rights of Orangemen to demonstrate against the lives and the properties of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen that is a thing which the police ought not to have the audacity to do; and because they have done it more or less in a weak way—for they are not allowed to take strong action—because they have done so, they are unpopular. Well, truly such sentiments, coming from the Unionist representative of the loyal city of Belfast, must strike many Members of this House as being somewhat startling. Of course, if I, for instance, the representative of what is described as the wild and the lawless district of the county of Clare, were to say that the police were not popular in Clare, my statement would be received as evidence of the terrible state of affairs which existed in my constituency; but surely we never expect to hear sentiments of that kind coming from the loyal representative of the citizens of West Belfast. I charge the Government here with not having taken proper steps to prevent these attacks upon the Catholic population of Belfast. It is all nonsense to tell me that they left it in the hands of the local authorities in Belfast. I say that if there was the slightest prospect of a serious disturbance with the population in the city of Limerick, or Cork, or Dublin, the Government would have taken very good care to flood the place with police, to station them everywhere, and to put down in the strongest possible way any riot long before it reached the proportion of having 103 policement stricken to the ground. But they took absolutely no precautions in the city of Belfast, and I say that while the Orangement of Belfast are to be condemned for their reckless and outrageous conduct, disgracing the name of Irishmen, the Government is to be condemned also because they did not take proper
  1218
  steps to check the Orange rioters. They cannot say in this House that they did not expect what took place. Time after time there have been bloody riots in the city of Belfast. It is well known that the inhabitants of the Orange districts have, year after year, and time after time, disgraced their city by their onslaughts upon their Catholic fellow-citizens. The Government had plenty of reason to believe what might take place. But, no; because it was in the loyal city of Belfast, and because the Government did not care to do anything that might perhaps embarrass or annoy their supporters, the Member for Belfast and the other gentlemen who represent those civilised constituencies in the north of Ireland take no action at all; and I say that the fact that 103 policemen have been assaulted, that houses have been wrecked, is indirectly the result of what I must call the criminal apathy of the Government in refusing to take steps to protect the Catholic inhabitants of the city of Belfast. Mr. Speaker, I speak somewhat warmly upon this matter because I have, perhaps more than most Members, some idea of what these terrible riots are. I myself represented an Ulster constituency for seven years in this House, the chief town of which is Enniskillen, in the county of Fermanagh, and I have seen these riots take place; I have seen the terrible results of those riots; and I feel my responsibility as a Member of this House after seven years' experience of an Ulster constituency. I say deliberately if Ulster has been signalised for ferocious rioting it is not the result of division in religious feeling; it is absolutely because it has been the settled policy of the Government, in dealing with the disturbances of the peace in Ulster, to give, directly or indirectly, circulation to the idea hold by the Orangemen throughout Ulster that the Government will deal lightly with them, and that, after all, if they do riot, they are rioting in a good cause, that they are supporters of the Union, and that they are letting the world see that there are some Orangemen who are not Home Rulers at any rate. And if you go through Ulster what will you find? You will find, travelling from place to place, that the tone of their minds is that, although rioting, of course, is a bad

  1219
  thing, still when they come up with their brickbats and their missiles and attack the houses of Catholics, and wreck their property and take stolen drink to their homes, that they are not merely acting as ordinary rioters, but that they are showing that they are supporters of the Union, that they are enemies of Home Rule, and that, though Cork and Limerick and the rest of Ireland may be solid for Home Rule, there are some loyal hearts still left in Unionist Ulster. Well, honourable Gentlemen may think that that is an exaggerated statement. Perhaps it is—perhaps I may be wrong; but I give it to the House as my deliberate opinion after my experience as a Member for Ulster. What is the remedy? I say that a remedy has not been applied by the Government in this case. The remedy is this: let the Government in power, be it Liberal or Tory, have it thoroughly understood in Ulster that Orange rioters will be treated with a severe hand as National destroyers; and if they do these riots will speedily come to an end. It is not only the riot that took place in Belfast the other day, but I believe the riot in Belfast was stimulated by another riot which occurred in Ulster a few days—perhaps a week—before that, when an Orange mob broke in upon the tomb of a Catholic patriot that had been erected at considerable cost. They levelled it with hammers, they broke the stone, they tore down the railings, and they wrecked several houses in Ballynahinch, in the north of Ireland. What was the result? Some petty attempt was made to prosecute them; some show was made by the Government. The result was that no strong action was taken against these men. What was the result? You have the result in the more serious, the more extensive, riots which took place in the city of Belfast the other day. Rightly or wrongly—I believe rightly—Orangemen have the idea that they will not be treated severely by the Government, simply because they are on the side of the Government in politics. When these riots take place in Belfast, it is as right to tell your policemen to unsling their rifles and level them against Orangemen as against rioters in Clare, and Cork, and Limerick, and the west of Ireland; and
  1220
  when you do that, Ulster will no longer be signalised as being the one spot in Ireland which, though largely Unionist, at the same time enjoys the unenviable notoriety of being the scene of the most disgraceful and the most bloody riots which have ever taken place in any portion of our country. There is no use, I suppose, in pressing this matter further upon the Government than to say that the damage is now done. Those 103 policemen—victims of Orange rowdyism—must, I suppose, get well as best they can. The Government failed to take proper precautions, but if they have any sincere desire to put down this kind of thing in Belfast in the future, I challenge them to call upon the local authorities to take such vigorous steps against every one of those Orange rioters as will teach them a lesson that they cannot be allowed with impunity, simply because they are Conservatives, to turn the streets of the city of Belfast into scenes of violence of the most disgraceful kind. Punish them well; send to gaol for as long a term as you would send any unfortunate peasant farmer in the west and south-west of Ireland who might incur the displeasure of the Government for making a struggle for his home. I hold that, in justice and in fairness, every paper in England should pay particular attention to the fact that in this riot in Belfast 103 policemen have been stricken down, not by a Nationalist, but by an Orange mob, and that no steps were taken to prevent them. What would have been the result if the riots had taken place in this country? If the riot had taken place in Manchester or Birmingham, and 103 policemen, or other officers of the law, in trying to do their duty were seriously injured and taken to the hospital in an almost dying condition—if news of that description came from your large centres of population—there would be unanimous censure upon the Government for not having taken proper measures to protect the officers of the law. You would have insisted that the Government should deal out adequate and strong punishment to the rioters. I call upon them, in the interests of the peace of Ireland, to take such steps as will make these Orange rioters feel for the future that there is

  1221
  not one law for them and another law for the unfortunate men who incur the displeasure of the Government in other portions of Ireland besides Ulster.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILLwho was left in possession of the House, not being in his place,
  Question put—
  "That this House do now adjourn."
  Motion negatived without a Division.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 233.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 233.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Order for Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of seventeen Members."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "Leave out 'seventeen Members,' and insert 'the Members representing the constituencies in Shetland, with fifteen other Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.'"—(Mr. Pirie.)
  MR. PIRIE: I must join issue at once with the statement made yesterday by the First Lord of the Treasury that this was an uncon-
  1222
  troversial matter. I think, on the contrary, that the composition and constitution of this Committee is decidedly a matter for controversy, and I cannot, therefore, admit the accuracy of the First Lord's statement when he said that the privilege of allowing such a Committee as this to be appointed at a time when no controversial business could come before the House—was in no way unprecedented. I think that there is a very great subject of controversy as to the constitution of this Commitee, both as regards its composition and its powers. We are asked to agree to a Committee, and no means are given to us through the action of the Government in bringing it up at times when no opposed business could be taken—no opportunity is given to the Members of this House of obtaining any details as to its constitution. We are asked simply to accept the Motion without any discussion at all, simply because the Government requests us to do so. I do not think, Sir, that the treatment which Scottish questions have had this Session from the Government is such that we should even stretch any point at all in their favour. But apart from this, our duty to our constituents in Scotland does not allow Scottish Members to sanction the appointment of a Committee in which the principle for which we have always contended as far as Scottish questions are concerned is not recognised, and that principle is, that on all Scottish questions Scottish opinion shall be predominant. That is really the object which has induced me to put this Amendment on the Paper. The question naturally arises: Whose interests are really at stake in this Bill? It is interesting to remember the Debate which took place on the second reading of this Bill, and the opinions which were expressed on both sides of the House regarding it. Now, Sir, we were told by the First Lord of the Treasury that the Opposition to this Bill came principally from this side of the House. Those who remember the second reading will recollect that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose conclusively pointed out to the First Lord of the Treasury that he was completely wrong in that statement. The opposition to this Bill came principally from Members on the Government side of the House; from Members representing the Chair-

  1223
  men of Committees, Parliamentary barristers, and railway interests, and those were the interests which honourable Gentlemen were now asked to believe were really most at stake in this Bill. I venture to say, Sir, that the interests which are most at stake in this Bill—that is, the present interests—are those of the Scottish taxpayers and ratepayers. Scottish institutions, too, are vitally affected by this Bill. There are other reasons, Sir, why I think that the Amendment which I have proposed is pre-eminently a justifiable one. Scotland is to be made the subject of an experiment. I am perfectly ready to admit that, and I hope to see, if this Bill does come into operation, that it will eventually be able to be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom. I am, therefore, quite prepared to admit that other interests must be recognised, and it is for that purpose that I provide in my Amendment that—
  "Fifteen other Members be added by the Committee of Selection."
  But, supposing for a moment, Sir, that it is not exclusively a Scottish matter. I should like to ask if we as Scottish Members are not to be equally entrusted and have equal confidence placed in us as regards the guardians of public good and the welfare of the United Kingdom as will be placed in English Members when they are asked to exercise an exclusive right over matters which are not exclusively English. I say that there is no more reason why Scottish Members should not be entrusted with a predominant voice in matters which are not exclusively Scotch than that English Members should almost invariably have the predominant voice over matters not entirely connected with England. Again, I say that my proposition would really expedite matters. It would have the effect of sending back the Bill from Committee to this House, after having passed through a Committee which would command the confidence of Members of this House, and thereby seriously diminish the amount of discussion which will be required on this Bill when it is returned to this House. I would further say, Sir, that a very radical reform is essential before it can be possibly acceptable to the people of Scotland, and for that reason it should go before an influential
  1224
  Committee which may be able to change it in accordance with the wishes of the Scotch people. My object has never been to defeat this Bill, but very much the reverse. I came down to the Second Reading of this Bill knowing that it was a very bad Bill, and I did my best to suggest improvements. Criticisms were applied to this Bill by the honourable Member for Dundee, who compared it with other Measures, and he said that it could only be properly compared in its evil and bad qualities to the first Education Bill of this Government. And yet, knowing this, I came down to-day prepared to register my vote in favour of the Second Reading. I have to say that I consider that when Scottish Members are applied to to vote for a Measure which they know is really wrong—it is a most lamentable confession to have to make to this House, and yet this is due to the necessities of private Bill procedure in this country—I say that it is not at all creditable that such a state of affairs should exist. I must say that it shows, considering the short time that this Bill has been before the House, a great want of sincerity and confidence on the part of the Government as to their intentions regarding this Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is departing from the scope of the Bill, and is out of order.
  MR. PIRIE: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I will keep to the point. To show that the Amendment I am proposing will be of a normal character, I have precedents without number which I can state in order to show that on every reform of Scotch questions similar motions have been made by Scotch Members. The honourable Member for West Aberdeenshire has, on more than one occasion, moved Motions to a similar effect. I have the precedent of the private Bill brought in by the Conservative Government of 1891, In which, Sir, exactly, almost word for word, the same proposition was moved by the honourable Member for Leith, but the Committee to which this private Bill of the Conservative Government of 1891 applied consisted of all Scotch representatives and 30 other Members added by the Committee of Selection. I have been

  1225
  told that my proposition is a novel one, but I would draw the attention of the House to a speech—and I will read but a few words of it—of Mr. Hunter, who spoke to the House on this subject as to whether this Bill should be referred to a Committee composed exclusively of Scotch Members with 13 English Members. He said—
  "The point is not whether the Committee is to consist of 20 or 100 persons, but whether it is to be a Committee representing Scottish and Liberal opinion or English and Tory opinion."
  He also said, Sir—
  "The question is whether Scotsmen are to have their own way or not?"
  This is what I am contending, Sir, in the Amendment which I have put on the Paper. I desire to say, in conclusion, that before I decide as to whether I shall press this Amendment to a Division, or not, I wish to ask for some information as to the intention of the Government as to the proposed composition of their Select Committee of 13 Members. I wish to know whether there is to be a substantial majority of Scotch Members on that Committee. It is with the view of eliciting this information from the Government as to their intention with regard to the Select Committee that I have placed this Amendment on the Paper, and therefore I beg leave to move my Amendment.
  MR. BIRRELLin seconding the Amendment said that this was a Measure in which Scotch interests were largely affected. But although the whole of Scotland was anxious that a cheaper and more expeditious method than that which at present existed of dealing with their private business should be discovered it had by no means made up its mind as to what machinery should be adopted for the purpose of the Bill. If Scotland was to be satisfied with the Bill, it was necessary that she should be the predominant partner, as it were, in the matter. If the Lord Advocate had thought fit when moving for the Committee, he could have determined the manner in which the Committee should be constituted. He (Mr. Birrell) had no passionate desire to see all the Scotch Members assemble in
  1226
  one room as a Committee. Such an assembly might be almost too august for human eyes to contemplate. If the Committee had to do the work which was alluded to in the speech which was made upon the Second Reading, he was not at all sure whether it would not be better to sea if some means could not be discovered by which it would be possible to reform the rules for private procedure of this House, so as to satisfy the Scotch Members without taking the control away from Parliament altogether. He thought that Scotland was entitled to a predominance of opinion. It was not in any way a party question, and the opinions of Scotch Members on both sides of the House ought to be brought to bear upon it. If the Committee was put forward without the security of Scotch opinion it was perfectly certain that its report would not be received with much respect in Scotland.
  MR. GORDON: I wish to support the Government proposal upon this occasion. There is one thing I desire even more than a Scotch Committee, and that is the success of this Bill. The question is complicated by the marked divergency in the opinions of the Scotch Members, and the country itself, in regard to these proposals. As we all know, the Debates in this House were curtailed by previous business, there was no full opinion of the Scotch Members, nor had Scotland time to give its opinion to its representatives. The country at large is deeply interested in everything which may tend to reform the private procedure. We are not living in a political Garden of Eden, and everybody who knows what a Scotch Committee means must know that August would come before any conclusion was arrived at in this matter, and it would not be disposed of until the Greek Kalends. The Scotch corporations and counties look to the Government to carry this matter to a successful conclusion.
  MR. CALDWELL: The speeches in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill show that while the principle of the Measure is approved by the House there is a great divergency of opinion as

  1227
  to the detail, and there is a pretty general view that it ought to be sent to a Select Committee. The question we have now to consider is what kind of Select Committee should it be sent to. Now it is suggested that it should be submitted to a Scotch Committee of 17 Members, but we are not told, as is usually the case, whether a proportion of these Members is to be selected by the House and so many by the Committees of Scotland. In the second place we are not told whether this Select Committee is for the purpose of collecting evidence in regard to the views of the people of Scotland. The Lord Advocate and the Government would hardly have expected us to come here upon the question of a Select Committee without a word of explanation as to how the Committee is to be formed. A great deal will depend upon the view which the Government take as to the functions of the Select Committee. If it be for the purpose of taking evidence and hearing the opinion of Scotland with regard to the tribunal to be set up in that country, then we may very well admit that a good deal may be said in favour of a Committee of 17 Members, because obviously if you are going to take evidence and inform yourselves upon this subject, 17 Members would be a most appropriate number for the Committee. If the Committee is not to take evidence, then, of course, another question arises. The opinion of the Scotch Members is this, that the opinion of Scotland upon a Measure of this kind should be ascertained by a Committee. Now, we must look at the matter from one of two points of view. Either the Select Committee must be formed to hear evidence or ascertain the views of Scotland through evidence taken before the Committee, or else you should ascertain the views of the people of Scotland through her representatives, who will deal with the Bill from a purely Scotch point of view. What is the principle of the Bill to which the Second Reading has been assented to? The principle of the Bill is that so far as private Bill legislation affecting Scotland is concerned, it should be separated entirely from Imperial private Bill legislation, that it should be placed upon national lines, and a tribunal should be set up in Scotland which would deal with purely Scotch private Bill legislation quite
  1228
  apart from the Imperial Parliament. We are now separating Scotch Measures from the Imperial Measures, and setting up a tribunal in Scotland. That raises the question, who are the Select Committee who are to deal with the subject? We all agree with the principle of the Bill; but it is a question of machinery. The object of it is to establish a body in Scotland to take the place of legislation in this House, and in the House of Lords—to set up a new tribunal in Scotland. Obviously that tribunal should be set up in accordance with Scotch opinion, and by those cognisant and conversant with the Scotch mode of procedure and Scotch administration. Therefore, if you are to remit this matter, this purely Scotch question, and set up this Scotch machinery in Scotland, what do English Members know with regard to Scotch procedure, municipal legislation, and matters of that sort that are involved? I say that so far as the Committee are concerned, if we are to establish a body in Scotland, that body should be composed and know the wants and sentiments of the people. As I said, there is no objection to the principle of the Bill, and this is not a matter of Party politics. It has been pointed out that this Select Committee practically can do anything. But the Select Committee will accomplish nothing except this, that it will only give you the opinion of Scotland as regards the proposal to set up a Scotch tribunal. Parliament will have full control over every step in the progress of a Bill, from the Second Reading to its close. It may be maintained that in remitting the matter to Scotch Members there is a danger to the Union. Nothing of the kind. It will be for this Select Committee to go over the Bill and remodel it in accordance with what they believe to be Scotch opinion. That is a very important matter. What we ask you to do is to send a Bill to a Select Committee of the Scotch Members, and then, having ascertained what is the opinion of the Scotch Members upon that Measure, the Government are in no way bound to carry out the recommendations of the Scotch Members. That will in no way commit us to anything the Select Committee may do; therefore the whole point we insist upon is this, that in a matter relating entirely to Scotland the

  1229
  Select Committee should be a committee of experts who have a knowledge of Scotch law procedure, and are able to consider the matter from the Scotch point of view. We object, in the case of Scotland, to this fact, that we are in this peculiar position, that we are allowed to have our say as regards Imperial questions, we are not prevented by this Government in particular from having our say in Scotch Bills. Take last year. You had a large Bill affecting public health, a matter purely of detail. The result was we had a limited number of Scotch Members on that Committee, but the great majority were English and Irish Members who did not attend the Committee. Scotch Members who were not on the Committee had an equal right to be heard on those questions with those who were on the Committee, and you nominally kept English and Irish Members on the Committee, and kept Scotch Members off who had every right to have a say on the subject. During this Session, on Friday last, the Poor Law of Scotland Bill came up. It deals with important things in the law, and when it goes to the Standing Committee the majority of Scotch Members are excluded. The matter concerns Scotland, and does not concern any other portion of the United Kingdom. I remember when Lord Advocate Macdonald was in office he carried his Burgh Police Bill through Committee, and that was a Committee composed of Scotch Members, with only one or two other Members of the House. Anyone who sits on a Committee on Scotch Bills knows there is no such thing as Party in questions of that sort; it does not arise at all. It may be said that this Bill makes an important change with regard to the procedure of the House, and therefore it is necessary to have other Members of the House on the Committee as well as Scotch Members. But let me point out that there is no change whatever in the procedure of this House. From the moment a Scotch Bill comes from the Scotch Office there is, according to your Bill, no change in the existing procedure. We ought to have Scotch opinion represented. You are going to set up this Committee with a view of taking evidence, and if you do that I venture to
  1230
  say that the opinion of the people of Scotland should be heard through the medium of a full representation of Scotch Members on that Committee.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I should not have thought that among the many accusations which have been levelled, or maybe levelled, against the Government there should have been the desire attributed to them to deprive the honourable Member of a fair share of the discussion of Scottish matters in the House. Certainly the last thing I could wish is that any Scotch Member should be silenced, and it would be the last thing we should succeed in doing if there was any such intention with regard to the honourable Member who has just spoken. I cannot think that the mover of the Amendment seriously proposed to press it to a Division. I gather that he did not intend that, and the speech made by the seconder confirmed me in that estimate of the Parliamentary position. Indeed, as the Motion stands, the House could not accept it, for it amounts to a proposal for a Select Committee of 87 Members, each one competent to examine witnesses, and do the work which is often found to overburden the energies of Committees of 17 Members. A Select Committee of 87 Members was obviously an absurdity. The work of a Committee of such a size could only be conducted on Grand Committee rules. The suggestion made by the Scotch Members on the Second Reading of the Bill was not that the Measure should be sent to a Grand Committee, but to a Select Committee. One of the objects in sending it to a Select Committee was to expedite the taking of evidence. I take it that the Motion as it stands would receive no favour from any part of the House, and I doubt whether the honourable Member wishes seriously to see it carried into effect. There have been occasions when the suggestion that Scotch Bills should be refered to a Committee entirely composed of Scotchmen have led to great constitutional Debates, and if the present suggestion had been that we should so far revolutionise the

  1231
  Parliamentary system, I should have been obliged, not for the first time, to have addressed to the House an elaborate argument against what I should regard as a revolution in our Parliamentary system injurious to every part of the United Kingdom, but most of all to Scotland. As I understand it, the question is whether or not upon this Committee Scotch opinion is to be fully represented. Well, Sir, I confess that when I came into this House a few moments ago I did not know what the composition of this Committee was to be. As is well known to every Member of this House, the method of arranging these Select Committees is for the Whip of each Party to name the Members of his Party who are to form a portion of the Committee. The composition as to the parties being fixed by unalterable rule, I should have thought that instead of moving this Amendment it would have been sufficient if inquiry had been made of the Whips as to whether Scotch opinion was to be fully represented upon it. Had the answer not been satisfactory, I would almost venture to suggest that the proper time for taking objection was not when the Motion was put down, in the ordinary form, as we have it on the Paper, but when, on a subsequent occasion, the names were before the House and came up seriatim to be voted upon. However, as honourable Gentlemen opposite have not thought fit to take that course, but wish to obtain information, as, I think, somewhat prematurely, as to the composition of the Committee, I am informed that the Committee, as settled at present, is as follows:—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Courtney, Sir C. Dalrymple, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Renshaw, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. McKillop, Mr. Thorburn, Mr. Wortley, Mr. Blake, Sir T. Carmichael, Mr. Caldwell, Dr. Clark, Mr. Crombie, Mr. J. H. Lewis, and Sir Robert Reid. That is a very Scotch Committee, and I think it is a very able and a very competent Committee. That may be a matter of opinion, but that it is a very Scotch Committee is not a matter of opinion—it is a mere question of statistics. And, now, having told the House the Committee provisionally decided on by the authorities to whom
  1232
  we are to entrust these weighty decisions, I hope they will permit this Motion to be adopted, reserving any further commentary until the names are submitted.
  DR. CLARK: Sir, the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury affords ample justification for moving this Amendment. Even yet we have not got sufficient information as to the policy of the Government. When this question was before the House, and we agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill, it was on the understanding that it was to come before a Select Committee. At that time we wanted to know the character of the Select Committee, and we wanted to know whether it would be a Committee of Members of both Houses, because it affected the interests of both Houses, and ought to be considered by them. Then we had this Motion put down without any information; and I cannot understand how the Lord Advocate could have come here for the purpose of passing it as an unopposed Measure when he knew, or ought to have known, that on every occasion during the last 15 years we have always had a very prolonged Debate upon it. Now, Sir, I do not know what the function of the Committee is to be. Perhaps when the Lord Advocate speaks he will tell us what the Committee is intended to do. This is not a new subject at all. Ten years ago the matter was pressed by the then Conservative Government, of which the right honourable Gentleman was a prominent Member, and the first thing they did was to have an inquiry before legislation. We had a Joint Committee of both Houses, and they reported as to the special mode of procedure. When a Bill was brought in to carry out that Report, a Select Committee was appointed in exactly the same phraseology, except that there were 21 Members instead of 17. Well, now, if we are going to have this Bill sent to a Committee, and one brought back in a shape which will pass the Committee stage of this House, and the Report stage, and afterwards be adopted, I am very strongly in favour of this Motion, but it ought to be done by the Scotch Members, because the Bill solely affects Scotch interests. As far as this question is concerned, I am astonished at the remark

  1233
  made by the right honourable Gentleman. He is generally very accurate, but to-night he, has made a complete slip, because this Measure of Procedure which he so strongly condemns was brought in by a Government of which he was a very influential Member. There was a Bill brought in for Scotch purposes in 1889, but then the late Lord Advocate put down a Motion to refer it to a Committee of 21 Members. He put down the names of all the Members, and they were all Scotch Members. The only difference was that between the appointment of the Committee and the sitting of the Committee, the Solicitor General, who was a member, was appointed a judge, and the honourable Baronet the Member for Ipswich [Sir C. Dalrymple], who up till then had been a Scotch Member, was put on as an expert. The same thing occurred in 1886 and 1887, when a Unionist Government was in power. But this procedure, though begun by a Conservative Government, has been applied both by Conservative and Liberal Governments. What is the proportion of the Committee from the names read by the right honourable Gentleman to-night? There will be on this Committee of 17 five Scotch Liberal Members. You will appreciate the proportion when I mention that there are 40 Scotch Members on this side of the House, and 32 sitting on the other side. With a proportion of 40 out of 72, there are only five Liberal Scotch Members out of 17 on the Committee. Now, Sir, reverting again to the function of the Committee—if the function of the Committee is to make inquiry, that means that you are not going to pass the Bill—indeed, you cannot possibly pass it—this Session. If you are going to inquire as to what has occurred in the procedure of the House during the last 10 years, as to the time taken by private Bills, and other particulars, it will probably be discovered that things have changed. If that is to be the function of the Committee, I can understand that there ought to be both English, Welsh, and Irish, as well as Scotch, Members upon it. I, for one do not object at all to the principle of the Bill, and I am thoroughly in favour
  1234
  of there being local inquiry. My right honourable Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs [Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman], on behalf of Scotch Members some years ago, when a previous Bill was brought in by a Conservative Government of the same character, said, on behalf of Scotch Members, that they would be perfectly willing to agree to it if you had a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons going down to Scotland and making inquiries—two from this House and two from the other; and I believe the Leaders of the Liberal Party are perfectly willing to agree to the same terms. But this is an entirely different proposal altogether, and probably the Bill will be strongly opposed. Well, now, I think the House ought to know exactly what the function of the Committee is to be. There is no instruction to inquire; and if the Government are going to have 10 Members and the Opposition seven on this Committee, they may be able to vote down any Motion which is made by the minority, while the Bill may be thrashed into shape according to the will of the majority. One word with regard to public opinion in Scotland. I think public opinion in Scotland is in favour of some legislation, but public opinion wishes to be informed as to the character of the Measure. As has been said in the course of the Debate this evening, Scotch Members have always hold that matters affecting Scotland ought to be primarily in the hands of Scotch Members. If there are English, Irish, or Welsh Members who are experts on some questions, we should be very glad to have them, and to have their evidence and assistance. As the Committee is at present constituted, however, it will be difficult to tell what the opinion of Scotland is. In the circumstances, unless we get some clear and explicit statement as to the functions of the Bill, my honourable Friend will persevere with his Amendment.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: We have no desire to protract the proceedings on this motion, but surely it is fair to point out that the whole of the discussion upon the Second Reading of this Bill was

  1235
  taken entirely out of the hands of the Scotch Members, and that the Debate became a discussion dealing with the whole question of the private Bill procedure of this House, and not with the point relating to the operations of that which relates exclusively to Scotland. The critics may be divided into two categories. In the first place, there were those who were perfectly contented with the present private Bill procedure in this House. On the other hand, there were those who were not contented with the procedure. I feel that there is a necessity for considering this subject, and, if it is to be treated with consideration and care, and its importance recognised by this House, we may reasonably ask the right honourable Gentleman the Lord Advocate for a little more explanation and information about this Committee, and the purposes for which it is to be appointed. I am sorry to be importunate, but the right honourable Gentleman will admit that on June 9, within two months of the end of the Session, it is asking more than can reasonably be expected that this Bill should go to a Committee such as was outlined in the Debate on the Second Reading and then pass through all its stages in both Houses and become law at the end of this Session. I would respectfully ask whether Her Majesty's Government are really going to attempt to remodel all the private Bill procedure of this House, or if the project of the Government is to be limited to an endeavour to beat this Bill into a shape which will then be presented to the House as acceptable and as suited to the people of Scotland. If the firsts is the purpose of the Government, if they are seriously going to undertake an inquiry into the whole private Bill procedure of this House—an inquiry, perhaps, involving a change in the private Bill procedure not only for Scotland, but for other parts of the United Kingdom—then I am heartily with the right honourable Gentleman, and shall be glad of another opportunity of furthering the project of the Government. But if this scheme, which was condemned by experts and by those well acquainted with the private Bill procedure of the House, and is one of several schemes which have proved abortive, is to be submitted to a Select Committee in order, with the force which the
  1236
  Government has at command, that it should be more or less made into a practicable shape to be submitted to the House, and in some way redeem the pledges which the Government perfectly, honestly, and wisely took on this subject, I think we are entitled to question the purpose which the Government has in view. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman the Lord Advocate to believe that some of us on this side of the House are perfectly honest in our desire for some reform of private Bill procedure for Scotland, and I would further ask that the right honourable Gentleman would, frankly tell us what is the purpose for which this Motion is now brought forward, and what the Government means to do with this Bill.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I think the honourable Member for Aberdeen deserves credit for having given us an opportunity for this discussion. It may be that the opportunity for taking exception to the constitution of the Committee is when the Committee comes to be named, but what, in the first place, I wish to know is what the Committee is going to do, and generally what its functions and objects are. In any case, a Select Committee may perform one function which may be of great utility, or another which will be extremely mischievous. Reference has frequently been made to a Committee consisting almost entirely of Scotch Members to which were relegated Scotch Bills. That Committee went through a Bill clause by clause, but without taking any evidence as to the effect of the clauses. If it had been proposed to send this Bill to a Committee of that sort, which would go through it clause by clause, as in the case of the Police Bill, I should say the result might be to bring back the Bill in such a form that it would not be entitled to command our confidence and respect. On the other hand, if, as the First Lord of the Treasury has said, the Committee is to take evidence on the various points of detail in the Bill and go into the clauses with a determination to put the evidence fully and fairly before the House, then very good work may be done. But I doubt very much whether it is work that will be productive of any

  1237
  good this Session. The Committee cannot sit for a week or ten days yet, and by that time so little of the Session will be left that if the Committee can manage to get through the Bill and work it into some shape to be brought forward next Session, it will be doing quite as good work as can be expected from it. The First Lord of the Treasury has told us again and again that he is opposed to the erection of Scotch Grand Committees, as involving a constitutional change and a dangerous interference with this House; but it must not be forgotten that one of the most important and valuable Acts relating to Scotland passed of late years—the Local Government (Scotland) Act—was passed in a satisfactory shape entirely owing to the work of a Scotch Grand Committee. There are a number of details in the Bill which will require to be looked into, and regarding which it is most important that full evidence should be taken, such as the constitution of the tribunal which is to be entrusted with the local inquiries. We have not yet had placed before the House anything like a satisfactory statement on the point, which is the very mainspring of the whole proposal, and it is most important that, before proceeding with legislation, we should have the information. Complete evidence should also be taken regarding the machinery for Provisional Orders. This is a highly technical matter, and it is most important that full evidence should be given to the Committee on the point, so as to avoid that complication of systems and that hopeless jumble which would result if the machinery were unsuitable. Lastly, there is the question of what should be the functions, or if there should be any functions, of the chairman of the Joint Committee of the two Houses. I think, however, the best plan would be not to press this Amendment to a division, but to remain satisfied with the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, that the Committee should largely consist of Scotch Members, and should take evidence on the various details of the Bill.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: I would point out to the
  1238
  honourable Member who has just sat down that a Select Committee on this Bill would examine witnesses. The Chairmen of Committees of both Houses and the Secretary for Scotland are witnesses, I think, obviously called for, in any consideration. Whether the Committee will go farther, and take evidence from Scotland, is another question. There is one question which I hope the reference to the Committee will include, and that is the power to discuss the whole question of fees charged to the promoters of private Bills. Those fees are one of the great objections to the present system with regard to ordinary or small Bills, and I think the work of the Committee would be very incomplete if the terms of this reference were not large enough to enable it to express an opinion on that kind of subject. Sir, I do not think that there is occasion to enter into the merits of the Bill on the present occasion; but, however I may criticise its merits, I do think that in their proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee instead of a purely Scotch Committee, the Government are taking an absolutely logical and right course. It is not a purely Scotch question at all; it is an Imperial question. It affects Scotch procedure on the one hand, and it far more affects the procedure of Parliament on the other. It appears to me that it is a question that every Member of Parliament ought to consider as one touching himself, and one on which he is called upon to express an opinion. He ought not to look at it, as honourable Members opposite have suggested, as a purely Scotch question, but as one step in the process of devolution which will apply, not to Scotland only, but to the whole country. I therefore think that the question is not ripe enough to be dealt with in this Session, and I think the Government are perfectly right in referring it to a Select Committee, which, during the remaining weeks of this Session, will have time to inquire into the question with a view to action in a subsequent Session. The question is one which affects the whole action of Parliament,

  1239
  and is much too important to be dealt with in a hurry. Indeed, it can only be properly dealt with after due deliberation.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was not in the House when this matter was opened, but I gather from the usual sources that there was a general agreement amongst Scotch Members that the intentions and objects of the Bill are desirable, though there are a great many details open to severe criticism, and that severe criticism has been pretty freely applied. Now, Sir, it has been suggested, I think, in some quarters that there is on this side of the House a disposition hostile to the Bill. Why, Sir, it would be an extraordinary thing if we had any such disposition, because here is a proposal on behalf of the Government which concedes one thing after another, principles for which we have always stoutly contended. In the first place, there is the devolution of Parliamentary business. This is not the first time we have heard from these benches the necessity of that alteration taking place. Then there is the recognition of nationality.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, I am arguing against the assertions that have been freely made that the Motion on the Paper in the name of two of my honourable Friends is intended to delay the passing of the Bill, and I am not sure that the right honourable Gentleman himself has not in the most prominent way given expression to that imputation.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, no! I have done nothing of the kind.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am glad to hear that it is so, but there is a further point; and I think our position on this occasion would be made clearer if I reminded the House of certain
  1240
  things when this Bill was last before the consideration of the House of Commons. On that occasion we on this side of the House argued that there was a great desire for an improved system in Scotland, not as affecting that large part of private business which concerns the great railways, but rather that other portion of business which embraces local improvements promoted by principal municipal authorities and public bodies in Scotland. On that occasion we pointed out that there were two ways of meeting that desire on the part of the people of Scotland.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right honourable Gentleman is out of order; he is discussing the merits of the Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I bow to your decision, Sir, but at the same time it has been imputed that the Scotch Members on this side of the House are actuated by a feeling hostile to the Bill, and I wish to point out, in order to get rid of that idea—and I will do it in a very few words—that a few years ago, when the same question was before the House, we pointed out that the way to meet the difficulty in Scotland was, in the first place, by enlarging the powers of local authorities; and, in the second place, by developing and extending the system of procedure by Provisional Orders. This was the very system which we were then told by the Government was impossible, and we were met by an absolute non possumus. Yet that is the very system, embodied and propounded in this Bill; so that, so far from being à priori hostile to this Measure, we are à priori entirely in favour of it, if only the method proposed is free from fault. Now, Sir, I have thought it necessary to say that, in endeavouring to avoid any trespass upon the ordinary rules of Debate, in order to make clear our position. Well, now, my honourable Friends have put down an Amendment to the effect that this Bill, being a Scotch Bill, should be referred to a Committee to which all Scotch Members should belong. Well, there is no one who would more strenuously support such a proposal than I if I thought this was a purely

  1241
  Scotch Measure, but I think a little consideration will show anyone who takes that view that you do not make a Measure purely Scotch by merely putting the word "Scotland" in parentheses in the title of the Bill. This Bill, be it a good proposal or an imperfect proposal, at all events, is one which will establish a precedent for the other parts of the United Kingdom, and therefore Members not connected with Scotland are not only fully entitled to be heard on the subject, but to have a complete voice in the matter. When we are assured that the Select Committee to which it is proposed the Bill shall be referred shall include a majority of Scotch Members, I feel sure my honourable Friends will be satisfied that all that they ask for will be granted. I have thought it right to say these few words, because, as a general rule, on Scotch Bills I agree with my honourable Friends. I do not wish it to be supposed that in a Bill of this particular kind we are at all relinquishing our desire that Scotch opinion should be predominant in the settlement of Scotch legislation. This, however, completely differentiates from an ordinary Scotch Bill, and therefore I for my part have no other intention than to support the proposal of the Government.
  MR. PIRIE: I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER: In putting the main question I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Motion would have been more regularly put down as a separate Motion than moved under an Order of the Day. I understand, however, that the Motion is brought on this day with the general consent of both sides of the House, and under the circumstances I think it will be the general wish of the House that the technical objection should be waived, and the Motion now be disposed of.
  Question put—
  "That the Order for the Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of 17 Members."
  Agreed to without a Division.

  Consideration of Reserve Forces Bill as amended resumed.
  RESERVE FORCES BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 3, omit the word 'member' and insert 'part.'"—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I understood from the speech of my right honourable Friend, in introducing this Bill, that what was intended was that it should be within the power of the War Office, in cases where the Militia volunteered for service abroad, to call out some of their own officers. I think myself that that is a provision which is calculated to do a great deal of good for the Militia. I think a great many Militia battalions would volunteer for service abroad, and if they were sent abroad under their own officers, it would be a good thing, and would tend to the popularity of the force. But, Sir, when I come to look at the clause, instead of, say, "part" of the Militia, or some such word as that, the word employed is "member" of the Militia. Now, instead of sending several companies under their own officers, the tendency will be to select certain individual members of the force, and send them to supplement the Line battalion, and drawing them from the Militia battalion, which is most ineffective, have been reduced to a state of things which has been described by the Commander-in-Chief as "a squeezed lemon." Now, I do not. believe that that was the intention of the War Office, or that that is the intention of the Bill, for if that was the effect, I venture to say that it would do a great deal of harm instead of good, for if it is intended to send away individual members, that will only leave the battalions

    1243
    weaker than they were before. Now, in order to elicit a plain statement upon this point from my right honourable Friend, I beg leave to move this amendment.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of my honourable Friend, but in the statement I made on introducing the Army Estimates I stated the object of this Bill. The first object of these two clauses is to enable the Militia to volunteer, who desire to, for active service, on certain conditions, and if they are willing to volunteer, then we shall be able to enlist those men. The object of the Amendment will be achieved when the Militia go abroad under their own officers, if they ask to go abroad under such circumstances. The main object of this clause is that the Militia battalions should have the opportunity of volunteering if they so desire, and to enable members of the Militia who are not members of certain battalions to also enlist along with them for service abroad. I hope my honourable Friend will not think that it is still necessary to press his amendment.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I believe that under this system the Militia Reserve is being practically done away with, for it is being altered to a Reserve that can be taken out on active service at once to fight. I simply wish to draw attention to this because it is a very important alteration, for this drawing of single men and single officers from the Militia and putting them on active service is a very important alteration, and I am glad that the honourable Gentleman has brought forward this Amendment, because it places the question before the country, and lets the people know that such an alteration has been made, and that the Militia is not the force for merely defensive purposes which it was before.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I was for a good many years commandant of a Militia regiment, and I have the greatest possible sympathy with my
    1244
    honourable and gallant Friend below me in his anxiety that this clause of the Bill may not operate injuriously on the Militia. I do not think that everything has been done for the Militia which ought to be done, because under certain circumstances they might constitute a very valuable portion of the defences of the country, besides being able to relieve battalions in foreign garrisons, who might be wanted elsewhere. But I am not able to share the fears of my honourable and gallant Friend, and especially after the explanation given by the Under Secretary of State for War. It has always been recognised that the Militia regiments can be drawn upon to furnish men for the Line, and I think every inducement ought to be given to individual Militiamen to volunteer for the Army, with which they are incorporated, and become soldiers. It seems to me that it would injure the regiment less for individuals to volunteer for some period not exceeding a year, and then to revert to the regiment, because those men, having spent some months in the regular Army on active service, would stiffen their regiment very much upon returning to it, and of course their places in it could be filled by new recruits. I certainly think, like my honourable Friend, that the Militia officers would gladly go on active service with their regiments. Nevertheless, it would greatly contribute to the usefulness of the regiment if individual members took their places for a time in the ranks of the regular battalions. I think that after the explanations which have been given, my honourable and gallant Friend may not have the same apprehension as he had before, and I think that on the whole it is a valuable provision.
    COLONEL SANDYS: As an old Militia commanding officer I should like to say a word or two upon this very important subject, because I think that the House should consider very seriously before it allows any Measure to pass which would tend to weaken the Militia. I am sorry to say that I do not altogether endorse the present system with regard to the Army. I think a great deal of the weakening of

    1245
    our first line has taken place owing to the great interest which is taken in the Militia corps, and the effort which has been made to bring it up to the pitch of efficiency which exists, for they are the admiration of all officers who see them. I think we should hesitate before adopting any system which will tend in any way to deteriorate the efficiency of our Militia battalions. Now, there are a certain number of men in the ranks of each Militia regiment who are liable under certain circumstances to be called to the Line, but I would venture to suggest to the House that the Army should be compelled to provide its own Reserve, and that the Militia should be allowed to take its legitimate position in the defences of the country as the second force next to the front fighting line. There is nothing that takes the heart out of a Militia battalion, and out of the Militia commanding officer, like the knowledge of the fact that in the hour of danger their best men may be taken out of the battalion, thus reducing it to a state of inefficiency; and the whole of their efforts, which have been directed for many years to bring those battalions to a state of efficiency which will be useful to the country, are to be practically nullified in order to patch tip the front line, which has been allowed to fall into a state of inefficiency owing to the lack of proper administration. I venture to protect most earnestly against any Measure which is calculated to take away the Reserve men from the Militia battalions, and I trust that the House will not pass any Measure of that kind.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I understand from the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary that the intention is not to single out individual Members, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 3.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 6, leave out clause 3."—(Mr. Warner.)
    MR. COURTNEY WARNER: I beg leave to move the omission of clause 3, which provides as to the numbers authorised by the Army Act. I think it is perfectly unconstitutional that these extra men should be drawn from the Reserve. There is no precedent for such a thing, and presently I shall be able to show that there is no object in it, for it is one of the special privileges that this House has always claimed that they shall vote the standing Army year by year. Now, this clause is a means of enabling the Government to raise 5,000 men, if Her Majesty's Government chooses to do so, without the consent of the House. This is perfectly unnecessary, because whenever extra troops have been needed this House has always been ready to support the proposal. Even in days gone by, when recruiting was good, the Army has very seldom reached the number of men voted. Now these new battalions are starting, I think we should be perfectly safe in not putting in this clause, because the number of men voted by this House is sure to give certainly 5,000 men, which is the number which the Government desire to be able to call out without any difficulty or extreme feeling in this House. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give way upon this point, and I am sure that if he will consult his colleagues, they will agree that it is certainly unnecessary, and that from a Parliamentary point of view it is most unconstitutional.
    MR. BRODRICK: This proposal rests entirely on a misapprehension of the position. Parliament having already voted the men and the money for them, the honourable Gentleman now proposes one of two contingencies—either that we should put them into the Estimates twice over, or that we should trust to luck. That is a contention which is almost, if I may be allowed to say so, grotesque, and the honourable Gentleman must forgive me if I decline to treat this Amendment seriously.
    Question put—
    "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 59.—(Division List No. 132.)

    AYES.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Flannery, Fortescue

    More, Robert Jasper

    Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Arrol, Sir William

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Morrison, Walter

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Mount, William George

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Garfit, William

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gedge, Sydney

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Myers, William Henry

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

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

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Bethell, Commander

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Purvis, Robert

    Birrell, Augustine

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Bond, Edward

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Sir C. T.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Robinson, Brooke

    Brassey, Albert

    Hardy, Laurence

    Round, James

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Heath, James

    Rutherford, John

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Helder, Augustus

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

    Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

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

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Strauss, Arthur

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Kemp, George

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Kenrick, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

    Talbot, Rt Hn J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.)

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Cox, Robert

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

    Ward, Hon R. A. (Crewe)

    Crombie, John William

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

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

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-L.)

    Denny, Colonel

    Lowe, Francis William

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Willox, Sir .John Archibald

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Maclean, James Mackenzie

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

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

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

    Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manch.)

    McEwan, William

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    McKillop, James

    Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

    Finch, George H.

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Younger, William

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Milton, Viscount

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

    NOES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

    Hazell, Walter

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. M.

    Brigg, John

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Shee, James John

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Jones, Win. (Carnarvonshire)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Knox, E. F. Vesey

    Strachey, Edward

    Burt, Thomas

    Lambert, George

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Caldwell, James

    Langley, Batty

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

    Leng, Sir John

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Colville, John

    Maddison, Fred.

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Harwood, George

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Mr. Warner and Mr. Pirie.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon, Chas. Seale-

    Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

    Resolution agreed to.

    MR. BRODRICK: I trust the House will now allow the Bill to be read a third time. Although this discussion has shown a difference of opinion with regard to some details, I venture to think that no exception has been taken to its general provisions.
    Motion made and question put—
    "That the Bill be now read a third time."
    Agreed to.

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to this very important Bill, whether he will arrange to put it down as the first order, so that there may be ample opportunity for its discussion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid that I cannot give a distinct pledge, but I hope the order for the second reading may be put down for an early day, probably Tuesday.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I thought it was to be put down for Monday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It will be put down for Monday but we propose to take the Budget Bill first, and I should not think it probable that this Bill will be reached. Of course, if from any accident the Budget Bill is not taken on Monday, this Bill will take its place.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
  Order for adjourned Debate on Second Reading read.
  MR. E. MORTON: I have already spoken for about ten minutes upon this Bill, but, unfortunately, I had not concluded my remarks when I was interrupted by the Twelve o'clock rule. I do not, however, propose to delay the House over the matter now. We shall have an opportunity of discussing it at greater length upon the Estimates, and I only wish to say in a single sentence what it is that we contend for, and what we shall contend for on the Estimates. The Greenwich Hospital was founded, and received many contributions from

  1251
  various sources, for the benefit of seamen and marines when they attained a certain age, or became disabled by sickness or accident. Since that was done the funds of the Hospital have been appropriated for various purposes, and in exchange for that, for every seaman who had served a certain time it was agreed that a sum of 5d. a day should be set apart, with the same arrangement for all marines as soon as they reached the age of 55, in addition to their pensions. In 1892 the sum so set apart was found to be insufficient, and some 50,000 seamen and marines who had attained that age, or were disabled, were not receiving their pensions. A Committee of this House was appointed to consider this matter, and in 1892 the Committee reported that it was advisable that as many as possible of those who were not receiving their pensions should receive them and that a sum of £16,000 should be set apart from the Consolidated Fund. Since that time there has been such an increase in the Navy that that sum is found totally inadequate, and there are now about the same number not receiving their pensions as there were in 1892. I hope the Government will be induced to allow a further contribution to be made from the Consolidated Fund, or from some other source, to enable the remaining 3,000 seamen and marines to receive the pensions that they are entitled to. I would just mention, in passing, that it is only those who joined within a certain period that are entitled to this special grant, and that their number will diminish as time goes on. In the meantime, we contend that these 3,000 or so who are not receiving the grant ought to receive it. If the question is not immediately taken up these men will probably be without their pensions for the rest of their lives. That is the case that we shall present when the matter comes up on the Estimates. For the present I do not propose to continue the Debate, or to stand in the way of the Second Reading of the Bill.

  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lancs.,): I hope the House will read this Bill a second time. It is an honest attempt to deal with what is admittedly a great evil. Since I introduced it I think opinion has been in favour of an extension rather than any modification of the provisions of the Bill. I hope too many efforts will not be made to extend the Bill in the direction of non-criminal drunkards, because I think we shall get into difficulties which will render it doubtful whether the Bill can be passed into law during the present Session. I may mention that I have been asked if I would be willing to extend the Bill to Ireland. All I can say is that if it be the general desire of Irish Members to extend the Bill to Ireland, I shall be prepared to put in the necessary provisions applying the Bill to Ireland. So far as I understand, the general consensus of opinion is that it would be desirable to give the authorities in Ireland the same opportunity of effecting the reform of habitual inebriates that it is proposed to give in England. I hope the House will agree to the second reading of the Bill, in which case I shall move to refer it to one of the Grand Committees.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I have great pleasure in congratulating the right honourable Gentleman upon the introduction of this Bill. The question that it deals with is one that ought to be taken up by Government, and I think the Bill deals with it in the right spirit—that is to say, in a reformatory spirit—and that this Bill is an honest endeavour to do something to reform those persons whose condition is not a credit to our civilisation, and who are a great nuisance to our law. Everyone who is in the habit of attending our law courts knows that there are a large

  1253
  number of persons charged with offences who ought to be dealt with in a different spirit from that in which we deal with the really criminal classes, and who ought to be dealt with in the Christian and humane spirit which the provisions of this Bill enunciate. I look forward to this Bill doing a great deal, not in the way of punishing these unfortunate persons, but in the way of giving them a chance of becoming respectable members of society. That system has been carried out with very remarkable results in other countries. I came across only the other day some figures showing the results of similar legislation in one of our great Colonies—Canada. I found that of 10,000 cases of criminal inebriates dealt with in Canada no less than 34 per cent. of those, criminal inebriates had been reclaimed after a period of 10 years; that is to say, that 10 years after they had been under treatment they had not relapsed. If we can obtain only half that amount of success in this country, any Measure like this will be more than amply justified. In other institutions in our Colonies similar results have been obtained where the period of testing had not been so long. Of course, in all these cases where those criminal inebriates are committed for a period of detention the tendency to relapse is the difficulty that one has to contend with. If it can be overcome in anything like the same percentage of cases as has been found possible in the Colonies we shall have from this Bill very valuable and almost inestimable results. I hope the Bill will be found acceptable to the House, and I myself should be glad to see it extended in various directions. It is purely permissive in its character. I should have been glad to see it compulsory and extended also to non-criminal inebriates, but I quite recognise the difficulties the right honourable Gentleman has pointed out in the way of extending its provisions. I feel that the Bill is a humane attempt at the reformation of a large class of persons whose treatment under
  1254
  our present laws is certainly not to our credit.
  SIR C. CAMERON: As the Member of this House who had charge of the introduction of the Inebriates Act in 1879 and 1880 I heartily congratulate the right honourable Gentleman on the tremendous advance in public opinion which has enabled him to introduce this Bill, and which has prompted statesmen on both sides of the House to endeavour to deal with this most important subject. The proposal to deal with habitual drunkards was first brought forward by Dr. Dalrymple, and on his death I was asked to take it up. The original Bill that I brought before the House proposed to divide into two classes the persons with whom it was proposed to deal—namely, those who were willing to come under restraint and those criminal inebriates for whom compulsory confinement of some kind was necessary. It also proposed to deal with the police-court class of drunkards, with whom the right honourable Gentleman now proposes to deal; but in those days there was such an immense amount of opposition to any legislation which would throw the smallest charge on the ratepayers that the portion of the Bill dealing with criminal drunkards had to be thrown overboard altogether. Now, the right honourable Gentleman proposes to enable the Treasury to subsidise certain retreats. Of course, a great deal depends on the methods to be adopted. I do not expect that on the first start everything will go off successfully, but I am certain that when you have public money invested in these retreats, when you have central and local authorities interested in them, a tremendous impulse will be given to the development of their usefulness, and before many years have passed they will be a very great success. As to the class of non-criminal inebriates who refuse voluntarily to go into retreats, I should like to have seen the right honourable Gentleman deal with them, but I quite understand the difficulties in his way. I

  1255
  know the position that was taken up in another place when that was attempted by the late Government, and I would certainly very much rather see this Bill passed as it is as a step in the right direction, even though it does deal with that class of cases. But the right honourable Gentleman must not lose sight of this fact. A Committee over which I had the honour to preside a few years ago found that there were, a number of unlicensed retreats in the country in which there were persons who were nominally reformatory patients, but who were not really reformatory patients, except that they preferred to undergo confinement rather than starvation. There was one point recommended by the Committee to which I referred, and it is an important point, and one in which I think the right honourable Gentleman might strengthen the Bill without in the least endangering it. At the present moment any man can set up a retreat for habitual drunkards, and there is no provision for the inspection of such retreats. As a matter of fact, there are a number of retreats throughout the country that are not inspected, and that are carried on with the greatest disregard for the liberties and the rights of the persons confined in them. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside recommended that these uncertified and uninspected retreats should be dealt with, and I really would press the right honourable Gentleman to look into the matter, and to see whether, without creating too great opposition, these retreats could not be brought within the scope of official inspection and of the safeguards proposed in this legislation. Still, I do not wish to do anything in the way of overloading the Bill. At a meeting of the Habitual Inebriates Committee of the British Medical Association—a Committee consisting of persons who take the greatest interest in all legislation on this subject—it was agreed that, although they would like to see the Bill go further than it does, even to
  1256
  the extent of dealing with non-criminal drunkards, yet they considered this Bill such a great step in the right direction that they would not take the responsibility of attempting to force that upon the Home Secretary. I have great pleasure in congratulating the right honourable Gentleman upon the introduction of the Bill. I trust it will pass the Second. Reading to-night, and that it will, before the Session closes, become the law of the land.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I join with my honourable Friends who have spoken in congratulating the Home Secretary upon his success in grasping this very thorny question, and introducing a Measure which I think has every prospect of success in dealing with a very difficult and dangerous class of people. There is no doubt that if we could shut up these people for some definite period a large proportion of them would be permanently cured. I think the only chance of doing any real good is to shut these people up for a considerable period. I investigated a great number of cures for drunkenness—the "gold cure" and others—and came to the conclusion that they were the merest quackery, and I am convinced that the only real cure that can be effected is by confinement and treatment extending over a considerable period. American experience shows that no permanent good can be done by a confinement of one year, and I am glad to see that the right honourable Gentleman proposes a period of two years. I think it would be very desirable at some future time if the Home Secretary would direct his attention to the possibility of including non-criminal classes among those to be dealt with under the Bill. No doubt it is quite right to keep such a proposal out of the Bill on this occasion, because the question is a very thorny and difficult one, but I hope the matter will continue to engage the attention of the right honourable Gentleman, and that at some future times it

  1257
  may be found possible to take some steps in this direction.
  MR. M. HEALY: I only rise as an Irish Member to say that I am wholly unable to understand what considerations could have influenced the Government in excluding Ireland from the operation of this Measure. I am not prepared to admit that we are any worse than any other part of the country in this matter; but, however that may be, I can see no ground whatever for excluding Ireland from the scope of the Bill. It appears to me that there are no special circumstances in Ireland which could have recommended such a course to the Government. Of course, I have no authority to speak for any other Irish Member but myself, but, so far as I am aware, I think there is a general feeling in Ireland that it would be a great misfortune if this Bill, which appears to me a most excellent Bill, excluded Ireland. I had intended, if I had the opportunity, of moving that the Bill should extend to Ireland. After what the right honourable Gentleman has said that will not be necessary, and I have only to thank the right honourable Gentleman for the assurance he has given, that either he will himself move the necessary Amendment, or, if such an Amendment is proposed, that he will accept it.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I am glad to be able to add my voice to the chorus of congratulation to the right honourable Gentleman on the introduction of this Bill. I think it is quite time that we should do something to look after these unfortunate people. Hitherto we have done nothing but put them in prison. We have certainly a further duty than that towards them. The Government of this country license 150,000 houses at which these people can be supplied with the drink which makes them drunkards. Therefore it is quite right that when we
  1258
  have helped to make them drunk we should afterwards take care of them. I do not agree with my honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire that the only way to do good to these people is to shut them up. I say, shut up the public-houses and prevent these people getting drunk, and in that way you will prevent them becoming habitual drunkards. Another suggestion I may make is this. This Bill, of course, if it becomes an Act will cost something to administer; all Bills do: why should not the expenses of this Bill be paid by those who make the drunkards? Why not levy a tax upon the sellers of the drink which does all the mischief? I hope, Sir, that the passing of this Measure will mark the beginning of better things. I am delighted to see an attempt made to cure this great evil, and I do hope that the time will come when the House and the Government will arrive at the conclusion that in matters of this kind prevention is better than cure.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: May I remind the honourable Baronet that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to place a tax on those who sold the drink the honourable Baronet himself was one of the strongest opponents of that proposal?
  SIR W. LAWSON: There was no proposal that the publicans should pay the tax.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: The proposal was to reduce the public-houses by a tax. I do not want to argue the matter, but when the honourable Baronet gets up and suggests that a tax should be placed upon the publicans to meet the expenses of this Bill I cannot help reminding him that he was one of the great opponents of a proposal which would have had very much that result. Sir, I heartily join in. the chorus of congratulation to my right honourable Friend the Home Secretary for having brought forward a Measure of this description.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I agree with the honourable Baronet the Member for Cockermouth in what he has said, but the House is not prepared for such drastic measures as those he suggests. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered the possibility of doing what is done in America and some other places, of putting a penalty on licensed persons who sell intoxicating liquor to those who may have been notified to them as habitual drunkards.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the honourable Member is travelling beyond the scope of a Second Reading Debate in discussing the proposal to which he refers.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I did not propose to enlarge on the matter. I simply wanted to ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered this point, and whether even now a clause could be introduced into the Bill.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Agreed to.

  EAST INDIA (LOAN).
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom any sum or sums of money, not exceeding £10,000,000, for the service of the Government of India, on the security of the revenues of India, and to make provision for the purposes relating thereto."
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James William Lowther, Secretary Lord George Hamilton, and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
  "To enable the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise Money in the United Kingdom for the service of the Government of India."
  Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the revenues of India, of the purchase money, compensation, and all expenses which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to empower the Secretary of State in Council to purchase lands in connection with the Store Department of the India Office."

  EX-OFFICIO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SCOTLAND) BILL [CHANGED FROM CHAIRMEN OF PARISH COUNCILS SCOTLAND) BILL].
  Considered as amended.
  EX-OFFICIO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SCOTLAND) BILL [CHANGED FROM CHAIRMEN OF PARISH COUNCILS SCOTLAND) BILL].

    CLAUSE 1.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'on the expiration or other determination of a previous term of office.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    MR. CALDWELL: The reason I move to omit these words is that I can see no possible necessity or justification for them. No doubt there are similar words in the English Act, but I fail to see why we should slavishly follow English precedent in dealing with the case of Scotland.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): If these words are found necessary and desirable in the English Act, they are, I think, still more applicable in this Bill. I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 7, after the word 'office' insert the words 'and who has taken the oaths required by law to be taken by a justice of the peace.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am quite willing to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 7, leave out the words 'continue to.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    MR. CALDWELL: I may tell the right honourable Gentleman at once that I shall press this Amendment to a Division. According to the clause as it stands, if a chairman is re-elected, he will require to take the oath a second time, if an interval occurs between the expiration of the first period which qualified him and his re-election. I can conceive no possible ground for such a provision.
    This is a matter on which we hold a very strong opinion, and, unless the right honourable Gentleman gives way, I shall be bound to take a Division.
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. There is a perfectly good reason for the provision to which the honourable Gentleman objects. There may be an interval of 20 years between a chairman's first term of office and his re-election, and I cannot imagine what hardship is done him by requiring him again to take the oath.
    DR. CLARK: The principle on which we support this Amendment is that after a man once pays his fees and takes the oath he ought not to be compelled to repeat the performance when he is re-elected. The proposition is ridiculous, because the mere fact that a man has acted as chairman for one term of office and gained experience makes it desirable to secure a man with that experience, rather than to place difficulties in his way.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided.—Ayes 119; Noes.42.—(Division List No. 133.)

    AYES.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Cox, Robert

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

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

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

    Denny, Colonel

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcr.)

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Charrington, Spencer

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Bill, Charles

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Bond, Edward

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Fergusson, RtHn Sir J. (Manc'r)

    Brassey, Albert

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Finch, George H.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

    Round, James

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Garfit, William

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

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

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Godson, Augustus Frederick

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUni.)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Tomlinson, Win. E. Murray

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Milton, Viscount

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Gull. Sir Cameron

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. E. W.

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

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Hardy, Laurence

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Myers, William Henry

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Heath, James

    Nicholson, William Graham

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

    Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

    Wylie, Alexander

    Howell, William Tudor

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

    Purvis, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Kemp, George

    Pym, C. Guy

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    NOES.

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Brigg, John

    Hazell, Walter

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Shee, James John

    Burns, John

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Knox, E. F. Vesey

    Strachey, Edward

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lambert, George

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Tennant, Harold John

    Davitt, Michael

    McEwan, William

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Dillon, John

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morley, C (Breconshire)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Colville.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pease, Jos. A. (Northum.)

ERRATUM.
Tuesday, 24th May 1898.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL (NO. 120) page 579.—In the Ayes, leave out Gourley, Sir E. Temperley, and insert Goulding, Edward Alfred.
And it being after Midnight, Further Proceeding, on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill as amended to be further considered upon Monday next.

APPEAL FOR JURY (REPEAL) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
Read the second time, and committed for Friday.
House adjourned at 12.10.