Commons Sitting of 24 June 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That Standing Order CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  MALDON WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That Standing Order CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

  MID-KENT WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That Standing Order CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That Standing Order CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  BOLTON, TURTON AND WESTHOUGHTON EXTENSION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders. CCXXIII. and CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders CCXXIII. and CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders CCXXIII. and OCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From York and Holloway; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From New Cumnock; and against Local Government (Scotland) Act (1894) Amendment (No. 2) Bill and Poor Law Officers' Superannuation (Scotland) Bill; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Pavenham, Bury (2), Rugby, Stoke-on-Trent, Birkenshaw, and Auchterarder; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Against: From Sculcoats and Holbeach; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From Kensington; to lie upon the Table.
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Galston and Aberfeldy; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
    Copy presented of Scheme for the Management of the Foundation, called Queen Mary's Schools, in the borough of Walsall, in the county of Stafford, regulated by a Scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869, 1873, and 1874, on the 28th July, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 252.]
    NAVY (SEAMEN AND STOKERS' RE-ENGAGEMENT).
    Return presented relative thereto [ordered 13th June; Mr. E. J. C. Morton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 253.]
    ASYLUMS (ENGLAND AND WALES (RELIGIOUS MINISTRATIONS).
    Address for "Return as to Religious Ministrations in County and Borough Asylums in England and Wales."—(Admiral Field.)

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir John Mowbray reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Dr. Clark and Mr. H. C. Richards; and had appointed in substitution Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Talbot.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    LOCAL AUHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
    Return ordered, "showing the extent to which, and the manner in which, Local Authorities in Scotland have allocated and applied fund to the purposes of Technical Education during each of the two years ended respectively on the 15th day of May, 1897, and the 15th day of May, 1898, under the following Acts: Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892; Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887; Technical Instruction Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1892; and Public Libraries Acts."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    EGYPT (REMISSION OF LOAN).
    Committee to consider of authorising the remission of a sum advanced to the Government of H.H. the Khedive of Egypt (Queen's Recommendation signified) upon Monday next.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    Reported; Report to lie upon the Table.
    LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
    Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    BIDEFORD AND CLOVELLY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Ordered, That the Report and Evidence of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Legislation, in Session 1888, the Return relative to Private Bills of Session 1897, and the Return relative to Private Bill Legislation and Private Bills and Provisional Orders (Scotland) of the
    18
    present Session, he referred to the Select Committee on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill.—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)

    DUNDEE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    ELECTION PETITIONS.
    Ordered, That the Report and Evidence of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Election Petitions, in Session 1897, be referred to the Select Committee on Election Petitions.—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    Reported [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill, as amended, to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.
    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    FINANCE BILL,
    Without Amendment.

    THANET GAS BILL,
    With Amendments.
    Amendment to—

    LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
    Without Amendment.
    COLONIAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to alter and extend the constitution and powers of the Colonial Bank."
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Also a Bill intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to East Ham Urban District Tramways, Eccleshill Urban District Tramways, Huddersfield Corporation Tramways, and Lmthwaite Tramway."
    LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
    Also a Bill intituled "An Act to remove the Disqualification of Justices in certain cases under the Licensing Acts, 1872–74."
    LAND CHARGES BILL. [H.L.]
    And also a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to charges on Land, and to matters connected therewith."
    PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    That they give leave to the Lord Balfour to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, his Lordship, in his place, consenting.
    COLONIAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; and referred to; the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]
    PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    QUESTIONS.

      HOUSING OF LONDON PAUPER CHILDREN.
      MR. W. JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of pauper children at present in the metropolitan workhouses, and if the number given in February, 1895, by Mr. Knollys, the Chief General Inspector of the Local Government Board, at 1,809 has been reduced; and whether any action has been taken by the Local Government Board to provide receiving homes for the children; and, if so, what has been the result of such action?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN, Lincs.,): The number of children in the metropolitan, workhouses, according to our latest returns, excluding children under two years of age, was 1,124; 554 were under two years of age. The number of children between the ages of two and three ought also to be deducted as children under the age at which they are sent to school. With this deduction the number would probably be about 900. The Local Government Board have communicated with the several boards of guardians with reference to provision by them of accommodation in separate establishments for the children of the less permanent class, and the guardians in many instances have promised to give the matter their consideration. Whilst, however, there is scarcely a union where the question as to provision for the children is not now under consideration in some form or other, there is an indisposition on the part of guardians to provide additional accommodation until it has been seen what has been the effect of the change Which will result from the transfer to the

      21
      managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District of the care of certain classes of children, including those suffering from ophthalmia, and their arrangements for that purpose are necessarily not yet complete.

      CLONES POST OFFICE.
      MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the site contemplated for the new post office in Clones belongs to the wife of the present postmaster, and is situate in a steep part of the Diamond; also that the Town Commissioners did not approve of the site, but merely recommended that the site should be in a central position; whether the postmaster was shown or informed of the contents of communications addressed to the Department stating on what terms other owners of property in Clones were prepared to sell or lease premises for the purposes required; whether he is aware steps have been taken by the inhabitants of Clones to protest against the site in question being selected; whether, when the post office surveyor visited the several premises offered to the Department, he was on each occasion accompanied by the postmaster, and whether letters addressed by two of the Clones Town Commissioners to the Secretary of the Dublin Post Office, protesting against the choosing of the site in question, were forwarded or their contents made known to the Clones postmaster; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the entire matter of selecting a site for the proposed new office, so as to meet with the approval of the general body of the inhabitants of Clones?
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURT,): The answer to the first sentence of the first paragraph is "Yes," to the second "No." On the contrary, the Town Commissioners are unanimously in favour of the site "as being the most Suitable and central in the town." The answer to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs is in the affirmative. A decision has not yet been finally given, and the matter is therefore still open to further inquiry if a better scheme can be suggested within the limits of expense which the comparatively small amount of the
      22
      Post Office business at Clones will warrant.
      MR. MACALEESE: The Town Commissioners were not unanimous.

      HISTORICAL RECORDS.
      SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to give greater freedom to students, it would be possible to assimilate the Home Office practice with regard to historical records to that of the Foreign Office, under which correspondence up to 1830 can be inspected subject to some restrictions?
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have been looking into the whole question, and have made inquiries of other departments as to their practice. The matter is somewhat complicated, but I hope it will be possible to make arrangements in the direction of relaxing the present rules.

      APPEAL COURT VALUATIONS.
      MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that tenants in Ireland who get fair rents fixed before the Sub-Commission Court experience much annoyance by not being able to get the Appeal Court valuers' valuation in case there is an appeal unless the landlord signs a joint application; and whether lie will direct that in future tenants can get the court valuers' valuation without application to the landlord?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): On behalf of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary I have to say that the Land Commissioners have already publicly announced their intention to revert to the practice, which spreviously obtained, of notifying the result of court valuers' valuations in appeal cases to the parties interested, and of issuing to either of them copies of such reports where they are bespoken prior to the hearing. This change in procedure will be effected with the least possible delay.

      PETERBOROUGH RAILWAY STATION.
      MR. MONCKTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Great pastern Railway Company have made any, and, if so, what, effort to redeem the promise made to him to improve their station at Peterborough; whether the plans then produced for various alterations have been proceeded with; and, if so, to what extent; why the matter should be continually delayed, and when the work will be carried out; whether the inspectors of the Board of Trade have reported that the existing conditions under which all traffic is carried on at the station and its approaches are perfectly satisfactory and consistent with public safety, especially having regard to excursions and times of special pressure, and that the means of access to the Island platform is safe, convenient, and proper; and whether the Board of Trade are able to enforce existing bye-laws and can compel the Great Eastern Railway Company to carry them out at this station?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. T. C. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade, have continued negotiations with the company on this subject, and as recently as the 1st of this month they heard from the manager of the Great Eastern that the proposal to provide a large station at Peterborough, to accommodate the traffic of all the companies, is still engaging attention, but the difficulties, which are considerable, have not yet been overcome. The Board were further informed that the company had instructed their engineer to carry out in the meantime certain works at the existing stations estimated to cost £9,500. The reply to the fourth paragraph of the Question is in the negative, and I am bound to say that, although the Board recognise that the work about to done will be a great improvement, it is very doubtful whether the Department can pass the plans as altogether satisfactory. I am not sure that I understand my honourable Friend's reference to by laws in the fifth paragraph; but, in the event of the Great Eastern carrying out the works to which I have referred, they will have to submit the station to the Board of Trade for rein-spection.

      HANWELL BARRACK SCHOOL CHILDREN.
      DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a Report by Dr. Willcocks, of the Charing Cross Hospital, by which it appears that out of 82 children, varying in age from three to 16, in the Barrack Schools of Hanwell, belonging to the Central London District, it was found that 30 were suffering from adenoid growths of the throat at the back of the nose, and 23 from enlargement of the tonsils, while in nine cases there was considerable enlargement of the tonsils, and in several cases a discharge from the ear, with perforation of the drum of the ear; and whether he will direct an inquiry to be made by the Local Government Board with a view of the best thing being done for each individual child?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I have already given directions, for an inquiry with regard to the cases of the children referred to. I may, however, say that Dr. Willcocks, in his Report, distinctly states that the school life and surroundings of the children cannot be held responsible in any sense for the adenoid disease, the disease being prevalent among children in all classes of society.

      SHIPWRIGHTS' RATINGS.
      MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of shipwright ratings that will be leaving the Navy on pension during the next two years; and if he will inquire whether a larger percentage of those could be induced to serve on if improved pay and position were conceded?
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The number of shipwright ratings likely to be pensioned in the ensuing two years cannot be stated. The numbers pensioned during the last two financial years were:—1896–97, eight; 1897–98, 13; total, 21. The number is so small that the adoption of the honourable Member's suggestion would

      25
      not much affect the situation. The Recruiting Committee have made certain suggestions, which are under the consideration of the Board.

      QUEEN'S JUBILEE DECORATIONS.
      MB. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Volunteer medical officers who were officially ordered to take medical charge of brigades or provisional battalions on Jubilee Day, and actually did duty as such, have been entirely excluded from participation in the distribution of the Queen's Jubilee medals (unless in command of a brigade bearer company), whereas brigade major and chief transport officers received it; whether he is aware that this exclusion is regarded as a slight to these medical officers; and whether he will have their services on that occasion recognised as the other officers referred to?
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BBODRICK,): The rules for the distribution of the Jubilee medals were made by Her Majesty, and the Secretary of State has no control in the matter.

      FUTURE TENANCIES IN IRELAND.
      MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland whether he can state the number of future tenancies created in Ireland since the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881?
      MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The Government have no official record of the number of tenancies referred to, and no means of obtaining information as to the number.

      MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
      COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, during the military manœuvres to take place from the 1st September, the movements and the choice of camping grounds will be left to the discretion of the general
      26
      officers commanding the two opposing armies, and varied by them according to the altering conditions of each day's actions, or whether these movements and camping grounds will be previously decided upon and carried out according to a settled programme?
      MR. BRODRICK: The general officers commanding the opposing forces will be able to encamp their respective units on any grounds for which water arrangements have been made. There will be no settled programme beyond fixing where water will be available. The difficulty of having sufficient good water must in some degree limit the freedom of the movement, as also it necessarily does in war.

      CHARGES FOR PRESS TELEGRAMS.
      MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether duplicate Press telegrams to separate newspapers are charged at a reduced rate for the second telegram where payment is made in cash, but at the full rate when passes are handed in with the message; and whether, in the interests of the newspapers of the United Kingdom, he will have the reduced rate allowed on passes as well as in cash payments, and the total cost apportioned equally to the several addresses?
      MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that, duplicate press telegrams to separate newspapers are charged at a reduced rate for the second telegram when payment is made in cash, but at the full rate when the passes of the separate newspapers, are handed in with the message. This practice was sanctioned by regulations framed by the Postmaster General in 1879 with the approval of the Treasury, and laid upon the Table of the House.

      URCHER LABOURER'S COTTAGE.
      MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Bailieborough Board of Guardians had erected under contract, superintended by their architect, a labourer's cottage in the townland of Urcher in

      27
      1896, which was certified by the inspector of the Local Government Board in March, 1897; whether he is aware that in December, 1897, the guardians received a report from the sanitary inspector that, in consequence of the walls and floors being damp and the building badly erected, it was unfit for habitation; and whether, under these circumstances, the Local Government Board having certified for the cottage, the Government will consider it advisable to order an inquiry into the matter to ascertain by whose fault the present state of things exists?
      MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The cottage in question was erected in 1896 by the Bailieborough guardians under the superintendence of their own architect, and was inspected by one of the Local Government Board's engineering inspectors in March, 1897. The Board's engineering inspectors never give certificates in relation to the completion of such cottages, payment being always made on the certificates of the local architect. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The responsibility for the carrying out of works in strict accordance with the approved plan and specification devolves upon the architect employed by the guardians, and not upon the Board's engineering inspector, who obviously could not superintend the erection of labourers' cottages throughout Ireland. The guardians have been informed by the Local Government Board that if they are not satisfied with the action of their architect in this case, they may employ another architect to examine the site and house, and give them a professional report as to what should be done to remedy the defects complained of. The matter is one entirely between the guardians and their architect, and it would be outside the province of the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry as suggested.

      NEW JAPANESE TARIFFS.
      MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: On behalf of the honourable Member for West Bradford, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the new tariff
      28
      is coming into force in Japan; and if he can lay upon the Table of the House any Papers in connection with it?
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. OURZON, Lancs,): The date when the new tariffs will come into force in Japan is dependent upon the ratification of the Treaty with Austria-Hungary, the last of the new series of Treaties negotiated by Japan with the Powers. When this has taken place the Japanese Government have undertaken to allow a further period before the new tariff comes into force, and a public announcement in this sense will be made. There are no Papers which it would be of any advantage to lay.

      FOREIGN TRAWLERS IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
      MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government are now prepared to make a statement in reply to the influential deputation from the great fishing centres of the United Kingdom which waited upon Lord Salisbury on the 8th inst., and to whom the Prime Minister could not reply at the time, owing to the absence of the Secretary for Scotland from the interview, as to their intended action regarding the continued presence of foreign trawlers in the protected waters of the Moray Firth, whereby British fishing interests, both trawling and line, are seriously jeopardised, and the experiment for which those waters were closed rendered abortive?
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Secretary for Scotland is not prepared to accept the assumptions which are contained in the Question. I have no statement to make.
      MR. PIRIE: Will the right honourable Gentleman say how soon a statement will be forthcoming?
      MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have no statement to make.

      EXPORTATION OF OLD HORSES.
      MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that last year 14,840 old horses

      29
      and 257 donkeys and mules were exported to France for consumption abroad, and that, owing to the improper accommodation on the steamers, and to the fact that these animals are regarded as useless for work, the greatest cruelties exist; and if he will take steps to enforce humane treatment as long as they are under British control?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): Details as to the actual numbers of old horses or donkeys exported for consumption abroad are not supplied in the annual trade accounts of the United Kingdom. The total exports of horses, however, to the country named by the honourable Member, in the year 1897, were 27 stallions, 1,683 mares, and 2,973 geldings. I have recently caused careful investigation to be made into the conditions under which the trade referred to by my honourable Friend is carried on, and I am in communication with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the subject, with a view to their supplementing, if possible, the information we have ourselves obtained. We shall then, I hope, be in a position to determine whether, so far as the equipment of the vessels is concerned, there is any ground for intervention on our part, and generally to consider what steps are necessary to prevent and punish the offences in connection with the trade.

      OFFICERS OF MARINES.
      MR. MENDL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, will he explain why substantive lieutenant-colonels of Marines are put on the same roster as captains in the Army, although no other substantive lieutenant-colonels are put on such rosters; and if he will see that, in future, the officers of Marines shall only be put on rosters oil which officers of similar rank in the Army are liable to serve?
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: When the number of field officers in a garrison is small, it frequently happens that captains in the Army and Royal Marines are put upon the duty roster of field officers. It is probable that, in the case of the garrison which the honourable Member has in view (Plymouth), the substantive lieutenant-colo-
      30
      nels are in command of regiments, and so, in the opinion of the general officer commanding, are not available for garrison duty. I see no reason for making any change in the present practice.

      NAVY AND THE WELSH COAL STRIKE.
      MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has received any confirmation of the rumour that the stoppage in the South Wales and Monmouthshire coal trade would extend to those non-associated collieries from which the Admiralty have latterly been mainly supplied, and which he stated to be the simple reason for countermanding the naval manœuvres this year; and, should the rumour prove to have been unfounded, will the countermanding order be cancelled; and should, on the other hand, the rumour prove to be correct, and the present sources of supply be closed, will he say what objection, if any, there would be to holding the naval manœuvres upon the general resumption of work at the collieries in South Wales?
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have no further information as to the probability or improbability of the strike extending to the non-associated collieries. If the honourable Member is in a position to give me any information on the subject, I shall be much obliged to him. Naval manœuvres cannot be ordered or countermanded from week to week. Different arrangements have now been made for the Channel Squadron, the Reserve Squadron, and the other ships which would have taken part in the manœuvres, and for the officers who would have been employed. The decision is final.
      MR. FENWICK: May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the fact that contracts have recently been made with coalowners in Monmouthshire to supply coal to the Navy, and whether he can state that an opportunity will be given to the Northumberland owners to tender for the same contracts?
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I prefer notice of these matters. I can only say generally that Northumberland owners would not have tendered for the same service as the Welsh owners,

      31
      the Northumberland coal not being employed in the same manner.
      MR. J. WILSON: Has the right honourable Gentleman received any reports with regard to Scotch coal?
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Scotch coal does not arise out of the Question.
      MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps the Government propose to take to meet the difficulty experienced by the Naval Department that at no time is there any stock of coal held at Cardiff by colliery owners or coal merchants beyond that held in loaded wagons?
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I think on the whole it is better that buyers and consumers should not prematurely reveal their plans to producers and sellers.

      ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Attendance of Children (Scotland) Bill will be introduced into this House; and whether the Government will give an opportunity on that occasion for some explanation and discussion of that Measure.
      MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I think the honourable Member has failed to observe that this Bill has been passed by the House of Lords, and has, therefore, been already introduced in this House in the ordinary way, and now stands for Second Reading, on which, of course, an opportunity for discussion will arise.
      CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I was quite aware of the Bill having been introduced in the House of Lords, and was waiting for its appearance in this House. I wanted to know when we were to have an explanation of the Measure, which is one of great interest to Scotland.
      MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The honourable Member is not so familiar with Parliamentary procedure as I thought. House of Lords' Bills read themselves the first time, and there is no opportunity, therefore, for explanation on the first Reading. The Bill stands in the ordinary way for Second Reading.
      CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Will the right, honourable Gentleman allow me to point out that I do not mention "First Reading" in my question. I took the trouble to inform myself as to the procedure. I ask when the Bill will be introduced in this House?
      MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is the third order on Monday, the 27th.
      MR. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that that evening we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Bill?
      MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
      MR. BUCHANAN: That is the question on the Paper.

      NEW REGISTRATION (IRELAND) ACT.
      MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the uncertainty that prevails in Ireland as to the preparation of the lists of voters in registration units under the new Registration (Ireland) Act, he can state if specific instructions have been issued by the authorities to the different clerks of peace and clerks of unions, directing them in making out the supplemental lists to include in these lists the names of all the voters in each registration unit in counties and boroughs, so that at the next Revision Sessions the Revising Barristers may be able to deal with the correctness of the names in these lists.
      MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The supplemental lists, both of £10 rated occupiers and of householders, are to be made out in registration units, and the Local Government supplemental lists of Peers and women are to be similarly dealt with. This is clearly prescribed in the special instructions attached to the Order in Council dated 23rd May, 1898, and no uncertainty should exist in the matter.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
      MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state when the Government Amendments to

      33
      the Local Government (Ireland) Bill will be in the hands of Members of the House of Commons?
      MR. ATKINSON: The Amendments and new clauses, with the exception of a few which, owing to the illness of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary, it may be necessary to delay for a couple of days, will be placed upon the Paper to-day. As the Report stage has been adjourned for a week, honourable Members will have ample time to consider those which are for the present withheld.

      NEW BATTALION OF GUARDS.
      MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how many of the 266 men forming the new battalion of Guards are transfers, and how many recruits?
      MR. BRODRICK: The 266 non-commissioned officers and men forming the 3rd Battalion Coldstream Guards on 1st March, 1898, were made up as follows:—142 joined as recruits, 131 joined as transfers, making a total of 273, from which seven must be deducted for casualties.

      IRISH DAY MAIL.
      MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether he has any objection to naming the date upon which the acceleration of the Irish day mail service between London and Dublin will come into operation, and give the exact times of departure and arrival?
      MR. HANBURY: One or two small details have still to be arranged, but I have no doubt the service will be in operation by the 1st August. The mail train will leave Euston 1¼ hours later than at present, and reach 4Dublin half an hour later. It will leave Dublin three-quarters of an hour later than at present, and arrive in London at the same time as now.

      EXPULSION OF MR. LILLIE FROM SLAM.
      SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Siamese Government lately expelled Mr. Lillie, a British subject, by permission of Her Majesty's Government; whether there was a violation of domicile in this case by the Siamese police; in what form protection was withdrawn from Mr. Lillie; and what was Mr. Lillie's offence?
      MR. CURZON: Mr. Lillie was expelled from Siam on the 19th March last, wit' the entire concurrence and approval of Her Majesty's Government. Protection was withdrawn from Mr. Lillie by the refusal of Her Majesty's Minister to protect him, and the arrest having been effected with the concurrence of the British representative no question of a violation of domicile arises in the case. The reason for which Her Majesty's Government declined to interfere on Mr. Lillie's behalf was his publication in a paper called the "Siam Free Press," of which he was the proprietor and editor, of a series of seditious and disgraceful attacks upon the King and Government of Siam.
      MR. VESEY KNOX: I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he would be willing to lay upon the Table of the House copies of these articles for which Mr. Lillie has been expelled?
      MR. CURZON: No, Sir; I think that would be entirely contrary to practice.
      MR. VESEY KNOX: Would the right honourable Gentleman be willing to specify in any way the particular articles which constituted Mr. Lillie's offence?
      MR. CURZON: No, Sir; I decline to be involved in any pledge to give even a specification.

      BELFAST RIOTS.
      MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the trials on Wednesday, the 15th

      35
      instant, of the Belfast rioters and to the evidence of Serjeant Clarke, of the mounted police, to the effect that a city magistrate, named Doran, asked the police why they had charged a riotous mob; that the crowd then shouted to put the police off the road; that Doran then ordered the police to retire; and that, in the presence and hearing of the mob, he told them they must do so when directed by him; and whether, seeing that similar proceedings during the 1886 riots were strongly denounced by the Royal Commission that followed, the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland will be directed to the incident?
      MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): My attention has been drawn to the evidence referred to in the Question. The matter will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

      DISMISSAL OF IRISH SCHOOL TEACHERS.
      MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have power to so alter their rules as to prevent arbitrary dismissal by school managers of teachers who, though no fault as to conduct or teaching qualifications or capacity has been proved or alleged against them, have no right of appeal tinder existing rules against such dismissal; and whether the Commissioners propose to make such alterations in their rules, especially in view of recent occurrences; if not, whether Government has power to reconstitute the Board of Commissioners so as to give the teachers representation thereupon; and, if so, whether the Government intend to exercise this power, or take any other steps that may be necessary to safeguard National school teachers against arbitrary dismissal by school managers?
      MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The Commissioners have power to alter any of their rules with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. The Commissioners consider that the expression "arbitrary dismissal" in the first part of the Question is not a correct one,
      36
      in view of the provision in the agreements, that must, in all cases, be executed between managers and teachers of National schools, under which notice of dismissal must be given three months beforehand to the teacher, unless there be sufficient cause for immediate dismissal. The Commissioners in 1895 adopted two additional forms of agreement, which provide for a referee, without whose written concurrence in the action of the manager there can be neither immediate dismissal of the teacher nor the issue to him of the three months' notice. This provision was the result of much consideration by the Commissioners. The referee may be an individual or a committee, or other body, or may be the Commissioners of National Education themselves. The Commissioners have not yet fully considered whether further modifications of their regulations in the direction referred to by the honourable Member would be proper or expedient.

      ATLANTIC CATTLE TRAFFIC.
      MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that 1,010 sheep were lost out of 1,325, and also 157 cattle out, of 225, off the SS. Port Victoria, from Buenos Ayres to Liverpool, which arrived at Liverpool on Sunday, the 12th June; and whether measures will be taken to prevent such losses in future by the substitution of fittings which will resist the weather and carry live stock in a more humane fashion?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am aware of the extremely serious losses to which the honourable Member directs attention, and careful investigation is now being made of the circumstances which led to them. Our Orders require that the materials used in the construction of the pens in which animals are carried shall be of a substantial character, and of sufficient strength to withstand the action of the weather, and if it should appear, as the result of our inquiries, that there was any contravention of the Orders in

      37
      this respect in the case referred to, we shall consider whether proceedings against the persons responsible should be instituted, or the use of the vessel for the carriage of animals prohibited.

      LAW COMMITTEE ROOM.
      MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that recently, in the morning, in the Law Committee Room, the thermometer registered 74 degrees, and in the Library 68 degrees; and that in entering the House between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., even on a fine morning, the atmosphere intimates an inadequate influx of fresh air; whether his attention has been called to the impossibility or inadequacy of opening windows, both in the lobbies and elsewhere; and whether he will consider the propriety of altering the windows generally so as to enable them to be opened during the summer months, especially at the top?
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS DOUGLAS,): My honourable Friend does not state on which day the temperature in the Law Committee Room was shown to be 74 degrees. The readings of the thermometer taken between 10 and 11 o'clock on the first three days this week do not show so high a figure, the temperature varying between 67 and 69 degrees, or within two degrees of the outside shade temperature. However, if by any alteration of the existing windows greater comfort can be secured for Members using this Committee Room, I will gladly give directions that the necessary work shall at once be carried out. The matters referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the Question are now under consideration.

      NIGER CONVENTION.
      SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state with regard to the Niger Convention to what territories Article IX. applies?
      MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the area over which English and French are respectively to receive the same fiscal treatment as nationals in West Africa; whether there is any provision to secure that French goods imported by way of the Ivory Coast, Senegal, or Algeria into the French territory in the upper part of the basin of the Niger shall be subject to any duty; and whether under the new Treaty it will be impossible to give Canada and other colonies which may decide to admit British products on specially favoured terms any reciprocal preferential advantages in the colonies of the Gold Coast, Lagos, and in the Niger Coast Protectorate without extending the same advantages to the French and, as a consequence, to all other Powers with which the most-favoured-nation Treaties exist?
      MR. CURZON: The question in the first paragraph of the Question of the honourable Member for Londonderry identical with the Question standing in the name of the right honourable Member for the Forest of Dean. The fiscal areas mentioned in Article IX. of the Convention are marked on the large map which has been placed in the Library. Shortly summarised, they include the Ivory Coast and interior up to a point upon the ninth parallel, the Gold Coast and interior up to the eleventh parallel, with a projecting triangle, the apex of which is Wagadugu, Dahomey and its interior up to the same parallel, and Lagos and the Niger territories as defined in Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Convention. French goods imported by way of the Ivory Coast, Senegal, or Algeria may be subject to any duty that the French Government choose to impose, but in the case of the Ivory Coast, which falls within the fiscal area, such duties must be identical with those imposed upon British goods. The answer to the last Question is in the affirmative.

      WATERFORD, DUNGARVAN AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
      CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief

      39
      Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what relief would be given to the ratepayers of the county Waterford, by the terms of the Local Government Bill, towards the reduction of the guarantee now paid by them to the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway?
      MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): If the railway in question comes within the provisions of clause 50, paragraph 4, of the Bill, the amount of relief to which the guaranteeing baronies would appear to be entitled on the present rate is roughly estimated at £3,130.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can inform the House what progress the Royal Commission upon the best way of granting old age pensions to deserving members of the working masses is making, and when its Report may be expected?
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that the Report to which my honourable Friend refers is now in the hands of the printers. It has been presented in dummy to the House, as my honourable Friend is probably aware.

      TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH ICELAND.
      MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the National Sea Fisheries Conference, held on the 31st March, as to the desirability of establishing telegraphic communication between this country and the Faroe Islands and Iceland; and whether, seeing that the Great Northern Telegraphic Company of Copenhagen are prepared to construct and maintain the cable, besides granting preferential conditions as to the transmission of telegrams, if given an annual subsidy of
      40
      about £3,000 for 20 years, the Government are prepared to take advantage of this exceptional opportunity, more especially in view of the importance of the question to the Admiralty and to the meteorological stations, as well as to the fishing and commercial interests between this country and Iceland, which interests are annually increasing in importance and seriously suffering from the want of such communication?
      MR. HANBURY: A copy of the resolution of the National Sea Fisheries Conference was forwarded to the Treasury. Subsidies are granted by Her Majesty's Government for telegraphic communication only as regards cables which are considered to be necessary for purposes of Imperial defence or administration. The Great Northern Telegraphic Company is, in fact, a foreign company, and I know of no instance of such a subsidy to such a company; and no evidence has been laid before the Treasury to show that this scheme would afford such advantage to our national interests as would justify the proposed subsidy from the Exchequer.

      COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH GERMANY.
      COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government propose in the new Treaty of Commerce to exempt Canada from the most-favoured treatment accorded to goods from the rest of the British Empire; if this is in consequence of the preference which the Dominion is determined to accord from the 1st August to the manufactures of the United Kingdom over German goods; and, in such a case, if Her Majesty's Government will take care that its representatives stands firmly by the rights of the Colony?
      MR. CURZON: The announcement to which my honourable and gallant Friend refers does not relate to the new Treaty of Commerce which is in course of negotiation with Germany, but to an ad interim provision which has been made by the

      41
      German Government to cover the period between the expiration of the old and the conclusion of a new Treaty. Under this provisional régime, most-favoured-nation treatment is accorded to Great Britain and her colonies, with the exception of Canada; the reason for the exclusion of the latter being, doubtless, the circumstances to which allusion is made in the Question. The Dominion Government is, I believe, fully alive to its own interests in the matter, and is able to protect them.

      INDIAN FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
      MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there is any special reason why the Explanatory Memorandum of the Indian Financial Statement has this year been issued in such an abridged form; and whether the portions of the statement omitted upon this occasion will be published and be placed in the hands of Members before the discussion of the Financial Statement takes place at the end of the Session?
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Explanatory Memorandum was issued this year in an abridged form in order that, before the Debate of the East India Loan Bill, the House might be in possession of all the material information necessary for a discussion. I was not aware that there was any wish for the enlarged Memorandum of previous years, but, if such a feeling exists, I will lay on the Table a Supplementary Paper giving such portions of the usual Statement as were omitted in the Memorandum already issued.

      INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
      MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the number of places for the Indian Civil Service to be offered this year, and what was the number allotted in the same service in the year 1884; and whether he will inform the
      42
      House what is the principle by which the number of annual appointments in this service is regulated?
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The number of appointments offered this year is 65. In 1884 the number was 36; but since 1887 provision has had to be made for the Burmah Commission. The number of places to be offered annually is settled quinquennially with reference to the number of sanctioned posts; but this settlement is modified from time to time with reference to the actual state of the service, which is reported to be much depleted at present.

      COMMERCIAL TREATIES AND THE MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
      MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received a copy of the new commercial Treaty between Germany and the Orange Free State; what are the terms of the clause under which the contracting Powers reserve the favours granted by one party to a neighbour for better intercourse at the frontier or under a Customs union; and whether a similar reservation will be made to the most-favoured-nation clause in all future British commercial treaties?
      MR. CURZON: Yes, sir, we have received a copy of the Treaty in question. The clause referred to in the second paragraph is very long, and I cannot well read it out in reply to a question. But I shall be happy to give the honourable Member a translation of it if he desires. Her Majesty's Government could not give any such general assurance as is asked for in the concluding question. Each case must be dealt with on its merits as it arises.

      HOLIDAYS AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
      MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the practice that telegraph clerks commencing annual leave on Bank Holidays are

      43
      granted a compensatory day at the end of their holidays; whether this custom has been departed from in the case of Belfast telegraphists commencing holidays on 30th May (Whit Monday), and whether the reason for this departure from custom can be stated; and whether the Postmaster General will authorise that for the future, when Bank Holidays fall within the period of an officer's annual leave, the equivalent day shall be added to the holidays?
      MR. HANBURY: The practice is to allow an extra day when a Bank Holiday occurs during annual leave. In the case of 10 telegraphists at Belfast whose annual leave began on Whit Monday it was found inconvenient to include the extra day in their annual leave, but an equivalent day will be allowed to them later on. There is no reason for issuing any fresh instructions, inasmuch as the privilege is well understood; but, like all official leave, this is subject to the exigencies of the service.

      REPORT OF THE MONEY-LENDING COMMITTEE.
      MR. HAZELL: I desire to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether the draft Report of the Select Committee on Money-lending is not at the present time considered a confidential document, not to be issued to the Press; whether he is aware that it appeared in the Times this morning; whether he can state how a copy of the Report reached that newspaper, and, if not, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the matter?
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): In reply to my honourable Friend I may say that I saw the Report in the Times this morning with very great surprise and regret. It is manifest that the premature publication of the proceedings of a Select Committee is very embarrassing to the Committee itself, and is misleading to the public. I have not the slightest idea how the Report was conveyed to the Times;
      44
      but I may point out that it is the original and not the amended draft that is published. The members of the Committee agreed at their meeting yesterday that the Report was not to be communicated to the Press.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
      SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business will be taken next Wednesday?
      MR. BUCHANAN: I wish, too, to ask a Question on a subject for which we have endeavoured to obtain information from the Lord Advocate—namely, whether the right honourable Gentleman will make arrangements for the discussion next week of the only two Scottish Government Bills which have come before the House—the Attendance of Children (Scotland) Bill and the Bill dealing with the equivalent grant to Scotland. It would be a great convenience if the discussion could be arranged for next week.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope the opportunity will be found for discussing the Attendance of Children (Scotland) Bill on Monday next. The other Scottish Bill will, I think, be brought on before the end of the month. On Wednesday I hope to be able to proceed with the Criminal Evidence Bill.
      MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to point out that on a Bill for the distribution of money, the only opportunity for objecting, if we wish to, to the method of distribution is on the first stage of the Bill.

    ORDERS OF THE DAY.

      SOUTH WALES COALFIELD (DISPUTE). [MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
      *MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I rise to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the widespread privation and dis-

      45
      tress arising from the dispute between employers and employed in the South Wales coal field, and the dislocation of, and injury to, the commerce of the district by the continuance of the dispute, and the urgent necessity for putting into force the provisions of the Conciliation Act of 1896.
      *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Swansea asks leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the widespread privation and distress arising from the dispute between employers and employed in the South Wales coal field, the dislocation of, and injury to, the commerce of the district by the continuance of the dispute, and the urgent necessity for putting into force the Conciliation Act of 1896. Is it the pleasure of the House that leave be given?
      Leave having been granted—
      *MR. BRYNMOR JONES said: In the few observations which I wish to make in support of this Motion I desire to avoid most scrupulously saying anything which may tend to embitter or prolong the painful controversy that is being carried on in South Wales. Nor, Mr. Speaker, for my part, do I intend to give any opinion upon, or to argue the merits of, the questions that are now being debated between the Coal Owners' Association and the miners, who have been formerly employed by them, and are now out of work. The object which my honourable Friends the Members for Glamorganshire and the Member for Monmouthshire and I have in view, without distinction of Party, is to direct the attention of the House to the present disastrous condition of affairs, and to inquire whether it is or is not possible for the Government to do something to bring to an end the quarrel or dispute—call it what you like—which has caused, and is causing, in an increasing degree, immense misery to thousands of families, especially to women and children; a dispute which is disturbing commercial
      46
      operations of very great magnitude, which is inflicting grave loss on persons whose capital is invested in the coal industry, and which threatens to retard for a long time the progress of a very large and important part of the United Kingdom. Sir, I do not think it is necessary to deal at any length with the present situation. The gravity of the position may be estimated from very few facts. The total number of the miners habitually employed in South Wales coal fields is about 130,000. I have been unable to obtain any trustworthy information as to the amount of capital which is sung in the industry, but it is a matter of common knowledge that the amount is very large indeed. The dispute that is going on at the present time is that between employer and employed, in what are known as the associated collieries—that is to say, in collieries which belong to, or are being worked by, the members of the Coal Owners' Association. The number of men who have been employed by this Association, and who are now out of work is, I am informed, very nearly 90,000—the figure may be a little under the mark. And here, Sir, I want to make a parenthetical observation. In this industry, as in others, there are many classes of workmen employed, and I think it is a matter of credit to both sides in this dispute—certainly a matter of credit to the men—that the banksmen, firemen, and engineers, who are not directly concerned in the hewing and getting of coal, but in the maintenance of the collieries as going concerns, have remained at work with the unanimous consent of the labour leaders, and with the complete consent of the masters of the collieries in the districts affected. It is, of course, a matter of common knowledge to those who may notice what is stated in the public Press in regard to this controversy that there have been some difficulties in consequence of the despatch of military troops into the district, but fortunately, up to the present time such has been the reasonableness of

      47
      the labour leaders that there has been no countenance given to the suggestion that these men should leave their work, and inflict a great loss upon the capitalists who are concerned in this industry. In most of the non-associated collieries work has gone on, the masters having conceded a considerable advance. That, for instance, has been the case in regard to the very large and important collieries which are greatly controlled by my honourable Friend the senior Member for Merthyr. But what I wish to point out to the President of the Board of Trade, and what I wish to point out to the Government as a whole, is, that if something is not done to terminate the present dispute, it is practically inevitable that its area will be extended—that it will go beyond the associated collieries and extend also to the non-associated collieries; because one of the inevitable results of the 90,000 men going out in the associated district has been that the price of coal has gone up, and that, therefore, is an encouragement to men in non-associated collieries to make further demands. The men have now-been out of work 12 weeks, and I am not using language of exaggeration when I say that the result has been disastrous. Its sad consequences were, first of all, felt by the men themelves, and especially by their wives and families, and the distress is fast spreading to other classes. It is a peculiarity of the coal industry that a strike or a lock-out on an extensive scale has the widest and most far-reaching effect. Coal is a commodity of prime necessity in our manufacturing concerns and in the national trade, and it so happens that the coal that is produced by the associated collieries and the other collieries is of the quality and capacity which is best adapted for the purpose of steamship navigation. No more striking illustration of the far-reaching effect of this dispute can be given than the fact that it entirely alters the plans of the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to our naval manœuvres in the autumn. I
      48
      will not, Mr. Speaker, delay the House by going into details in regard to the terrible effects that have already occurred, but I should like to mention two very salient facts indicating the direct effects of the dispute which has only gone on for some 12 weeks. The number of seamen, for instance, shipping at Cardiff Swansea, and Newport in May, 1897, was 7,525; the number of men shipped last month was only 2,210, a diminution of nearly 70 per cent. And then, to take another illustration—an illustration of a kind which I might multiply almost indefinitely—I observe that the number of blast furnaces at work in Cardiff all last year was 16, while the number now at work at Cardiff is only three. But the effect of the dispute is not confined to work there; it goes considerably farther. The tradesmen who supply the workmen with the necessaries of life already find themselves in a position of difficulty. They are in many cases unable to fulfil their obligations and to replenish their stocks, and it is not too much to say that, from the highest to the lowest, there is some loss and some suffering caused by the continuance of the present state of affairs. Now, Mr. Speaker, this being the condition of affairs, I desire to say a few words as to the origin and character of this unfortunate dispute. Here I must observe that for over 20 years the relations of employers and employed in this coal field have been regulated by what is known as the sliding-scale arrangement. The essential principle of that system is that the wages are adjusted by the average selling price of coal. Upon the average selling prices of coal at Cardiff, Barry, Swansea, and Newport, delivered free on board, as calculated by a two-monthly audit, the wages are adjusted automatically. I will not, Sir, give a detailed explanation of this system, of its merits on the one side, or its demerits on the other, but one part of this arrangement was that either party might give a six months' notice to terminate the arrangement. On 1st October last the duly-authorised repre-

      49
      sentatives of the men gave that notice. The notice would expire on the 1st April, but before the date on which, the notice to determine the sliding scale became effective, the associated coal owners gave notice to terminate the monthly contracts of the men in their employ. That notice came into operation also on the 1st of April. I will not, Sir, ask under those circumstances, whether the cessation of work that has taken place is a strike or a lock-out. My honourable Friend the Member for Merthyr told the House the other day that it was a lockout and not a strike. I will not raise the question because I do not think, at this stage of the dispute it is really a very important matter. In my view, this dispute cannot be alleged to be a strike in any sense detrimental to the interests of the men, nor can it be alleged to be a lock-out in any sense offensive or detrimental to the interests of the employer. What has taken place is what, under the circumstances, was inevitable, an actual cssation of work. Now, Sir, what happened then? First of all some members of the Sliding Scale Committee attempted in their zeal to continue operations, but they forgot apparently that their power as members of the Sliding Scale Committee was at an end. They attempted to make a temporary arrangement to carry on the work of the collieries up to 9th April, and some of the men went on working beyond 1st April, but for the most part the 90,000 men came out on 1st April or the next day. Well, I have not the slightest doubt that the issues between the two parties in this great dispute were by no means clear. Some of the workmen and some of their leaders were in favour of continuing the sliding scale arrangement with modifications. Some of them were in favour of continuing the sliding scale arrangement if a provision were introduced for either what is called an absolute minimum or a relative minimum wage; but undoubtedly, so far as I can gather from the sources of information open to me, the great majority of the men were in favour of terminating the sliding scale arrangement altogether, and of introducing a new system of adjusting the wages between themselves and their employers. There was, on their side, therefore, a certain indefiniteness of opinion, and I venture to put it to the
      50
      House that this indefiniteness is not to be wondered at when you come to think that you have 90,000 men to deal with, and 90,000 men were discussing the question under circumstances of peculiar difficulty to themselves. It is very difficult to get so large a body of men to see eye to eye upon any question, and essentially so upon a question which absolutely concerns the whole future conditions of their employment. Well, I wish to point out that, so far as these men are concerned, their action shows that the majority were agreed that the sliding scale had not resulted in a fair wage, when operating over a considerable period, as has been the case during the time since the great dispute of 1875, when the system came into vogue. This dissatisfaction on the part of the men was not any new thing. Last year was not the first time that they have given notice to terminate the sliding scale—they gave notice several times before, I am informed—but after discussion, and relying upon the advice of the members of the Sliding Scale Committee, the difficulty had been tided over. The decision to terminate the sliding scale arrangement on 1st April of this year was not arrived at in panic or in passion on the part of the men. It was given after anxious consideration, and under the belief that they were in the right, and that it was not by any means the best arrangement for this particular industry. On the other hand, the attitude of the masters was perfectly clear and definite. Here, I think I must say that, before 11th April, they had told the men that they were willing to continue the sliding scale system, and on 11th April, they issued at all the collieries concerned in this particular district, a notice on the sliding scale basis which specified the terms on which they were willing to continue operations, and allow the men to come in. Now, Sir, I think under these circumstances there is a certain definite step leading towards peace. It is a great thing to get any person engaged in a dispute of this kind, or of any kind, to say what his line of action is to be, what his demand is, in case it goes to arbitration. Now, the difficulty on the part of the men on April 11th, when the employers published this notice, was aggravated by the fact that the powers

      51
      of the old sliding scale committee had ceased. By the termination of the sliding scale system, and by the operation of the notice, both masters and men who were on the sliding scale committee had lost any power of acting on behalf of those they had hitherto represented. They had only got such moral influence as they might have in consequence of their past action. Well, Sir, a discussion took place, and as a result of the discussion, as a result of the poll, as to which my honourable Friend on my left (the Member for the Rhondda Division) can speak with much more authority than I can, these 90,000 men have entrusted their cause to 16 gentlemen—16 representatives in whom they have confidence—and I think I am absolutely accurate in saying that the terms upon which this provisional committee, as it is called, have been elected, give them ample powers to carry on any reasonable negotiations for a settlement of this great dispute. Well, that being the case, I say that the creation of this provisional committee has distinctly advanced the prospects of peace in regard to this dispute. You have now two parties clearly emerging from the dispute. You have, on the one side, the emergency committee of the Coal Owners' Association, as to whose powers there can be no doubt whatever; and you have on the other side a provisional committee of 16, consisting of 11 members of the old sliding scale committee, together with five men added in order to secure a better and a greater representation of the conditions of the work of the men. Well, Sir, they having been appointed, I will speak in a word or two of what has taken place subsequently. The secretary of the provisional committee—Mr. Miles—wrote to the secretary of the Coal Owners' Association that the committee had been informed that they had full power, and that they were willing to meet the emergency committee of the association for discussion. On May 31st the two bodies met. Now I am not going into all that took place there. It would take a long time to state the various point urged on the one side and the other at the three or four conferences that took place between the provisional committee and the emergency committee; but, in substance, what has taken place is this: the provisional committee put forward
      52
      a demand for an immediate advance of 10 per cent., to continue in force to the 31st of December, 1898. That, of course, has reference to the termination of the immediate dispute, without prejudice to the main difference between the parties, in order that the masters and men might come together and go to work at once. Secondly—and this was the principal demand—the men demanded that in the meantime a conciliation board should be formed to regulate the general wages rate, the board to be composed of an equal number of representatives of employers and employed, with an arbitrator mutually agreed upon to decide in the event of the respective representatives failing to agree, the conciliation board to continue in force until June 20, 1899, and then to be determinable by a six months' notice. Now the effect of that proposal on the part of the men was, of course, to terminate the sliding scale arrangement in the sense of its being an automatic arrangement for a settlement of wages by reference to the selling price of coal. Whether that is right or wrong is one of those questions which ought to be put to an impartial person who can inquire into all the circumstances of the case, and see what has happened in the past; at any rate, this is a clear and definite statement on the part of this newly authorised committee, that they want to get rid of the sliding scale system as an automatic way of settling wages, and seek the appointment of a Conciliation Board. Now to these proposals the employers replied that they regretted that circumstances necessitated their again declining the men a 10 per cent. advance, but they were still prepared to continue the working of the collieries upon the terms set forth on the 11th of April, by which the men were entitled to an advance of 3.16 per cent. above the wages paid in the month of March, 1898; secondly, they said that a permanent joint board, consisting of an equal number of employers and employed, should be established, with an automatic arrangement for wages being controlled by the selling price obtained from time to time, according to the scale agreed upon, and also that the same board should settle differences arising hereafter in the same way as the joint committee formerly did; thirdly, they declined to alter their previously-

      53
      expressed views, and to adopt the proposal to grant an arbitrator; fourthly, that the above terms were subject to a satisfactory agreement being arrived at for a term of four years, and determinable afterwards by a six months' notice on either side, to be given by the 1st of July or the 1st of January, the whole agreement to be on the basis of the terms settled on 11th of April last. Now I want to point out that two very definite steps have just been taken. First of all, as I have already said, the provisional committee are entitled to act on behalf of the men, the emergency committee are entitled to act on behalf of the employers; but you have not only got the two parties authorised and influential enough, as I believe, to carry out any award made by any arbitrator, but you have this further step—you have denned the issues. I am perfectly certain that anyone who has been concerned in arbitration—and I have been concerned as arbitrator in disputes in this particular district—will unhesitatingly say that it is a very definite step towards peace when you get the issues clearly put forward. That is the position here. Well, Sir, these steps having been taken, and these circumstances being extremely hopeful circumstances, there was an unfortunate interruption, if I may call it so, to the course of affairs, as they were proceeding under the direction of the leaders of both sides. I refer, of course, to the despatch of military troops in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire. I have not sufficient information to say whether the action of the justices in this matter was or was not proper. The justices are men whom I have known, and before whom I have practised, and they appear to me to be as competent a set of justices as in any other county, and I have no doubt there was some intimation which led them to take the action which resulted in the despatch of a very considerable number of additional troops to this district. But, Sir, I am not going to attack the local authorities, nor am I certainly going to attack the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary in regard to this matter; my only reference to the matter arises from a consideration of the question of how to bring these parties together and to terminate this dispute. I do not expect the Home Secretary to take upon himself the
      54
      responsibility of contradicting the opinion formed by those on the spot who have the charge of the preservation of the peace, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not think that even in alluding to this matter I am making any suggestion against the exercise of the authority with which he is entrusted; but, Sir, notwithstanding that, the action of the local authority in asking for more troops has undoubtedly had an irritating effect upon the men. But whether that is right or wrong, whether the men have felt themselves irritated or insulted by the action of the authorities, is not the question: I am simply asking the House to consider a question of fact. These men, who have been out for 12 weeks, did not, as I have pointed out, act hastily. They feel that the very fact that the justices of the county asked for more troops, and that more troops have been sent, is an insult to them in their character as citizens. They have put forward a definite statement, and have in every way met their employers. They have, in their opinion, met their employers as controversialists in the fairest possible way in which the matter can be carried on under the circumstances, and they deny that the district in which they have lived, most of them for many years, is in any sense disturbed. I should like to point out to the House that the majority of these men—I am talking of the 90,000 men who are out—had been living in the district for many years, and I think my honourable Friends will bear me out when I say that the occupation that they carry on is in many cases an hereditary pursuit. There are families in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire who for three or four generations have been carrying on this business, and thousands of those 90,000 men are responsible ratepayers. They own, either as freeholders or lessees, the houses in which they live, they have built the chapels in which they worship, and they have paid—I do not suppose they could do so now—the expense of carrying on their religious organisations. Let me give you an instance to show the character of the men concerned. Only two years ago, when the question of building a national college was concerned, these men actually subscribed £800 towards the building

      55
      fund, and before the county council of Glamorganshire or Monmouthshire had taken any action whatever these men had founded scholarships and exhibitions to enable the more brilliant and the more capable of their children to go to this national institution. Now, that is the class of men that you are dealing with. Of course, I cannot set up a very high character for every one of those 90,000 men, but the bulk of the men who are now standing side by side, and who are backing up their leaders engaged in this dispute, are responsible ratepayers of this country, and have raised a reasonable question for decision. Now, Sir, these men not only look upon the action of the authorities in bringing the military into the county as a kind of slur upon their character as law-abiding citizens, but they resent it as being a move on the part of the employers. They think it shows that the Government are taking sides in this quarrel. They do not understand the fine distinctions we have to draw in this House between the authority of the Home Secretary and of the justices, and I am bound to say that the action of the justices, unless it was absolutely necessary, which I do not believe, was about the most ill-advised step that could be taken in the interests of peace. Notwithstanding that, I do not think the situation is entirely unhopeful. As I have already said, the two great steps towards peace which have been taken in order to find out who are irresponsible for the negotiations on both sides now enable me to ask one or two questions of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I refer in my Motion to the Conciliation Act of 1896, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that four distinct powers are given to the President of the Board of Trade in this matter. In the first place, he may inquire into the cause and circumstances of the difference; in the second place, he may take such steps as may seem expedient to him for the purpose of enabling the parties to the difference to meet together, but that I pass by, because I do not think it is relevant to the present case; in the third place—and there is distinct relevancy to the present matter here—paragraph (c), sub-section 1
      56
      of section 2, says the President of the Board of Trade may—
      "On the application of employers or workmen interested, and after taking into consideration the existence and adequacy of the means available for conciliation in the district or trade, and the circumstances of the case, appoint a person or persons to act as conciliator or as a board of conciliation."
      Then there is the power, "on the application of both parties to the difference," to appoint an arbitrator. In respect of that, I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether, in case the Provisional Committee should think it expedient to invite the Board of Trade to appoint an arbitrator, he will bring his power to bear upon the employers to assent to the appointment of some responsible citizen to take upon himself the burden of deciding all matters in dispute. I have had my say, and I will only add that in times of stress and suffering the workmen of this country naturally look to the House of Commons for some mention of their grievances. The men who are now engaged in this strike ask for the sympathy of their representatives in this House, and for the intervention, if that is possible, of the Government. I believe the discussion of this matter will do great good; it will strengthen the hands of the men, who are ready to resume negotiations in a reasonable spirit; and I hope the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will indicate firmly and clearly his desire to exercise the power he possesses at the earliest possible moment. It is in this spirit, and in this hope, that I move the adjournment of the House.
      *MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to second the Motion. I do not think any apology is due to the House for calling its attention to this matter, because it is a question of the utmost gravity, and amounts, in fact, to a serious national concern. I agree with my honourable Friend the Member for the Swansea District, and assure the Government that the Motion we are now making is not made in any spirit of condemnation for the past, but in the full belief that the time has now arrived when something should be done, and in the

      57
      hope and expectation that something will be done by the Government to bring to an end this terrible struggle, which has already wrought such mischief, and is causing increasing misery and distress, loss and destruction, in a whole province, every day it lasts. The right honourable Gentleman who presides over the Board of Trade knows perfectly well the importance of the situation. A deputation waited upon the right honourable Gentleman as long ago as 9th May, and on that occasion he described the crisis in the following words—
      "It is to all intents and purposes a national calamity when a dispute of this kind occurs and when so many men are laid idle in an industry in which the country is so deeply interested."
      These are not the words of exaggeration; and that being the situation, it is for the employers to accede to what we now believe is the wish of the men—namely, that there should be intervention on the part of the Board of Trade to bring this deplorable dispute to an end. The honourable Member for the Swansea District has referred to the number of men—nearly 100,000—who are affected by the strike in South Wales and Monmouthshire; but, if we regard the matter from the point of view of the families, there are at least half a million of people dependent upon this struggle coming to an end at an early date. The output of the South Wales and Monmouthshire coal field is 35,000,000 tons per annum, and the gravity of the situation will be at once seen when I mention that the Association of Coalmasters, who are concerned in this dispute, control about 85 per cent. of this output. Therefore you have a stoppage of about 30,000,000 tons per annum in one coal field in the United Kingdom. Moreover, several industries are affected by this stoppage, The honourable Member for the Swansea District has told the House that the wretchedness and misery which prevail at Barry and Cardiff amongst the people whose industry and employment depend upon the carrying on of the collieries cannot well be exaggerated. In a small circle surrounding Cardiff there are 7,000 men employed as coal trimmers and in other employments connected with the shipping of coal who are out of work, and the loss of wages has been estimated
      58
      in that district alone at not less than £12,000 per week. I am not going into all the details traversed by the honourable Member for the Swansea District—the exhaustive statement of the honourable Member renders that unnecessary—but we ought to remember, and I beg the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to remember, that this lock-out has lasted for 12 weeks. There has not been such a stoppage of work-in South Wales for over 20 years. In 1874 there was a great strike covering the whole coal field. It lasted, unfortunately, 18 weeks; but at that time there were only 20,000 colliers in the whole of the coal fields, whereas there are now 130,000, and a calculation was made by so very careful a man as the late Lord Aberdare that the loss of wages in the 1874 strike amounted to £3,000,000. Compare that with the immense number of men now employed, and it would not be an over-estimate to say that the loss in wages already amounted to something nearer £10,000,000. We ask now that the Government should do what they can to bring this struggle to an end. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has intimated, in answer to a question put to him from this side of the House, that he would not be unwilling to intervene if he were approached by both parties to this dispute, and if he thought his intervention would be of advantage. I trust I am not stating the views of the right honourable Gentleman unfairly or inadequately. Now, Sir, so far as I have been able to observe, there have been many indications on the part of the men that they are willing to allow the matter in dispute between them and their employers to be determined by the Board of Trade. The masters, on the other hand, have not, up till now, exhibited any desire for Government intervention. The accusation of the masters is, as I understand it, that the stoppage of work is a strike and not a lock-out, and that it was brought about by the conduct of the men in giving a certain notice. I desire to avoid controversial matter, but it is important, as we are now the mouthpiece in this House more of the men than of the masters, that we should give reasons why we make this application for

      59
      intervention to the Government. It is important also that we should point out that the accusation of the masters that the strike was brought about by the men is a statement made in error. The masters' statement is contained in their manifesto, and is as follows—
      "In consequence of the workmen having given notice to terminate the sliding scale agreement, the employers were subsequently obliged to give notice for terminating contracts concurrently with the workmen's notice, so that the stoppage is entirely due to the action of the workmen. The trouble has been entirely brought about by the workmen giving six months' notice to put an end to the sliding scale agreement, which has secured peace and regular work in the district for 22 years, and taking no steps for about four months to negotiate for a new agreement."
      As far as I hare been able to follow the circumstances of the case, that is not an accurate statement of the cause of the difficulties. Undoubtedly, the men in giving notice six months before 1st April that they desired that the arrangement of the sliding scale which with variations, had continued for over 20 years should come to an end, were quite within their rights, because it was one of the terms between employers and men that either side might put an end to the arrangement upon giving six months' notice; and it has been thought by the men that they have not hitherto had as much as they are entitled to out of the profits of the important undertakings in which they are engaged. This is not the time, nor is this the occasion, to debate that question, but that was the opinion of a very large majority of colliers in South Wales. That being so, no one, I am sure, who is a fair-minded person will say that they were not within their rights in giving that notice. But, Sir, that was not a notice to terminate their work; that was not a notice the effect of which must necessarily be that the collieries should be closed; and the counter notice which was given by the employers was not in any sense rendered necessary by the notice given on behalf of the men. The employers—in order, I am afraid, to force the hands of the men in some measure—gave notice on the 28th February to terminate on the 31st March or 1st April their employment entirely. Therefore, the workmen had their contracts termi-
      60
      nated by their employers, and one finds it difficult to understand how they could have gone on working unless a new arrangement was come to. I do not think it is necessary for me now to go in detail into what the demands of the men were at the commencement of the struggle, because the men, not on account of any want of faith in the justice of the demands they made, but in order, in some measure, to meet those who employed them, have made modifications in their demands; and I will, before I sit down, ask the House to allow me to state what the present demands of the men are, although I do not think it is necessary for me to say what they were at the commencement. But the answer made to the men by the masters was a mere negative, and has been a mere negative from the beginning. It is true the Emergency Committee who have been acting for the employers have always said and reiterated much more often than was necessary that they were prepared to discuss anything which the workmen had to lay before them. The workmen, through their Provisional Committee, headed by my honourable Friend behind me, have on various occasions stated to the masters the modifications in their demands which they are willing to make. But the reply of the masters has always been: We have put before you on the 11th April our terms, and those terms you must accept; those are the terms to which we adhere. It is necessary to consider for a moment what the terms are which are embodied in this counter notice which the employers gave, and which they posted up at most of the associated collieries on the 11th April, because those terms—apparently, like the laws of the Medes and Persians—are not to be altered, and it is important that the House should know what they are. First of all, the masters knew perfectly well that the men were dissatisfied with the sliding scale. The answer was—"a sliding scale we must have; we will not deal with you on any other terms than that you must agree to a sliding scale." And, curiously enough, not the same scale as the old one, but a much worse scale; so much worse that the men think that, rightly or wrongly, it was devised by the masters to help them to pay the additional expense

      61
      which has been placed on them by the Compensation Act passed by the Government last year. By the new scale offered on the 11th April, whenever the selling price of coal, free on board at Cardiff, is under 11s., the terms are much less than they were last year; and it is when the price of coal is low that the sliding scale has operated hardly on the men. The men, when the price is high, benefit; the shoe pinches, of course, as everyone knows, when the price of coal is low. By this alternative sliding scale when the prices are below 11s. the scale is very much worse than the scale of 1893. Now, Sir, another provision of these terms is that with this sliding scale, which the masters say the men shall work under hereafter, there shall be audits at lengthened intervals. One of the complaints of the men under the old scale is that the audits have not been frequent enough. It is natural enough that the men, when they see the selling price of coal going up, should desire that their wages also should go up; but they do not feel the benefit for two months, and they have asked that the audits should be more frequent in future. Nevertheless, the proposal was to extend, not limit, the period within which the audit should be made, and to make the audits four-monthly audits, instead of two-monthly audits. Moreover, the masters say, and it seems to me a most unreasonable demand, that whatever arrangement we come to, that arrangement must continue for four years. Well, now, Sir, who can say, with the vicissitudes of trade and the other changes of circumstances in this important locality, it is fair to ask the men, and at a time when the men themselves are certainly dissatisfied with the present state of things, to agree that the new arrangement should be carried on for at least four years definitely? Sir, the final term in the counter terms of the masters is, and has been, and I am afraid will continue to be, a crux in the way of the men accepting any terms of this kind. The masters have, for the first time—almost for the first time, at any rate—insisted as part of the terms of employment of their workmen that the system which is known by the name of the discharge note system should prevail in the whole district. I will tell the
      62
      House shortly what that discharge note system is. It has been conceived in order that when a workman has come, say, from a colliery where there is a strike or a lock-out and seeks employment at some other colliery in the coalfield, the employers in that colliery should know from what works the workman comes; and if a workman comes from a works where there has been a strike or a lock-out, there is at once a black mark put against that man, and there is no hope or chance of his obtaining any employment at all. The discharge note is insisted upon, for paragraph 12 of the masters' notice of the 11th April, to which I have referred, is as follows—
      "No workman will be employed at this colliery without producing his discharge, or his last pay ticket from his last employment, and it is a condition of his employment that on his engagement his last discharge or pay ticket shall be given up by him to his employers."
      There has been in these circumstances a deadlock. I have in some particulars expressed my opinion of the fairness of the demands on the one side and the demands that are made on the other. I do not desire to set myself up as a judge of them at all. The serious fact we have got to consider now in the House of Commons is that there is a complete deadlock between masters and men. What is to be done? The effect cannot be possibly exaggerated. Its effect upon the collieries of the district is tremendous. I will give the House just a few figures to illustrate the position. The quantity of coal shipped from Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, and Llanelly, both foreign and coastwise, during May, 1897, amounted to 1,719,022 tons; in the corresponding month of this year, May, 1898, that quantity fell to 495,929 tons, showing that in 1897 the quantity in tons of coal shipped at the four ports which I have named over that shipped in May last was 1,223,000 tons—practically a million and a quarter of tons shipped in one month more than in the corresponding period of this year. Just one other set of figures. Taking three railways which are local—the Barry, the Rhymney, and the Taff Vale—the traffic which those three railways have lost from the commencement

      63
      of the strike up to the 7th June was as follows:—Barry, £44,235; Rhymney, £20,066; and Taff Vale, £80,001, making up a total on the three railways from 1st April to 6th June of £144,302. In addition to that, there was also a diminution of traffic on the Great Western Railway of about £62,000 in that period, and a great portion of that, as honourable Members are aware, was actually due to diminished coal traffic. There is also a very serious diversion in the market. People are discovering that for the special purposes for which South Wales coal has been sold there is other coal in other parts of the world which is said to be as good. There was a letter from Mr. Pyman Watson in the Western Mail of the 14th April, 1898, a short extract from which I will read. He wrote—
      "We have the Roumanian contract. We offered 30,000 tons Newcastle coal to keep them going till the Welsh strike is over. They reply they have bought 30,000 tons of German coal for shipment at Rotterdam at a lower price."
      On 20th May a contract of 80,000 tons for the Roumanian Government railways at £1 2s. 8d. a ton was lost to South Wales, and Germany supplied it at £1 a ton. On 1st June the Austrian Lloyd bought 25,000 tons of Australian coal for Trieste requirements. The Welsh coal displaced by German coal amounted in the month of May to 29,041 tons. That is a very serious matter, not merely for the workmen in the district, but an extremely serious matter also for the employers, the owners of collieries, and the owners of royalties. Moreover, we know perfectly well that these dislocations of markets, once they have taken place, are not so easily restored. Once you have customers driven away from a certain market it is a very difficult thing indeed to get them back into that same market again. Moreover, Sir, I must refer before I sit down to the danger which has threatened the peace and good order in the district. Now, my learned Friend who preceded me made some statements, without colour, and with every desire to be fair with regard to the importation of the military into the county of Glamorgan and the county of Monmouth. Sir, that is an extremely important matter.
      64
      Fortunately, we are able to say in this House that there has been no rioting, that there has been no disturbance in the locality at all, which would justify the importation of the military. Reading from a newspaper which sides more with the employers than with the employed—that is why I have chosen it—reading from the Western Mail of 11th June, I find these words—
      "It is full time that some definite steps were taken towards settlement for, in addition to the vast amount of suffering which the stoppage is causing not only to the colliers and their families, but to thousands of other workers who have no part in the struggle, there are ominous indications of trouble, and possibly violence, in certain parts of the district. It is a noteworthy fact that over 100,000 men in a small area have been idle for over 10 weeks, and yet there have been practically no offences against the law amongst the whole of them."
      A few days later in the same newspaper I find this—
      "In connection with all the allegations of seething lawlessness in the valleys, which, previous to the arrival of the military, only gave rise to a small hustling at which even the police laugh, and of which a half-witted lad is the only trophy, the authors seem to have been worked up to a striking degree of determination. Meantime the objects of all this lethal energy, the idle collier and his wife and children, dreamily delight in the gay pageant of military display and line the roads in good-humoured thousands when the troops march out."
      Can anything be more eloquent as a protest against the importation of the military into these districts than the conduct of some of those workmen who are allowed by their fellow-workmen to continue work—the outside fitters and enginemen and other persons employed in the Albion Colliery? There, it appears, the military were stationed near where these men had been working, and the men said that they would not do another stroke of work until the military were removed, and the military were withdrawn, and the men went on working in peace, and without molestation, to keep the collieries safe and sound for the owners. I am not blaming the President of the Board of Trade or the Home Secretary for what has been done: they may not be responsible: but the men in these localities believe that the military were brought down by one side of the

      65
      disputants, and that the importation of the military into the locality was due to the representations of the masters in the first instance, and that the object of it was to terrorise the men into terms of submission held out by the masters. I do not know how closely honourable Members of this House have been following this dispute and the amount of starvation it has entailed in South Wales. I will give one or two instances of the suffering that has taken place, not merely in those localities directly affected by the strike, but also in those shipping ports to which allusions have been made—
      "From the 5th of May to the 22nd of June 42,504 persons were relieved, 6,735 gallons of soup and 14,054 loaves of bread being consumed at the Bute soup kitchen."
      Now that indicates the suffering which had taken place in that locality; but, if I may trespass upon the attention of the House, I will read one or two typical cases—
      "Many of the men are away 'on tramp,' looking for work, and the women have sold everything possible. Doleful tales are told about the manner in which the household goods have gone to the pawnbrokers. First the pictures and ornaments, then the furniture, even to the bedstead and the bedding; the plates and dishes and cups have gone one or two at a time for a few pence with which to buy bread; then they have been obliged to take away the very clothes. Only two days ago a woman went to the committee to appeal for help. She had sold her last chemise, and her only clothing was an old petticoat and an equally old dress, with a pair of boots and stockings; and she was only one of dozens that are known to be in a similar plight. A glance inside some of the houses shows how far this sort of work has gone, for there is nothing to be seen but the bare walls. Amongst the cases relieved by the committee are the following: A woman had been living with six children, all under eight years of age, upon the barest crusts. Everything she could sell went to the pawnbroker, and at last for two days all they had to eat were two raw cabbages. But this is not all the woman's sufferings. She had not paid her rent, and the bailiffs were sent to her house to distrain or evict."
      And here I may say parenthetically that the only disturbances which have occurred, such as they are, have arisen from the fact that the arrears of rent have been enforced by the landlords in these places, while the people are suffering from staravation—
      "A coal trimmer's wife is left at home with six children while the man is away looking
      66
      for work. She has been ill and had had no food, when she applied on Thursday evening, since Sunday, and was suckling a child. In an almost similar case a woman was found with a baby only a few months old. The woman had had nothing to eat for two days, and for the same period the child had been sucking at an empty bottle, and all that it had received was some water."
      To read these statements, which are not in any way exaggerated, is absolutely heartrending even to the most callous individual, and the whole situation may be summed up in the words of an individual who had no interest in the matter, but who simply went down to see what the situation really was. He summed it up in these words—
      "It is the slow, pitiless, legal civilised murder of a whole province far more tragic than any battlefield."
      And we know that many of the best of the workmen have been going about stone-breaking! And these are the best class of workmen employed in any industry which this country can show! I hope I am not prejudiced when I say that you cannot point to any body of men who are a finer and nobler set of men than these coal miners of South Wales and Monmouthshire. We desire that the present state of things should come to a speedy end. What is the attitude of the men? I am desirous of showing that the men are ready and willing to come to a settlement; nay, more than that, they implore the Government to step in and enforce a settlement. As long ago as last February they offered that the matters which could not be arranged by the representatives of both sides should be referred to an arbitrator. Again, on the 12th of April, a resolution was come to by the representatives of the men, and again the offer was made to submit the differences between them to an arbitrator. This offer was refused by the employers, and then again it was made by the men upon 26th April. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knows perfectly well what steps have been taken and what has been dono in order to endeavour to bring the Government to do something in this matter. What the right honourable Gentleman is empowered to do was pointed out by my honourable Friend

      67
      behind me. He cannot enforce an arbitration unless both parties consent, but he is not in consequence quite powerless. He has a right to hold an inquiry, and say to the employers and to his Government as well, "This is a matter of great national interest. Your ships cannot go on their way, and the time has come when, in the interests of commerce, the disputes between masters and men shall come to an end, and that they shall submit the matter to an arbitrator." We ask the right honourable Gentleman to intervene in the interests of commerce, of the public peace, and in the far higher and more sacred interests of humanity, to relieve the loss and suffering caused by the deadlock, the continuance of which will work untold mischief and disaster, and be an indelible blot on our civilisation.
      *MAJOR WYNDHAM-QUIN: The constituency which I have the honour to represent is very materially affected by the struggle so ably described by the two honourable Gentlemen who have just spoken. I venture to intervene for a few moments to show the House what has taken place. I desire, in the first place, to express my general concurrence with the views and facts that have been stated by them. I do not think that they have in any way exaggerated the unhappy situation as it now exists. No one can feel more strongly than I do how disastrous the present situation is, and how far-reaching its effects for evil may be. Still, at the same time, I cannot see how a discussion here can in any way assist legislation in a matter of this kind. I cannot see how the House can constitute itself a judge in labour disputes; nor how, by any resolution that we may pass, the House can intervene in a dispute between masters and men. Possibly if we did so we might do more harm than good, and any intervention on our part would be resented both by masters and men. At the same time, I should fail in my duty to the constituency that I represent if I were to disparage any action which the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade may have in contemplation to bring about the termination of this labour dispute. Indeed, I join with my honour-
      68
      able Friends who have just spoken in asking him if the time has not arrived when he might successfully intervene, and do everything he can to bring about a satisfactory settlement. I do so, not only on behalf of those masters and men whom I represent in this House, and who are parties to the struggle about which we are speaking, but I do so also the more particularly on behalf of those men, women, and children who dwell in other than the colliery districts, who are no parties to the struggle, but who are dependent for their daily bread on the supply of coal that may be sent down to the seaports. I may say that my constituents have suffered more in this connection than those of any other division in South Wales. In Barry and Penarth, two towns which I have the honour to represent, there are no less than 3,000 adults and 5,000 children receiving daily relief from the soup kitchens. The local bodies have done all they can by instituting relief works to mitigate the distress. Voluntary subscriptions have also been freely given, but I very much fear that both these sources of assistance are rapidly becoming exhausted; and I cannot contemplate without feelings of extreme sympathy and of horror what may happen if this unhappy warfare is unduly prolonged. Now, Sir, the honourable Member for Mid Glamorgan has told us that in his opinion it is improper to import military forces into the coal fields of South Wales. I do not wish to say for one moment that the act was judicious or injudicious. I think I may claim to have had a certain amount of experience as to the employment of the military in aid of the civil power, and I unhesitatingly state from the experience I have gained that there are occasions when the presence of troops in a district does more harm than good, inasmuch as it acts as an irritant to the people of a district who may not possibly have contemplated any violence or any breach of the peace whatsoever. That is my experience. At the same time, I am bound to admit that there are occasions when it is absolutely essential that the military should be present, and when it might be impossible to get them there from another district, to take part in the prevention of violence or outrage, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the local authority in the district of which we are

      69
      speaking only called upon the assistance of the military forces after having very care-fully considered the situation, and having come to the conclusion that it would be dangerous, in the interests of public peace and the welfare of the locality, not to have troops actually located in the district in which they might be required. I do not wish to enter into statistics such as have already been fully gone into by the mover and seconder of this Motion. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Mid Glamorgan stated that in his opinion the sliding-scale principle was a mistake.
      *MR. EVANS: No; I did not say that. I expressed no opinion at all.
      *MAJOR WYNDHAM-QUIN: In that case no doubt the argument must be wrong; because I do not think anything has done more to preserve peace and keep South Wales colliers from strikes than the principle of the sliding scale. I earnestly hope that in any arrangement that might be brought about in the future for the settlement of the dispute the sliding-scale principle will still be applied to the coal district of South Wales. My honourable and learned Friend found fault with the masters for insisting that there should be at least a four years' contract entered into. He pointed out the great danger that might arise from the diversion of our foreign market. In my opinion nothing could be more hurtful to our foreign market than that there should be an uncertainty as to the continuation of our industry at home; and unless we make it well known to our foreign customers that our contracts will be continued for a substantial time, like four years, I do not think we shall be very likely to obtain custom from them all. Sir, I do not wish to say any more. I feel most forcibly that the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should do whatever he possibly can to put an end to this unfortunate struggle. A more disastrous dispute I do not think has taken place in the Labour world in the present generation.
      *SIR W. HARCOURT: I am very glad the honourable and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down
      70
      concurred practically with the Motion of my honourable and learned Friend behind me. But I cannot agree with him in the observation he made in the beginning of his remarks that this discussion would be of no use. Why, the object of this discussion is to impress upon the President of the Board of Trade the expediency—indeed, the necessity—of taking some action. Now, if it were the object of this discussion to thrash out the merits of the dispute as between employers and employed, I should be in accord with the honourable and gallant Gentleman in that that would not be useful or expedient to discuss at the present moment. The Motion merely declares that the time has arrived when Her Majesty's Government, under the provision of the Conciliation Act, should take some action; and that, I think, is a very proper subject of discussion at the present moment, and I hope it will be successfully discussed. In that I hope we shall have the support of the honourable and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I do not go into any of the details of the misery and suffering and the loss which are being experienced in consequence of this unhappy dispute; they are too well known—they are known to every Member of this House. It is felt that it is not only a local disaster but that it is a great national evil; and in such a condition of things it is felt that it is clearly the duty of the Executive Government to exercise whatever powers they have, be they greater or be they less, to put an end to this great national evil. I am not going to blame the right honourable Gentleman for not having interfered earlier. As he knows, I took part in the deputation which came to him six weeks ago. We then all entertained the hope, and expressed the opinion that matters might come to an early settlement. That was six weeks ago, and that hope can no longer be entertained. Therefore, in my opinion at least, the time has come when the Government should exercise what powers they possess, whether they be successful or not—when they should fulfil their duty in at least making the attempt. We often hear it said that the Government cannot act unless both parties come together. We know that they have not done so; I have no authority at the present moment

      71
      for saying that they are likely to do it. But that is not what Parliament contemplated in the Conciliation Act; it contemplated action where neither of the parties came to him in the first instance. Let us assume that at the present moment neither party is prepared to come and ask for the right honourable Gentleman's intervention. In the second clause of the Act power is given to the President of the Board of Trade to inquire into the causes and circumstances of a dispute. That is a power which the right honourable Gentleman possesses, quite irrespective of any action or solicitation from either party. It may be said that this might be useless at the present time. I do not think so. First of all I think the action of the Executive Government in coming forward would be an authoritative recognition of the national character of the evil. In the next place, it would give us an authentic account of the real position of the parties. You read in the newspapers, and you hear statements at meetings on the one side and the other, as to what is their true attitude, but at present we have no official account of the real character of the differences. We ought to have it, and the right honourable Gentleman might send down a fitting person, clothed with the authority of the Government, to make inquiry, and the employers would have to come forward and say what they demanded, and what they are prepared to do. On the other hand, the employees could place before that authority and the country what is the character of their demands; and I cannot help thinking that a thorough inquiry at the present moment under the authority of the Government would have some tendency at least to bring this dispute to an end. At all events, it ought to be tried. If it failed, then the failure would be deeply regretted; but here is a power given by Parliament to the Government which has not yet been tried. The object of the Motion, I think, is to urge on the right honourable Gentleman at least to try and exercise of this power. On the Second Reading of the Bill the right honourable Gentleman said—
      "There was a provision of the Bill to which the Government attached considerable importance; it was the provision, which empowered the Board of Trade to intervene on
      72
      their own initiative with the view of bringing the parties together, under a chairman to be mutually agreed upon, or, failing that, fixed by the Board of Trade."
      That is a power which has not yet been tried; it is a weapon in the armoury of the right honourable Gentleman; and one of the objects of this Motion is to urge him to use it. That is the real meaning of the Bill, and the preliminaries were provided with this object. The Bill was passed by the right honourable Gentleman himself, and it justifies him in acting upon his own initiative, and in trying, in his own words, to ascertain what are the differences between the parties, and endeavouring to assist them. That is exactly what we are asking the right honourable Gentleman to do in the first instance, and even if he had no success with either party an authoritative inquiry of this kind would assist him in endeavouring to arrive at an understanding. Well, Sir, that is the first step. Then, in subsection (c) of the Bill it is provided that—
      "On the application of the employers or workmen interested, and after taking into consideration the existence and adequacy of moans available for conciliation in the district or trade and the circumstances of the case,"
      the Board of Trade may—
      "appoint a person to act as conciliator or as a board of conciliation."
      Here, again, you do not want the consent of both parties. If either party were to come forward to ask the President of the Board of Trade to appoint a conciliator he has the power to do so. Well, I imagine it may be quite possible, and I hope that it is even probable, that in the course of that inquiry one or other of the parties would come forward and ask the right honourable Gentleman to appoint a conciliator, and in that case he has the power to appoint such a person, and then it is provided that—
      "If any person is so appointed to act as conciliator, he shall inquire into the causes and circumstances of the difference by communication with the parties and otherwise shall endeavour to bring about a settlement of the difference, and shall report his proceedings to the Board of Trade."
      Well, here are two methods, one of which requires no consent from anybody, and has for its object only to ascertain what

      73
      is the actual position of the parties with regard to one another, what are the conditions of the trade, and what are the counter-claims on either side. If, as my honourable and learned Friends, who have more means of local knowledge than I can pretend to have upon this subject, are of opinion that it is not impossible that the right honourable Gentleman may have a request from one of the parties to intervene, then he can appoint a conciliator. I venture to say that in the situation in which we now find ourselves, there is no method or instrument with which he has been armed by Parliament which the right honourable Gentleman is not bound to employ for the purpose of bringing about a settlement. Sir, this discussion has been conducted, and I hope will be continued, in a most moderate and reasonable spirit; but I think we ought to urge upon the Government that they should come forward, and that we ought to help them in coming forward with the assurance that they will be supported by the opinion of the House of Commons, on both sides, in endeavouring to bring about a settlement.
      *MR. J. LOWTHER: No, no!
      *SIR W. HARCOURT: The right honourable Gentleman says "No, no!" but he has only just come in.
      *MR. LOWTHER: The right honourable Gentleman spoke of both sides having agreed to intervention.
      *SIR W. HARCOURT: I meant the majority on both sides, but I could never venture to speak for the right honourable Gentleman himself. I say that I hope both sides will desire to support and authorise the Government in coming forward and endeavouring to use all the means at their disposal to bring these parties together, and to bring to a conclusion this dispute which has produced such melancholy and disastrous results.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Sir, no one will, I am sure, complain for a moment of those honourable Members who are peculiarly interested in this matter for having brought forward this motion on a subject which is one of the most extreme importance, and one on which we should all be glad to think
      74
      that we could see our way to bring about a settlement. I am sure that I need not say how entirely I sympathise with what has been said by honourable Gentlemen opposite with regard to the distress which undoubtedly does prevail in the district affected by this trade dispute. And, Sir, much as we may sympathise with all that has been said on that subject, our sympathy will probably be extended to a larger extent to those innocent sufferers who themselves have nothing whatever to do with this particular dispute, but who suffer as much, and perhaps more, from the continuance of the dispute than those who are actually and actively engaged in it. So far as the workmen are concerned, I am glad to think that there is not that great amount of distress which some people imagined, as they have, undoubtedly, in the course of their years of continuous employment, frugally, and properly, laid aside no inconsiderable amount of money. The honourable Gentleman who seconded this Motion spoke, I think, of the efforts which the workmen had made in a social direction, and we know that, as a matter of fact, they are undoubtedly in possession of more funds than was at one time supposed. That result goes to show both that they are frugal and saving, and also that they have had wages which have enabled them to be frugal and saving. But, Sir, those who are suffering most are people who are not directly engaged in the strike, but who are affected by it; and I am sure that there is no Minister and no individual Member of this House who would not gladly do everything that he could, and everything that lay in his power, to bring to an end a condition of things entailing so much suffering and distress. But there is the other consideration which the honourable Gentleman advanced—namely, that this is a matter of great concern to the public at large, and from every point of view. So far as I am concerned, and the Government of which I am a Member, I can assure honourable Gentlemen that if we do not do exactly what it is their desire we should do, although we may not propose as much as they say it is right we should do, it is not because we do not feel the extent of this calamity, or that we do not desire to move in the same direction as themselves, but because we believe that the end which we all desire

      75
      to attain may be more effectually gained by the course which we intend to pursue. Both the mover and the seconder of the Motion entered into some amount of detail with regard to the questions in dispute. I do not think this House is a tribunal which can adequately discuss those questions, and therefore I hope it will excuse me if I do not go into the matters in dispute or attempt to draw any inference from the course of events which would not assist us in our deliberations, especially having regard to the fact that if I were to attempt to give a decision in the matter it might lead me to take up a position prejudicial to the duty which I may have to discharge in this matter. The right honourable Gentleman who has just spoken has made a very earnest appeal to the Government to use all the powers which are conferred upon them by the Conciliation Act for the purpose of putting an end to this dispute if possible. Now, Sir, I think it is advisable for me to say here that, in my view, the Conciliation Act was passed with a desire on the part of all those who took part in the discussion upon it that it should be simply a Conciliation Act, and should not be in any way taken as an Act meant to compel either one party or the other to settle their disputes in the manner suggested by the Act. In fact, my recollection is perfectly clear that on the discussion upon the Bill in the Grand Committee there was no one who spoke more strongly against turning the Conciliation Act into a Coercion Act than those Members who were representative of Labour in this House. I think the honourable Gentleman the Member for Battersea was one of those who most strongly deprecated that it should be in any way changed from what it was intended to be, namely, a Bill to enable the parties who were in difference to come to an agreement. Well, now, Sir, what has been my action in this matter? The right honourable Gentleman opposite spoke as if we had taken no action in the matter up to the present moment.
      *SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said there should be an inquiry as a public and official act, but I did not suggest that the right honourable Gentleman has, as he says, made private inquiries.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir; I will come to that in a moment. Well, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman appealed to me as to whether or not the Act could not be really put in force unless both parties were agreed. Well, I should be very sorry to limit the powers of the Act within those limits. I do not think it is necessary that both parties should agree, but I do think that it is extremely desirable, because, having regard to the fact that this is a Conciliation Act, there is not very much chance of its being worked successfully if one or the other party is determined to come to no other settlement than the one which they have put forward. The right honourable Gentleman has insisted that we ought to make a public inquiry. Now, Sir, there is nothing whatever in the Act, there is nothing which took place in the discussions in the House or in the discussion in the Committee, which at all pointed to this inquiry to which the right honourable Gentleman alluded as being a public inquiry. On the contrary, if it had ever been intended that this inquiry should be a public inquiry, certainly Parliament would have laid down some lines in the Act with regard to the mode in which the inquiry should be carried on, and the power which should be conferred upon the Board of Trade to carry out a public inquiry successfully. But there is nothing of the kind. Does the right honourable Gentleman advocate that witnesses should be summoned, that they should be put upon oath, that counsel should appear, and that witnesses should be compelled to attend? There were provisions in the Bill, as it was originally brought into this House, dealing with questions of arbitration, and giving to the Board of Trade power to summon witnesses, and so on, but that is all. Both in the House of Commons and in the Committee any idea of that kind was repudiated. There was never one single word said which would lead the House to suppose that the inquiry suggested was to be a public inquiry. But, Sir, of course there are other inquiries, and from a very early stage of this dispute inquiries were made, not once, but repeatedly. I myself sent down one of the ablest members of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade to South Wales, with a view of making inquiry as

      77
      to the circumstances and the facts of the case, and also with a view of inquiry into the possibility of successful intervention in that early stage, and this gentleman saw the leaders on both sides of this dispute, and made his Report.
      MR. W. MORGAN: Who were the gentlemen whom he saw?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Well, Sir, I could not at once give the names, but he certainly saw one or other of those who were amongst the responsible leaders on the part of the men, and also those who were the leaders on the part of the masters. He saw on both sides those who were responsible men, and who were members of the organisation on either side.
      MR. D. A. THOMAS: Will that report be made public?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, certainly not. The Report was made to me, and I beg to say here that if honourable Gentlemen wish to tie us down in regard to these inquiries, and in regard to our action under the Conciliation Act, they could not do more than demand that we should publish the result of all our inquiries. It is of the greatest importance that we should be able to send down and have confidential intercourse with those who are engaged in the matter, on both sides, for it is by those means that we can hope to bring about that peace which we should not be able to do if we published all the details of our inquiries.
      MR. D. A. THOMAS: Will the right honourable Gentleman publish the Report? We are asking now for a public inquiry.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informing the House as to the kind of inquiry which I think the Act points at, and the kind of inquiry we are making in this particular case, and the honourable Gentleman will perhaps gather that I am not favourable to a public inquiry. I do not think that a public inquiry would be at all advantageous; and I cannot, I am sorry to say, accept the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman who has
      78
      just sat down that it would be at all likely to bring about a settlement of the dispute if we undertook the inquiry he points to—an inquiry which, I am satisfied, was not contemplated by the Act or by any of those who spoke on the subject. But then, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman says there is another power which we possess, and which we can exercise without the request of either one party or the other, namely, to bring the parties together. That is what we have been endeavouring to do. That was exactly the reason for the inquiry, because we found in the course of a very large number of disputes settled under the Act that the first thing we ought to aim at was to get the parties concerned together round a table for the purpose of discussing their differences. I have endeavoured to do that, and, although the suggestion I made, namely, that delegates should be appointed, and that there should be large consultative committees along with them, was not adopted; something else, which I think much better, was adopted. Although there was opposition on the part of the men to my proposal, a better system was ultimately arranged, and a committee was appointed, composed of masters and men, and they met together for the purpose of discussing the questions in dispute. Unfortunately, the discussions which have taken place have not resulted in progress being made up to the present. The masters have put forward their proposals, and the men theirs; and, although I understand the representatives of the men have been endowed with the plenary powers desired by the masters, they have only been endowed with plenary powers of a modified character—that is to say, they have plenary powers to settle the dispute, but plenary powers have not been conferred on them to discuss with the masters and set up terms other than those they were empowered to set up. Those are plenary powers to a certain extent, but not the full plenary powers necessary for the purpose of bringing to a satisfactory conclusion a discussion of this kind. I understand that the masters have been always perfectly ready to discuss with the representatives of the men any proposals they have put forward, but the men have not felt that they were

      79
      authorised to discuss the propositions of the masters, and they have contented themselves with simply putting forward their own terms, and so matters have come to a deadlock.
      *MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the Provisional Committee are not authorised to refer all matters in dispute to arbitration? I am told so.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have not heard that that is so; but, of course, that is a matter which, as the right honourable Gentleman knows, I am not empowered under the Act to insist upon unless both parties come to me for the purpose. At present there is a joint committee; one side makes their proposal, and the other side theirs; there has been no real discussion, but there has been no separation of the committee, and, as far as I understand, matters are assuming within the last day or two a somewhat more favourable aspect. I do not know whether any honourable Gentleman, who can speak on behalf of the committee, will be able to confirm what has been stated to me on authority to-day—namely, that in several of the largest collieries the men have within the last few days met and passed a resolution requesting the provisional committee to take the necessary steps by a ballot of the workmen in the associated collieries on the question of negotiating with the employers on the basis of the scale determined on March 31st last, and some modifications of the employers' terms. I am told that resolution has been passed by several of the largest collieries, and that it was likely to be concurred in by several others. If that be the case, surely it would be in the last degree inexpedient that the Board of Trade should at a moment like this attempt any such intervention as that which has been shadowed by the right honourable Gentleman and other people. I certainly will not say that under certain circumstances it would not be my duty to intervene, but, as the right honourable Gentleman knows, I cannot appoint a conciliator without application from one or other of the two parties. Surely, if there has been this great desire to which honourable Gentlemen on the
      80
      other side of the House have given expression, on the part of the men to have some kind of intervention by the Board of Trade, why have they not applied to the Board of Trade to appoint a conciliator? There has not been the smallest attempt or any suggestion of that kind. Question after question has been asked in the House of Commons on the subject, and I have stated in explicit terms that I cannot do anything of the kind without an application from one party or the other, and notwithstanding the fact that I have repeatedly pointed that out there has not been the least approach on the part of the representatives of the men for the purpose of having a conciliator appointed. It is quite true that county councils and other public authorities have made suggestions of that kind to me, but that did not bring the application within the Act; and I have been warned by some of the representatives of the men that any independent suggestion of that kind is not to be listened to, and that the only authorised persons to make such an application are the provisional committee, and no such application has come from them. I have been warned of that by an important member of the provisional committee of the workmen, and, therefore, if no step of that kind has been taken, pray put the blame where the blame ought to be, not on the President of the Board of Trade, who is unable to act without an application.
      AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: We are not blaming you.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Perhaps I ought not to use the word blame, but is is suggested that a certain course ought to have been taken, and I am pointing out that we could not take that course without being moved. So far as arbitration is concerned, of course, I know that cannot be undertaken without an application from both parties. Sir, I am afraid from the disposition which I have seen, that any intervention on the part of the Board of Trade, such as that suggested by the right honourable Gentleman, would not only not conduce to the termination of this unhappy dispute, but might prolong it; but, if the

      81
      application to which I have alluded were made, it would, of course, be my bounden duty to give it full consideration under all the circumstances of the case, and it would require, I acknowledge, a very strong case on the other side to justify me in refusing any such application. But, Sir, I do not invite such an application at present, because, from the fact of the resolution, to which I have alluded, having been passed, and from other circumstances which have been brought to my knowledge, I believe the moment is unpropitious for any intervention by the Board of Trade. I, therefore, beg the House not to urge on the Government a course of action which may have the very opposite effect from that which they desire. At the same time, I am fully alive to my duties and responsibilities in this matter, and when I see a favourable opportunity of doing anything which can put an end to this unhappy dispute, I shall be only too ready and too glad to embrace it.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: I am indeed somewhat surprised at the declaration made by the right honourable Gentleman with regard to an alleged inquiry, which he states has taken place with representatives of the employers and workmen in South Wales respecting the dispute now existing. I do not know that I have any claim, but being the oldest miners' representative in Wales at present, being the longest at it, being the representative of the largest organisation and chairman of the workmen's committee, and a Member of this House, I do not know I have any right to expect that this inquirer, whoever he was, should have seen me personally.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I think I ought to explain. The honourable Gentleman will remember that there was a period when he was not chairman of the committee, when someone else was substituted for him. I think it was at that time the inquiry was made.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will allow me to inform him that there was not a single
      82
      day that I was not chairman of the committee, and, further, I am prepared to tell the right honourable Gentleman that my honourable colleague, who is now a member of the provisional committee, and who, during my absence from the chair, acted as chairman, was not seen by the inquirer. I am prepared to tell you that no member of the Provisional Committee has been seen by the gentleman sent by the Board of Trade. That being so, the right honourable Gentleman himself will see at once that that inquiry cannot be satisfactory, even to himself.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am bound to say that I do not think the honourable Gentleman is correct. I adhere to what I have already stated, but if I find I was wrong, I will acknowledge it.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: Will the right honourable Gentleman say who is the gentleman that was seen. We will then know whether he is a member of the Provisional Committee or not.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have not got his name at present, but I will inform the honourable Gentleman in the course of the evening.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: It is well known in South Wales that the workmen asked for something in the way of improvement—they asked that the scale be improved from 8¾ per cent. per ton to 10 per cent. They also asked that any question at issue arising out of the agreement where the committee had failed to agree, that that question only should be placed before an umpire. That was rejected by the employers. Some very important points which we felt justly belonged to us were under discussion, but for the sake of peace we modified our demands, and we asked then, knowing that the workmen had been suffering, that an umpire should be appointed to decide the question at issue—to decide where we failed. The employers refused. Was there ever a body of men who could do more? All they wanted in having an umpire was

      83
      that a peaceable state of things should continue—that they should have justice from the umpire when they failed to get it otherwise. We do not ask that that gentleman should be there to continually interfere; all we asked was that someone should be appointed where we failed to settle a point of disagreement. Again, we suggested an alternative; where a disagreement arose we asked the employers if they would allow the right honourable Gentleman himself to appoint a gentleman to come down to decide. We asked the employers to adopt that mode. All we wanted was justice in order that we would have peace. We want peace, but that peace must be with justice. Without saying a word running down employers—I don't believe in running down employers; it has never been my habit; I believe you can get more from gentlemen by honourable ways than by bullying; but I say this, the workmen, of South Wales have not received the justice which has been given to workmen in other parts of the country. The men have been blamed for not moving towards the employers. But we have moved; we have been making modification after modification in our demands; you have all the elements to secure peace in the district, and we ought to have some consideration for the employers in order to perpetuate peace with justice. If this House thoroughly understood the question it would come to the conclusion that it is very little we are asking. It is asking for a minimum of 21½ per cent. by means of a minimum, of 10s. on coal. We have already 12½ per cent., and I must say this, that my experience of late years is that unless we have a minimum wage or the scheme which has been proposed to regulate the prices of coal, I am afraid we will be done away with. With regard to that, I hope that something will be done in order to bring that distressful and painful situation to an end. Look at it from the point of view of your own sons and daughters wanting for bread! You cannot contemplate it without fear. I do not know why it is that the workmen are continually blamed for not moving. With the fact before us that we are constantly moving towards the employers, still the employers stand in the same place. The workmen are held responsible for this
      84
      dispute, but this should not be so. What we have asked as an alternative to this sliding scale is the means that are found useful, and I believe are fructifying, in other parts of the country. A board of conciliation is effective—and not only effective, but I believe it gives satisfaction to mine owners and workmen—in the northern part of this country. They are our only competitors in the steam coal market. If they can manage their affairs by such a means and be peaceful one with another, why are not such means as applicable to our affairs in South Wales? I do not know that an employer has the right of forcing upon a body of men a regulator of wages which they, for some reason or other, have lost faith in. I could go further than that. I think my honourable Friend will pardon me for making this addition, that in all probability, for a district that depends upon the demands of foreign trade to the extent that the South Wales district does depend—namely, about 75 per cent. of its production—some permanent arrangement must be agreed upon. But why should the employers keep us out of work—shall I say, see our little ones wanting for bread?—because we cannot at this moment see eye to eye with them with regard to this regulator? Why should they force upon us, against our will, a regulator of wages where it is possible to find another equally satisfactory? If not equally satisfactory, let them prove that it is not equally as satisfactory. I fear now, unless some other mode is given, the workmen of South Wales will always have a prejudice against the sliding scale; and by persistently saying that we can have no other regulator but the sliding scale, the employers themselves have prejudiced the very thing that they are desirous of preserving. I say again—unhappy and delicate as is my position here to-day, discussing this matter in public, because I hope to be one of the men again to negotiate on behalf of the workmen—that the allegations that the workmen are solely responsible for the state of things at present prevailing in Wales is not true. It is true that we gave notice on the 1st October to terminate the sliding scale as a wage regulator, but that did not of necessity terminate the contract with the

      85
      colliery owners. More than that, when the employers informed us—informed a percentage of the workmen—that they were going to give this notice to terminate the contract, we implored, we begged them not to do it. We said it was unnecessary; that we could negotiate better when the men were working than when they were not. We almost went on our knees to ask the employers not to give this notice. More than that, we begged them to agree to put the auditors to work to make the audit. True, we had no legal right, according to the document, because the agreement would be expiring on the day that the award would be commencing, but still, the audit would be our guide; the audit would be the only thing which would tell us whether our demands were right or not. By the audit, if it were against us, we would have gone back to the men and probably induced them to reduce their demands. The employers persisted in refusing to put the audit on, and in giving us notice that we could not work unless we worked upon their terms. Though we gave notice to terminate the sliding scale, it was not we who gave notice to terminate the contract. We should not have left work but for the fact that the employers gave notice to terminate the contract, and refused to let us work unless we did so on their own terms. I am sorry to have to say here that they are responsible for the state of things in South Wales. However, our hope is that something will lie done. If we have been wrong, probably both sides have been somewhat wrong. As the old lady said, "I have never seen a quarrel yet but there is some wrong on both sides"; and there is some little wrong attaching to both sides here. However, let some angel come from somewhere; and if the Government can step in between us, let them come in and bring us out of this position that we are in, and whoever does so will have the grateful thanks of a very grateful nation.
      SIR J. J. JENKINS: I cannot quite agree with my honourable Friend who just addressed the House that the masters are entirely responsible for the present state of things in South Wales. Undoubtedly the notices given from both sides were very unfortunate, and led to misunderstanding
      86
      and the unfortunate position we are now witnessing. There may have been some masters who advocated other measures with a view of increasing the price of coal and limiting the output, and so lead the men to expect advances that the colliery owners were not in a position to make. My honourable Friend who has just sat down thoroughly commands the respect both of the workmen and the masters, and I, as one who has known him for nearly 30 years, must congratulate him upon the successful way in which he has managed the men's association during the 22 years that he has been connected with it. It is a great thing for a leader to be able to say that he has been able to reconcile almost every dispute which has happened during that long period without having a strike. Possibly, had there not been this grave misunderstanding when, on the one hand, notice was given by the men to terminate the sliding scale, and on the other hand by the masters to terminate the contract, a better result would have been arrived at, and a great deal of the suffering that has taken place in South Wales would have been avoided. If, after what has fallen here to-day, the President of the Board of Trade could bring about a consultation between the leaders of the masters and men, with a view to terminating this strike, he would have done, not only for South Wales, but for the country generally, a great service. My honourable Friend, who knows the suffering that has taken place in South Wales, drew a very pathetic picture of it; but we have in South Wales, as in other parts of the country, distress among some classes, whether trade is good or bad. Although the South Wales workmen are excellent men, men who generally provide for a rainy day, among such a large number there are always a few improvident men who do not do so, and amongst that class of people, the lowest class, there always is, and always will be, great distress. I trust that this discussion to-day will lead to something being done to bring about a better understanding between masters and men, and so smooth over a dispute which undoubtedly is detrimental, not only to the men of South Wales, but to all the manufacturing interests throughout the country. Several of us have received a request to support those who have been thrown out of employment in consequence of this strike,

      87
      but who are not actually interested in it—people whose works have stopped, and who cannot get other employment. I know that the men in South Wales would rather obtain what they need by working for it than by the charity of those better placed than themselves, and I trust that the President of the Board of Trade will take up this question, and I am sure that he will give to it his earnest attention.
      MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I rise to support the motion by my honourable Friend the Member for Swansea. I agree with him that to have brought an army corps into one of the most loyal and law-abiding portions of the United Kingdom was most unjustifiable. One would have thought that the police force had enough on their hands already without adding to their troubles, but we find that the military were so disgusted at being sent upon such a fool's errand that they fought amongst themselves, and the police, whom they were intended to help, had to quell the disturbance. It is a gratifying fact that such warm and generous feeling prevails between the police and the people. Whatever else may have been brought out through this dispute, the generosity of all classes for those reduced to destitution is most remarkable; and it is only just to say that the police who, as was the case in the Pontypridd Division, volunteered to provide meals for the starving children of the town, are deserving of our gratitude. There are, in fact, fewer men in prison to-day than when the business of the country was unchecked. Possibly that may be in part accounted for by the compulsory practice of teetotalism. However much we condemn the unwarrantable action of those timid, panic-stricken authorities who called in the military, that is only as dust in the balance as compared with the other question, namely, the continuance of the terrible dispute now raging in the counties of Monmouth and Glamorgan. After all, what is the difference that exists now in South Wales? We have heard the able speech—I was going to say the pathetic speech—of my honourable Friend the Member for Rhondda. I am sure that when the public knows the difference that exists between the employers and employed, they will be sur-
      88
      prised that the men keep out even for a week. I have no hesitation in saying that if masters and men wished to settle this difference they could do so within a fortnight, by mutual concession and mutual forbearance. It seems that the great bone of contention between them is the matter of the retention of the sliding scale. Otherwise, I think they are all agreed as to principle. The masters say that they are prepared to accept the principle that the price of coal should govern wages. There is a point in regard to the men's demands with which I was struck. The men say they want a minimum; and I say they should have a minimum. We hear a good deal said about competition being one of the causes of this dispute, and there is a great deal to be said in support of that statement. I say there should be a price which no competition-should minimise in its relation to the wages of the men. As to the sliding scale, it is true that for twenty-two years they have succeeded in making it work; but when we are talking of the sliding scale we are apt to forget the able men who formerly put into practice the principles of the sliding scale. However, I trust, as in all these great struggles, which cause so much depression in trade, that something good will be the outcome. Why cannot both masters and men come together and come to an agreement? Let them meet in one body and discuss this question, and let them feel the full responsibility under which they lie one towards another. Then I trust a settlement will be the result, and these people, famous for their industry, will pursue their paths in peace.
      *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I confess I looked forward to this Debate with some little apprehension, but so much moderation and good feeling has been shown on both sides that I sincerely trust it will tend to a termination of this unhappy dispute. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade says you must give-the Board of Trade discretion as to the time to select. That is very important certainly, for if the time be ill-chosen any action might do more harm than good It is very little Use moving at all towards conciliation unless one of the two parties comes forward and asks for intervention.

      89
      I am speaking now as the result of my own experience on the London Conciliation Board, of which I have been a member from the commencement. Our experience fully bears out the statements of the right honourable Gentleman. He has shown that he is willing, and, indeed, anxious, to put the Act in operation, and do everything in his power, but I think the House will feel that it is useless, and indeed he has no power, to appoint a conciliator unless he is asked to do so by one, at least, of the parties concerned. After what he has said, I hope the honourable Member opposite will withdraw his Motion.
      MR. BRYCE: I will endeavour in a few words, Sir, to address myself to what I understand to be the question before the House, namely, that the Board of Trade should intervene, and that the House, should say that the time has come for such intervention. We have from the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade one very valuable declaration. I understood him to say that it would be far from the possibilities to prevent him from putting into force the power he has under the third sub-section of the second section of the Conciliation Act, to appoint a conciliator by either party. Sir, I welcome that declaration. I gather from that that as soon as either party approaches him to appoint a conciliator he will do so. So far his declaration is satisfactory. I understood him to say—
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: What I did say was that if such an application were made it would require the strongest reasons on my part to justify me in refusing it.
      MR. BRYCE: I do not find in the words of the Act that it only refers to a private inquiry. The House is aware that this is not so, because this is no new matter. It is arising constantly. It is well known that the Board of Trade have for many years past been in the habit of inquiring privately into these trade disputes. There never was any labour dispute in which the most trusted officer of the Board of Trade might not advantageously intervene by making private inquiry. The ordinary operations of the Labour
      90
      Department often show that it is possible to have a special inquiry. Now, Sir, we do not want any statutory power to do what is needed here. The statutory power need only be invoked for the purpose of creating some new kind of inquiry—a kind of inquiry which the Board of Trade has not previously considered itself authorised to institute.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It was an interlocutory remark made on the Second Reading.
      MR. BRYCE: With all submission to the President of the Board of Trade, I think that no statutory power is required to make a private inquiry. We can all make private inquiries. It cannot be disputed certainly that something preliminary is needed to enable the Board of Trade to act. It could not possibly do so without proper authority—that is, in instituting a public inquiry. It must be in the knowledge of all honourable Members that these inquiries have been conducted, and conducted publicly, by Royal Commissions. It is not suggested that this should be an inquiry of that sort. What is wanted is two things. In the first place, someone should proceed at once to the spot who is capable to announce his purpose to the parties, and induce them to state their case before him—who should inquire into the merits in such a public manner as that there should be no question of the efficiency of it, or of the sufficiency of the information he receives, and so that everyone concerned would feel convinced that ample opportunity had been afforded of tendering the fullest information to him. I have no doubt, with the right honourable Gentleman, that there could be found a thoroughly competent man to perform the office. It would be known as a feature of the dispute that an official of the Board of Trade was making inquiry, and that persons in a position to do so would have full opportunity of stating to him the facts of the case. Then, Mr. Speaker, it is desirable that this inquiry should be published. What we want is a report of its proceedings. It would be of value to us in future similar troubles, and be of assistance in preserving the public peace. One of the greatest things required to be grasped in a dispute of

      91
      this kind is that it interests the whole country; and we should endeavour to recognise that an arrangement is desirable in the interests of public welfare. I suppose there is not one of us outsiders who has listened to what has been said to us by honourable Members on both sides of the House who feels himself in a position to express an opinion on the merits. We have no sufficient evidence on which to form an opinion of the merits. What is now suggested would have the effect of putting everyone into an equable frame of mind; while the machinery of the Board of Trade would give the necessary weight to the inquiry of its nominee, and we should have the advantage of his official Report for future guidance. The right honourable Gentleman has not suggested that harm can come by it, and the information he obtains will help public opinion. His information, I say, will tend to bring the parties together, and to effect a mutual understanding. Against this scheme the President of the Board of Trade has alleged nothing suggestive that harm can possibly spring from it. The appeal that has been made here both by the mover and seconder of the Motion, and the honourable Member for Monmouthshire, as well as the last speaker, will, I trust, bear good fruit, as it is an appeal which comes from both sides of the House. I, therefore, submit that the right honourable Gentleman will be well advised, under the circumstances—where great public interests are at stake, where matters of the gravest importance to the Navy of this country are involved—where we hear of trade being diverted, and where we hear of great suffering being borne by innocent peoplei—if he sees that his Department does not stand on ceremony, nor be too particular, but goes forward strong and determined in the exercise of the powers it was intended it should use. If ever there was a case when the powers of this Act should be tested, this is that case, judging from what we have heard this evening. The State has strong interest in the abridgment of this dispute. The State has entrusted the Board of Trade with the duty of taking all proper steps to abridge it, and I do not think the right honourable Gentlemen can feel they have done all that
      92
      the country expects unless they have taken advantage of the powers which, after a full discussion, after a long inquiry in 1886, Parliament entrusted to them.
      *MR. J. LOWTHER: There was a remark made by the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, and also one by the Leader of the Opposition, which, I think, ought not to be allowed to pass unchallenged. Both right honourable Gentlemen undertook to speak for both sides of the House in pressing the Board of Trade to appoint a conciliator under the Act.
      MR. BRYCE: May I point out to the honourable Gentleman that I did not affect to speak for both sides of the House, but that I said that honourable Members sitting on that side of the House joined in the appeal to the Board of Trade. I think I am entitled to say that honourable Members for Wales, without distinction of Party, have asked the President of the Board of Trade to act.
      *MR. J. LOWTHER: This being not a Welsh question in the ordinary sense of the term—this being a matter in connection with the Conciliation Act, which applies to the rest of the kingdom and not alone to Wales, I do not think it is a matter which Welsh Members are entitled by themselves to decide. What I was going to say was this—that, while I feel sure my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade will have the full support of his Party in doing his utmost to bring this unfortunate dispute to a termination by whatever judicious measures may commend themselves to his judgment, there is one thing I feel sure he will not have the support of his Party in, and that is the appointment of a conciliator under the Act, unless he has reason to believe that such an appointment will be welcome to both sides of the dispute. That I feel bound to say after what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman opposite, because injudicious interference or intervention in such a direction as I have indicated would be, I am sure, very widely disapproved of by a large section of the public, and would do a great deal more harm than good.
      *MR. SPICER: Sir, I think that if the right honourable

      93
      Gentleman who has just sat down bad listened to the whole of this Debate, as some of us have done, he would not have spoken so strongly. I venture to say that anyone who has listened to this Debate from beginning to end will feel that the time has come when something should be done in this matter, and that the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade might wisely interfere. I think everyone will admit that the whole of the speeches have been most conciliatory. There is one feature that has struck me all through this Debate, and that is that, after all, no one has ventured to stand up and defend the action of the employers in every respect. Everyone who has listened to the speech of the honourable Member for Rhondda Valley will feel that he did his best to put his case in such a way that it should not widen the breach that now exists. From information that has come to my knowledge I venture to think there are a good many of the masters at this moment who would be only too thankful to find good reason for meeting the men and settling this matter. After all, we all know—and I speak as an employer—in all these matters, where masters are compelled to take definite, and it may be, apparently, hard, action, it is very difficult to keep altogether in line, after a certain time. There are those who sympathise with the difficulties of the men, and who are willing to be more conciliatory than others; and I do believe that at this juncture, especially after what has been said in the Debate this afternoon, that the President of the Board of Trade may be urged, may be appealed to, again and again, to see if something cannot be done. I could not, Mr. Speaker, give a silent vote in this matter, representing, as I do, one of the towns most cruelly interested in this struggle, where a large section of the inhabitants who are in no way responsible for the difficulty, but where to-day there is very acute suffering amongst thousands of the population. Therefore I do believe, especially after listening to this Debate, the time has come when something may be wisely and judiciously done.
      MR. RANDALL: Sir, I rise to press the Government to move in the matter—
      94
      to induce one side or the other to apply to the Government for the appointment of a conciliator or arbitrator. I would put it earnestly to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—I would appeal to him to go further than he has done, and say that if he is applied to by one side or the other he will appoint a conciliator. I am glad to say several prominent members of the Provisional Committee have heard this Debate, and I am authorised to say, on behalf of the Provisional Committee, that if an intimation is given by the President of the Board of Trade that he will be willing, on application, to appoint a conciliator, an application will be immediately made to him for that appointment. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade has felt here to-day that a strong case has been made out for conciliation—for the appointment of a conciliator. Sir, I do not intend to prolong this Debate, but I do again ask that the President of the Board of Trade will get up in his place and say he will appoint a conciliator.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am bound by the Act, if an application is made to me, to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, when that application is made. It is quite clear it would not be in accordance with the Act, or right or proper, that I should say beforehand what I should do if an application were made. I think the application ought to come first.
      SIR J. T. LLEWELYN: Sir, I think there is one phase of this Debate that has been lost sight of. It has reference to the employment of the military in the county of Glamorgan. No one deplores that necessity more than I do; but the mover of the Resolution stated that, unfortunately, there had been disturbances in consequence of the employment of the military. Now, Sir, he put the cart before the horse, because I hold in my hand the report of the Chief Constable of Glamorgan to the Standing Joint Committee made on the 13th of last June. I will not trouble the House by going into details, but you will find that the disturbances which took place on the 26th, 27th, and 28th May were the cause of the magistrates calling for the assistance of the military. On those occa-

      95
      sions, unfortunately, riots did take place and they were the cause and not the consequence of the military being called in. The military were called in early in June, I believe. Since that time the peace, I believe, has been maintained it the county of Glamorgan. The result of those riots which took place then was that we were called upon to pay an indemnity of between £700 and £800 for damage done by the rioters. Now, Sir I make bold to say this for the character of the colliers in South Wales: I do not believe that the large majority of the colliers in South Wales were ever willing to riot or were responsible for these riots. There is always a turbulent element attaching to a dispute of this kind, especially with men who are starving; but it was not the married men, the quiet, law-abiding colliers of South Wales, but the turbulent element attaching to them, who were responsible for the riots. But since the military have been called in, at the instance of the magistrates, who are responsible for the peace of the county, there has been peace, and I trust peace will continue to remain. I think it only right on behalf of the character of the South Wales colliers that that statement should be made.
      *MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Leave was given.
      Motion withdrawn.

      ORDER OF THE DAY.

        SUPPLY [13TH ALLOTTED DAY].
        Considered in Committee.
        [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
        (In the Committee.)

        NAVY ESTIMATES, 1898–9.
        1. £752,500, half-pay, reserved, and retired pay.
        *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): My noble Friend the Member for
        96
        York called attention to the question of full pay leave and full pay sick leave granted to naval officers returning from foreign service. On the occasion of the last Debate the matter had been considered, and the determination of the Admiralty arrived at, but I was not then in a position to state the proposed alterations to the Committee. I am now able to inform my noble Friend and the Committee that an Order in Council has since been obtained under the provisions of which Articles 1402 and 1409 will be amended, and will in future extend to captains and commanders the full pay leave previously granted to lieutenants and other commissioned officers below that rank. With regard to sick pay leave, clause 6 of Article 1402 has also been amended, and in future full pay sick leave up to the limit of three months will be granted in the discretion of the Admiralty to any officer, at home or abroad. This period is to be in addition to any full pay leave earned by foreign service, or to any period in respect of which any officer is entitled to full pay on account of treatment in a naval hospital. The additional leave so granted is to be reckoned as foreign or harbour service respectively for pension.
        LORD C. BERESFORD: Then there is the case of the officer being promoted. As it is now, when an officer is promoted, he goes on half-pay, and he has the pleasure of paying one-third of his passage home. Could the right honourable Gentleman see his way to re-adjust that, because it is, as it stands at present, a great injustice?
        *MR. MACARTNEY: I am considering the matter.
        *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to modify to some extent the conditions of service known as harbour time. As the regulations stand at present, the time which an officer spends in service connected with training ships like the Britannia and others only counts as two-

        97
        thirds time, that is felt to be a great grievance, and I think it presses unfairly on these officers, though they do not feel the full effect of it until the time for retirement comes. It is only about one in eight of the officers who join the service who can ever hope to reach the higher ranks, and therefore this is a matter which affects a very large number. I trust that the Admiralty will see their way to make reform in this direction which will adequately meet the case and remedy a grievance which undoubtedly exists.
        THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The subject which my honourable and gallant Friend has raised is one of very considerable difficulty. The question as to how far the service which he has mentioned should count as sea service, as well as many other important duties performed as harbour service, is certainly a very complicated one, and one upon which I think you will find naval opinion is very much divided. But I am myself of opinion that regulations should be made which would attract men to the most important posts, without imposing any disqualifications upon them, and from that point of view I am prepared to look into the matter, and ascertain whether or not any of the harbour appointments should be treated differently from sea-goina appointments. Anything that would make home appointments more popular than sea-going posts will not find much favour with a large number of sea-going officers. At the same time I do not wish in any way to penalise the home appointments, as my honourable and gallant Friend will understand, and I have no objection at all to looking further into the matter, and seeing whether any of these appointments can be treated differently from what they are now.
        *ADMIRAL FIELD: I desire to impress upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the great importance of looking into the question of the commutation of retired pay. From my observations of what frequently takes place, I have become greatly opposed to the com-
        98
        mutation of pensions, as it has been accompanied by very serious and even disastrous results. I and my brother officers in the House can tell the same sad tale as to captains, lieutenants, chief engineers, paymasters, and other classes, who, in a fatal moment, were tempted by the commutation scheme of a former First Lord of the Admiralty, and approved by this House in 1870, to realise as much as they could for their pensions. Nothing but disaster has followed that scheme, and I do desire most earnestly to impress upon the attention of the First Lord and his colleagues the necessity of dropping the whole scheme as soon as they possibly can. Under the present scheme a certain amount is retained, but it is only a pauper allowance of £80, £60, or £70, according to the rank of the officer. We might allow an officer to mortgage a portion of his full pay if he likes, but many of them—and amongst them men of distinction who have done valuable service for the country—are tempted under the present scheme, of having power to commute their pay, to embark on mercantile adventures of which they know nothing, and they become the prey of landsharks. These poor fellows become landed in disasters from which nobody can extricate them, and then they die, and their widows and children become chargeable to the workhouse or their friends. The scheme has signally failed, and I ask the right honourable Gentleman to bring his attention to bear on the matter, with the view, if possible, of abolishing it with the least possible delay.
        THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIMIRALTY: I can assure my honourable and gallant Friend that the system of commutation is diminishing very much. I have no doubt that when the scheme was adopted the argument in favour of it was that the officers who retired in private life should have some, capital in which they might be able to embark upon some business enterprise, but I agree that great mischief has resulted from commutation in very many cases. At the same time I am not prepared to say at a moment's notice that

        99
        I will take away from officers what some of them regard as a privilege.
        LORD C. BERESFORD: Before this Vote is passed. I should like to express my satisfaction with the remarks of the Secretary to the Admiralty.
        Vote agreed to.
        On the Vote of £1,082,900 for naval and marine pensions, gratuities, and compassionate allowances,
        *MR. CLOUGH: I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by £100, in order to bring before the Committee the case of the Royal Naval Pensioners, who are entitled to an additional pension known as the Greenwich Age Pension, as per the Circular, which was published in 1865. The total number of men who claim that they are entitled to this pension, and who are not in receipt of it, is estimated approximately at 1,800, and of these 1,297 have actually applied for it. Now, I am informed by the courtesy of the Civil Lord that if these 1,800 men were provided for it would entail a charge of £13,000 a year. Now, is there a foundation for this claim? Does the claim rest on sound bases? I do not intend, as the time of the Committee has been curtailed by the very useful discussion to which we have listened on another subject—which, at all events, would have been available for this Vote—I do not intend to go at length into the history of the pension in question. But we have heard of the Chatham chest. We have heard that in that chest there used to be placed, as far back as the time of Queen Elizabeth, the funds contributed by the men who were endeavouring to make provision for a "rainy day," and for the time when they should no longer be fit for service. Now, this naval pension, which had its origin as the Chatham chest, and to which has been contributed from time to time the money paid to men for good suit and service rendered to the State, grew in time to be a very large amount. I am not going into figures, because that might lead to controversy, but that it reached a sum sufficiently large to pay all these claims cannot be doubted. I have the facts and figures here, and if the statement be questioned all the
        100
        information I have I am prepared to supply. Now, I understand the case of the men to be this: they believe that they entered into a contract when they unlisted in H.M. Navy. Who were the alleged contracting parties? We have he Admiralty on one side, and we have he men on the other. The naval pensioners were promised in an Enlistment Bill, a copy of which, I regret to say, I lava been unable to obtain, rations, wages, a long service pension, and this additional reenwich Age Pension of 5d. a day at 55, with an additional 4d. a day at 65. Now the Greenwich naval pensioners claim that having enlisted and served their time, and having good conduct certificates, they have fulfilled their part of this contract, and are entitled to receive, first, the long-service pension, and secondly, the Greenwich Age Pension at 55. Now, on the 29th of June, 1878, a special circular was issued, stating that hospital pensions would be limited in future. Men who now join the Navy know that they are not to expect this pension, and the men who are reengaged know that they are not to expect it. I am speaking of the men who joined prior to or between the dates of 1865 and 1878, and I say that the Circular which was issued in 1878 ought not to be retrospective as regards these men. In 1878 there was an Act passed limiting pensions, and the men who joined the Service afterwards knew perfectly well that, though they might have a much longer service pension, they were not entitled to the Greenwich Age Pension. Now the most extraordinary thing happened in connection with this Act of 1878—it was made retrospective, and I beg respectfully to submit that that was a course not often taken in this House. I do not know of a similar case where a Bill has been made retrospective, and this is the principal reason why these men are so very sore upon this matter. The men claim that funds which were otherwise available for this pension had been from time to time taken from the accumulated funds and applied to other purposes than pensions. I can support this statement by facts and extracts from the evidence given before the Royal Commission. Now, the grievance of these men entitled to the Greenwich Age Pension lies

        101
        between the years 1865 and 1878. I would respectfully state that the men do not ask for the pension as a favour—as something to be given to them which they have not earned—they demand it as a right; they demand it on the ground that they have fulfilled their part of the contract, and they ask the Government to fulfil theirs. They are men who have 21 years' service to look back upon. They are not the riff-raff of the Service, they are men who have left the Service with a certificate of good character; and I submit that they have a right to look to the national funds for the fulfilment of the nation's contract. Now, the men refuse—I do not know that their refusal serves them very much, but that is the position they take up—to take into account the Act of 1878, which limited the Greenwich age pension to 7,500. They say that, whatever might have been done in 1878, they ought not to be deprived of that which was held out to them as an inducement to join the Service at the time of their enlistment. Now, Sir, not only was there a Bill in 1878, limiting the number of age pensions, but there was an Order in Council. This Order was made known to the men in the Navy by a special Fleet Circular in 1878. Now, it may bind—and, I have no doubt, does bind, and rightly bind—men who joined the Navy after that date, but I submit it is unjust that a circular should deprive men of the pension who joined the Navy between 1865 and 1878, after it was held out to them as an inducement when they joined the Navy. Now, I wish to refer here—and it would not be right to raise this question without referring to the advocacy by the honourable and. gallant Member for Woolwich of this particular class of pensions—I wish to refer here to his letter to Lord George Hamilton on 9th November, 1891, which very fully stated the case at the time. In that letter it is stated in paragraph 38—
        "There are about 2,800 naval pensioners over 55 years of age who are not in receipt of age pensions. None of these men entered the Service a rated seaman, or even re-engaged for a second period of service, between September, 1865, and 1878."
        Without detaining the Committee at any length, I wish to emphasise the fact, that no public or formal statement was made
        102
        by the Admiralty prior to 1878 that the number of Greenwich Age Pensions would be limited. It is the fact that all naval pensioners of good character above the age of 55 did receive the age pension during the period of 12 years after the Greenwich Age Pension Act was established in 1865. Now, there are no limitations—and there ought to be no limitations—as to the number of Greenwich age pensioners to receive the pension made in the Act of 1865. I may be told that there are no funds available, but let the Admiralty, who have drawn on the funds, pay back so much as is necessary in order to make good those pensions. This nation is rich almost beyond the dreams of avarice. It is within the recollection of the Committee that large sums have been voted—I will not refer to them, because they are controversial—by Parliament this year for various purposes; but I say that when the Government is asked to fulfil this contract and to discharge its obligations there ought to be no difficulty about finding £13,000 a year. If there is not a surplus, in the Greenwich Hospital Fund to provide it, it should be provided by the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund is indebted to the extent of thousands of pounds to this fund, and out of that fund this provision ought to be made. On behalf of all Greenwich age pensioners, who are still unprovided for, I ask the Government to fulfil their contract. I submit that the inquisitorial letter, in which inquiries are made into the men's position (1) by replies to this letter, (2) by private inquiry—and in the constituency which I represent the police are actually employed to search out a man's home and make inquiries as to his position in life—is beneath the dignity of a great Government. When a civil servant has served the State for a certain number of years, and retires upon his pension, there is no inquiry into his position in life, and there ought not to be. His pension was part of his engagement to the State, and his pension ought to be paid.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the honourable Member allow me to interpose for a moment? He is surely confusing the Age Pensions with Naval Pensions.

        103
        There is no kind of inquisitorial letter respecting naval pensions.
        *MR. CLOUGH: I am not, if the Civil Lord will permit me to say so, confusing the letter. I am speaking of the Greenwich Age Pension simply and solely, which is something added after 21 years' service to a pension to which a seaman is entitled. I can vouch for the assertion that there are these inquiries made in connection with the Greenwich Age Pension, and I respectfully submit that it is very wrong that these inquiries should be made, and that the men should be submitted to this indignity if they are entitled to the pension. That is my case, and I submit that the pension ought to be given to the men in a proper manner, and without subjecting them to this annoyance. Without further detaining the Committee, I commend this just case to the Government. It has been brought before the Committee year after year for many years, and I hope the Exchequer or the Consolidated Fund will be found sufficient to meet this most reasonable claim on the part of the men.
        *MR. KEARLEY: The question raised by the honourable Member for Portsmouth is one which affects not merely Naval constituencies, but every part of the United Kingdom, because every man who gets a service pension is entitled to the Greenwich Age Pension when he reaches the age of 55. A list was sent to me the other day showing how the Navy pensioners are distributed over the country; and I was extremely surprised to find how many pensioners there are outside the Naval ports. In London alone there are 2,400 Naval pensioners; in the south of England (excluding Portsmouth) there are 2,000; in the east of England, 1,000; in the west of England, excluding Devonport and Plymouth, 1,500; in the Midlands, over 1,000; in Wales, 500; in Scotland, over 500; and in Ireland, 1,500. I preface my observations by giving these figures because they show that this is a matter which does not merely affect those who are interested in Naval constituencies, but that there is scarcely an honourable Member whose consti-
        104
        tuency is not more or less concerned in the question. Now, the point at issue is whether there has been a contract between the Admiralty and these men. The history of the case is very simple. In 1865 it was deemed expedient to close Greenwich Hospital for in-pensioners, but the closing was not actually accomplished until 1869. The question which arose then was what bargain should be made to satisfy the then in-pensioners, and what equitable arrangement could be made on behalf of those men who would be leaving the Navy from time to time, and who, without having a voice in the matter, would be deprived of the benefit as in-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital. A bargain was made that the then in-pensioners should receive-2s. a day, and away they went. Then it was arranged that every pensioner in receipt of a life pension should, in future, on reaching the age of 55, have his pension augmented by a Greenwich Age Pension of 5d. per day, with an additional 4d. per day on reaching the age of 70, which latter was ultimately reduced to 65. Well, this went on, Mr. Lowther, perfectly smoothly until 1878, when the limitation circular was issued. Prior to 1878 there was no limitation in the number of the pensions granted, and every man, as he became entitled, received his, pension, without question or inquiry as to his means of gaining a livelihood, or the extent of his family. There were, indeed, none of those inquiries made prior to 1878 that are made at the present time. Now, I go back to the point as to whether there was a contract. In the enlistment circular which invited men to join the service it was most clearly and emphatically stated that a man, on reaching the age of 55, would receive a Greenwich Age Pension. It was also stated by the head of the Naval Pension Department who gave evidence before the Duke of Edinburgh's Commission in 1885.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Which question?
        *MR. KEARLEY: I do not think I can give you that now, but you have it in the Report. It was emphatically made clear to that Committee that that was the prevailing opinion, and if anybody

        105
        ought to know it is Mr. Awdry, who is the head of the Pension Department, and he said that that was the understanding. Of course, there may be some juggle of words on the point. There has frequently been a juggle of words by previous Lords of the Admiralty, and I am quite convulsed that my honourable Friend will not fall behind in that direction, although I am sure he has the cause of the pensioners at heart. Well, whether it be so or not, we have this fact to face, that out of 12,000 Naval pensioners only 1,500 of them do not get these pensions. It resolves itself independently of the question of contract, which I nevertheless assert to hare been made, into a question of fairness. These pensions are awarded for services renedered; they are not awarded out of mere charity. It is not a question of charity at all, it is purely a question of contract. I do not think any man who looks at this matter dispassionately would attempt to argue for a single moment that it is equitable or fair that while so large a body as 12,000 men should receive the pension that 1,500 should be excluded. It is pointed out by the Government that the reason why these men are not receiving pensions is because there are not sufficient funds to go all round. That brings me to another very important aspect of the question—that is, that funds justly belonging to Greenwich have from time to time been diverted from their legitimate purposes. The administration of Greenwich we all know to be admirable; I do not believe there is a single institution in the whole country better or more economically administered than Greenwich Hospital. This diversion of funds, of which I make serious complaint, has consisted of applying them to purposes for which they were never intended. The best proof that I can adduce as to the validity of my assertion is that as the outcome of Debates in this House from time to time some of these funds have been restored under pressure to their legitimate channels. Some years ago, in 1869 I think, the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve was started, and as an inducement to men to join, the Admiralty promised to guarantee them their age pension when they had reached 50 years of age. For some years after its inception the age pension so gained was taken from Greenwich Hospital Fund, instead
        106
        of being charged, as it should have been, on the Naval votes. That went on for so long that, prior to the Admiralty giving way, some £50,000 had been taken illegally out of Greenwich Hospital Fund which should have been voted in this House. No restitution has been made of this £50,000, and I ask the Committee to bear in mind that I have established the case of this £50,000 being due to Greenwich. But I do not stay here; I will state a far more flagrant—indeed, I will say more disgraceful—case of plundering Greenwich Hospital funds. The Admiralty have been occupying this magnificent building at Greenwich for many years past as a naval college. As honourable Members know, the Government is in the happy position of assessing its own property for rates, and even on such a basis the result was that these splendid buildings were assessed at over £9,000 per annum, but notwithstanding an altogether monstrously inadequate rent of only £100 per year was paid for the use of the buildings. The question was raised, and protests were made, year after year, but the Admiralty justified itself by saying that the buildings were most expensive to maintain, and that, under the circumstances, they could not afford to pay more. At last, however, the Admiralty surrendered and paid £5,000, which, even then, was not a fair rent. Pressure was again brought to bear on the Admiralty with the result that another £1,500 was added, so that now the rent is £6,500 a year. That has only taken place since 1895, and I maintain that, from 1862 to 1895, the arrears of rental are not less than £170,000. So that we must add this sum to the £50,000 to which I have already referred taken out of Greenwich Hospital Fund to pay these age pensions. But the deviation of these funds does not stop here. In 1834 an arrangement was made that the Consolidated Fund should contribute to Greenwich Hospital £20,000 a year in view of the sixpences that were paid by seamen as their contribution to the Greenwich Fund. That went on until 1869, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer swooped down and took away £16,000 of this £20,000. Some ingenious reason was given, but I need not go into the details. That continued until 1893, when, as in

        107
        the other cases, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way, and Greenwich regained possession of the £16,000 a year of which it had been deprived since 1869. The debt due to Greenwich on that one item alone is £400,000. There is still another point I wish to raise in conclusion. When Greenwich was closed an annual sum of £6,300 was allotted for the payment of pensions to officers. I do not grudge the officers their share, but what I do object to is that there should be an increase for the officers during this period we are discussing, and that the seamen should be going short. But this has happened, inasmuch as a further sum of £3,200 per year has been appropriated to the same purpose. I am sure the noble Lord opposite will not feel that I am acting unfairly towards his class when I suggest that the seamen should have the first claim on the funds of Greenwich. I have not the faintest wish to make any observation that savours of favouring the men and not the officers. I only wish, in supporting the speech of the honourable Member for Portsmouth, to offer a few observations on the system of selecting men for the Greenwich Fund. That selection cannot be properly carried out. It is impossible to pick out these men impartially. The man who has a friend at court will stand a better chance of getting his pension than the man who has no friend. I do not suggest that the Admiralty do not endeavour to act fairly to all in the giving out of these pensions; I am sure they do, but the system is a wrong one, and it cannot be effectively carried out. Seeing that these large sums of money have been diverted, I think the Greenwich Fund is entitled to some compensation. If the Admiralty paid 2½ per cent. on the money that has been diverted it would owe Greenwich £15,000 a year, which would more than suffice for all purposes. I think this perpetual agitation on the part of men who feel that they are entitled to some compensation is a very bad advertisement for the Navy. Those of us who are in touch with the Navy feel—and those of us who went to Portsmouth the other day must have felt, if we had this matter in our minds—that the Navy deserves better treatment. I hope, now the question has been raised in a more detailed manner than it has been
        108
        or some years, that the Admiralty will consider that a case has been established, and that all these men who joined the Navy prior to 1878, and have since come into the possession of life pensions, should at the age of 55, receive 5d. augmentation pension from the Greenwich Fund.
        *ADMIRAL FIELD: I wish to associate myself with the honourable Members opposite in regard to this troublesome matter of age pensions. The honourable Member for Devonport has given great attention to this matter, and I feel that every man in this House must agree with him. I hope the Admiralty will see their way to put an end to this agitation. It is not desirable to bring this question forward year after year for the sake of a paltry sum of £5,000 a year. The Admiralty have abolished Greenwich Hospital as a place of residence for worn-out seamen, and have made this up by way of an age pension. Their intention was to carry out that system in its entirety, and they made their calculations accordingly. But what the honourable Members opposite have omitted to bear in mind is this—and the seamen ought to go down on their knees and bless the Almighty for it—that seamen live several years longer now. The result is that the funds are insufficient, because pensioners do not die fast enough, and men come on the roll for age pensions before vacancies are created. I am the last to minimise the claims of seamen, but it is only fair to point out that laws have been in operation which have told in favour of longevity. Thirty years ago the death roll was terrible in China and India, and men were invalided home and died prematurely. All that is altered by improved sanitary conditions in the Navy. Our seamen who come home and retire on their pensions also live longer, because the sanitary condition of the towns is better. The water supply is better, and the whole sanitary system is greatly improved. We ought to be thankful that our men live longer, and seamen ought to bless the Almighty that their fellow-pensioners live to a greater age. The honourable Member for Devonport has spoken about a waste of money. If that is so, it ought to be a very easy matter to obtain restitution. If money

        109
        is wanted there are ways in which it might be obtained. What becomes of the money for dead men's effects? What becomes of the surplus of their savings? Will they go to the Treasury? I believe this surplus, paid over to the Treasury, would more than meet the demand of the honourable Member for Devonport, who has made out a very strong case for restitution. I desire to associate myself with his efforts.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can associate myself with honourable Members opposite in this respect at least—that I think it is eminently desirable that this long-standing controversy should come to an end, and that it should be settled one way or another; but I confess I do not think that speeches such as we have listened to from my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne, and from honourable Members opposite, are calculated to produce the result they desire; or that these speeches, as I think I shall be able to show, have any sufficient basis in the facts of the case. If honourable Members opposite had taken more trouble to ascertain the facts of the case. I do not think they would ever have spoken of the payments to these pensioners in the way they have done to-night, and I do not think it is wise or right that they should constantly hold out to these men and instil into them, the idea that successive Governments have broken faith with them, and have failed in their contract with them, unless they are prepared with definite information they can lay before the House to show that the contract has ever existed. The whole point at issue is whether or not there ever was a contract with the men. I admit fully that, if the Admiralty made a contract with the men that they should, all of them, have an age pension at a certain age, no subsequent order could alter that contract, or would give us the right to withdraw from these men a privilege which was one of the conditions that induced them to enter the service. It would be no answer in such a case for the Government to say that the funds of Greenwich Hospital, which were expected to provide these pensions, are insufficient in amount to do so. If a contract was made between the Govern-
        110
        ment and men entering the Navy, and if the Greenwich fund is insufficient to carry out that contract, not only in the letter but in the spirit, then it must be the business of the Government and the duty of the Government to find funds from some other source. But the question I want the Committee to consider is whether there ever was any such contract. The honourable Member who opened this discussion said he made this demand on behalf of the men, not as asking for charity but as asserting respectfully a right. The honourable Member said that a contract had been made to which the men were parties on the one hand, and the Admiralty on the other; and he further said that the Enlistment Bill contained a promise that these men, on reaching 55 years of age, should receive the Greenwich age pension. The honourable Member for Devonport spoke in very much the same sense, and I think he practically endorsed all those statements of the honourable Member for Portsmouth. But neither of these honourable Members quoted the terms of the contract; neither of them cited to the Committee the phrases in the Enlistment Bill to which they referred. I have a copy of this Bill in my hands, and here is what it says—
        *MR. CLOUGH: What is the date of it?
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The actual copy I have is dated January, 1885, which is later than the date to which the honourable Member refers.
        *MR. CLOUGH: If the right honourable Gentleman will pardon me I should like to point out that our statements were based on the Enlistment Bill which was brought before the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee, which was the Bill of 1865, and not the Bill of 1885.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Honourable Members will see that the Bill I hold in my hand is the Bill of 1885, and it is in this respect an exact copy of the earlier Bill. The following passage occurs in it—
        "£76,000 a year is employed to grant to eligible pensioners additional pensions of 5d. and 9d. a day on reaching the age of 55 and upwards."

        111
        That is the actual Bill that was brought before the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee. There is absolutely no statement there which gives any colour to the supposition that there was a contract between the Admiralty and the men that all men on arriving at the age of 55 should receive an age pension. The only statement in the Bill is that a sum of £7,000 should be devoted to granting eligible pensions. There is a saving clause in the Bill which says—
        "The information contained in this paper is extracted from the different regulations, which are liable to alteration; no person has any right to pay, pension, or other advantage on account of apparent eligibility under the rules as herein published."
        But I do not base myself on this clause, but on the actual words referring to pensions which I have quoted. The promise of the Admiralty was that £76,000 a year should be devoted to that purpose. Has the Admiralty kept that promise? Has the Admiralty fulfilled the contract so made with the men?
        *MR. KEARLEY: May I ask where the right honourable Gentleman gets the £76,000?
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: From the Enlistment Bill. I was asking if we had kept the promise contained in the words of the Bill. Sir, we have not only kept the promise, but we have gone beyond it, and at this present time we are spending not £76,000 a year, but over £100,000, in granting these pensions to eligible pensioners. The honourable Member for Portsmouth complained that the circular of 1878 had been made retrospective, with the result of withdrawing rights of which the men were already possessed. I do not think the honourable Member can make out that case. This is no new subject. It has been examined by the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee, and it has been examined by a Select Committee of this House, which reported in 1892. The Duke of Edinburgh's Committee was considering a proposal to establish an insur-
        112
        ance fund for sailors, and for the purpose of ascertaining their views issued a Circular to the men in the Fleet at the home ports and in the coastguard describing certain proposals made to them, and regarding which they wanted he men's opinion. In this Circular the Committee gave their opinion upon this question of the Greenwich age and special pensions. In this Circular the Committee state—
        "By Order in Council both classes of pensions (i.e., age and special)—the latter of which is not now in dispute—are to be given entirely at the discretion of the Admiralty, so that no man has a vested interest in these pensions or can regard them as a right. All that can be asserted in this respect is that the funds of the Greenwich Hospital are the property of the Navy. It rests with the Board of Admiralty for the time being to determine according to circumstances in what way the funds can be applied to the best advantage for the benefit of the Navy as a whole."
        In the first place there is no such contract as the honourable Member for Portsmouth supposes with the men, and the honourable Member can produce no evidence of its existence. That being so, his second contention, that the restrictive Order of 1878 was an unfair one, and had a retrospective effect, falls to the ground, because it does not restrict any right that the men previously possessed. The honourable Member seems to imagine that no restrictions on the pensions were heard of until 1878. That is not true. The reason for closing Greenwich Hospital was on account of the enormous reluctance shown by the men to enter the hospital, and their desire to remain among their families and friends rather than be shut up in that great establishment. A Joint Committee of the Admiralty and the Treasury was appointed to consider what should be done, and they recommended, in lieu of the hospital, that age pensions should be established. The Report of that Committee was published as a Parliamentary Paper, and was presented to this House. That was the very inception of the age pensions. I will call the attention of the House to

        113
        what the Committee said. They stated that—
        "It will be equally necessary to limit the number of extra pensions (i.e., the age pensions) to be granted. We are of opinion, allowing a fair margin, that 5,000 extra pensioners should be the maximum."
        So that at the very inception of this scheme of extra pensions 5,000 was the number suggested as the limit. The Greenwich Hospital Act of the same year gave power to appoint such pensions "as seem fit," and an Order in Council of September the same year ordered that these extra pensions should be granted at the discretion of the Admiralty. If there had been any idea of a contract with the men, that every man should have a pension on arriving at a certain age, there would not have been introduced these limitations at the beginning, or these words giving discretion and power of decision to the Admiralty. And, Sir, as a matter of fact, from 1865 to 1869 the Board did limit the number of pensions to 5,000; and it was only in 1869, by an Admiralty Minute which was never published, that the limit was removed, and an unlimited number of pensions made possible. And the Select Committee of 1892 reported—
        "It is clear that this discretion of the Lords Commissioner of the Admiralty was exercised in 1866, when, by Admiralty Order, the age pension was withheld from all naval pensioners in Government employ, or residing out of the United Kingdom; and also in 1869, when 412 more age pensions were authorised by the Board; and in 1876, when the age of 70 for the 4d. pension was reduced to 65."
        I think it is perfectly evident that from the inception of these pensions the idea of a limit was suggested, and was made public, not only in the Report which was published as a Parliamentary Paper, but in the speech of Mr. Childers, who introduced the Greenwich Hospital Act, as well as in the course of the administration of the funds. I hope, therefore, that I have made it clear to the Committee that there is no claim as of right, and that there is no breach of faith or of contract with the men. [Lord CHARLES BERESFORD interrupted.] I am afraid that my noble and gallant Friend remains at the point at which he was when I began my speech I do not quite understand where he
        114
        thinks the contract was made. I have shown that in the Recruiting Bill there was no contract, that before 1878 the Order in Council establishing these pensions established them subject to the discretion of the Admiralty; and I have shown that the Admiralty used their discretion on several occasions before 1878. It is impossible to say that there was a hard and fast rule that every man who entered before 1878 should receive the pension on reaching the age of 55. There are one or two points of less importance raised by the honourable Members for Portsmouth and Devonport, on which I will say one or two words. I think both honourable Members complained of the inquisitorial Circular which is issued to applicants for these pensions. I hold in my hand a copy of this inquisitorial Circular, which only asks the men their name, the nature of their employment, the average of their weekly earnings, and the condition of their health. I do not think that is an offensive Circular to send round; as a matter of fact, it is less inquisitorial than the Circular addressed to officers who apply for officers' pensions out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund. They are asked the amount of their private income, the amount of their wife's income, whether they have any appointment, occupation, or business, and, if so, what the emoluments are; if they have any family, and, if so, the number of children dependent upon them. There is no distinction made between the men and the officers who apply. If it is admitted that this is a charity, as I contend it is, and is to be administered as a charity, we could not do less than make inquiries of the nature which have been specified. The honourable Member for Devonport objects to our making any selection. He is anxious, if the number of pensions is to be limited, that they should be given to the senior men on the lists. What would the effect of that be? The effect would be this: a large number of people who are in comfortable, and comparatively affluent, circumstances, would receive these pensions, whilst others who are in very poor circumstances would go without them. It is possible, as the honourable Member says, that mistakes are sometimes made, but because some mistakes occur even under the most careful system of

        115
        selection, that is no reason for abandoning selection altogether, and rushing into the evils for which the present system has been denounced. When pensions were given indiscriminately to all men, they were given to people who were in no need of them. It was actually proposed on several occasions that these Greenwich age pensions should be either absolutely done away with, or largely reduced, and the fund diverted to other purposes. The honourable Member for Devonport referred to a particular paragraph in the evidence before the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee, in the endeavour to show that it was admitted that there was a contract between these men, and that this pension was a right. Nothing of the kind. The proposal before the Committee on Which Mr. Awdry was speaking, and in favour of which he was arguing, was a proposal to withdraw £48,000 out of the £76,000 promised by the Admiralty, and to devote this sum to the establishment of an insurance fund and widows' pensions, instead of to age pensions. If the honourable Member will look at the paragraph to which he refers, he will see that in reference to that proposal a question was put, in which it was suggested that there was a breach of contract, and that the enlistment bills held out these pensions as an inducement to the men, and that they had entered in consequence of this inducement. It was in answer to the question—
        "Has not this inducement—that is, the inducement that £76,000 a year is given for age pensions—been held out to men entering the service?"
        Mr. Awdry replied—
        "I have no doubt that in recruiting the most rosy view of the circumstances is put before the men in order to induce them to recruit."
        But there is not a word there to suggest that these pensions can be claimed as a right by every man of 55. On the contrary—
        *MR. KEARLEY: I think it is very unfortunate that the Recruiting Bill which was put before the men who enlisted in 1865 has not been produced to-night.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I believe the Bill I have in my hand is the
        116
        Bill which was before the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee.
        *MR. KEARLEY: It cannot be the Bill which was before the men who enlisted in 1865 if it is the Bill produced in 1885.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The honourable Member is making a mountain out of a mole hill. He asked me to produce the Bill which was before the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee in 1885. This is the actual Bill which was before the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee in that year, and a copy of the earlier Bill.
        *MR. KEARLEY: The original Bill is not here.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should be delighted if I could produce the Bill, but I have been unable to get one. No doubt the honourable Member has also tried to get one and failed. I have produced an exact copy. I go back to what Mr. Awdry says later in his evidence. In reply to the Question No. 48—
        "Surely a pension is given for past services?"
        he said—
        "Yes, a naval pension."
        Mr. Awdry was asked (Question 85)—
        "Any pension in the world is given for past services?"
        and he replied—
        "Not the Greenwich Hospital pension. There is a broad distinction to be recognised. A man entering the Navy, the Marines, or the Army may be told, 'Your pay is small, but you wilt get a pension or deferred pay'; and when the man leaves our service he gets it; he obtains all that he contracted for. But it so happens that we are also trustees for a charity, and under that charity we are empowered to supplement those pensions to men in necessitous, circumstances; that supplemental award is not a deferred pay, it is simply an act of charity."
        It is impossible for honourable Members, in face of that, to contend that this is a right, and not an act of charity. Another point raised was with reference to the use of the hospital buildings. I can only say that, having gone into the matter very carefully, I am satisfied that the hospital is now receiving the full amount it is correct to charge to the Naval College for the buildings they occupy. Then there is the question of officers' pensions. The total amount of officers' pensions from the Greenwich Hospital Fund at the present time is some-

        117
        thing under £9,000. When the hospital existed the officers drew emoluments of no less than £15,000 from the Fund, and in addition to that they occupied at least one-fourth of the whole of the buildings as free quarters. The honourable Member opposite would have led the Committee to suppose that the proportion of Greenwich Hospital Funds which is paid to officers has grown larger in recent years. That is not so. When the Hospital was closed the officers were receiving nine and a quarter per cent, of its total income. They are now receiving only 4½ per cent. It was a policy which was deliberately decided upon by those who were responsible for the closing of the hospital, that some compensation should be made in perpetuity to the officers who would have been eligible for posts carrying with them these large emoluments. That is the policy which was approved by the House of Commons, and embodied in an Act of Parliament, which imposed on the Admiralty the duty, or the right, to confer these pensions not only on the men but on the officers, noncommissioned officers, and men of the Fleet. I submit that these facts are sufficient to show that the officers have some claim for consideration, and for the establishment of some officers' pensions out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund, and I do not think that 4½ per cent. of the whole is an undue proportion to allow. Sir, I apologise to the Committee for speaking at such length, but I thought, in view of the fact that these grave charges of breach of faith with men in their service have been made against successive Boards of Admiralty, that it was due to the Board of Admiralty and to the Committee that I should make this full explanation. I hope I have been able to dispel the illusions which honourable Members are under, and that they will consider carefully before they repeat the allegations of bad faith and of indifference which have been hurled, not against this Board of Admiralty alone, but against successive Boards of Admiralty, all of whom, according to honourable Gentlemen, must have been blind to the plain dictates of honour.
        Upon the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
        LORD C. BERESFORD: I think my honourable Friend the Civil Lord lays down the most extraordinary doctrine that I ever heard of. He acknowledged that there was considerable dissatisfaction amongst a large portion of Her Majesty's Service, and yet he finds fault, with the honourable Member opposite because he brought their case before the House of Commons. I think the honourable Member did a very good thing in bringing this matter before the House. How are we to clear these things up unless we clear them up publicly on the floor of the House of Commons? The fact remains that there is an amount of dissatisfaction existing amongst a portion of the pensioners of Her Majesty's Service, who think that the Government have not fulfilled their promises. It is not good for the Service nor for the country that the dissatisfaction should exist. Now, I think the place to bring out these cases is on the floor of the House of Commons. I never knew—although I had studied all the facts—I never knew for one moment what the Civil Lord read out to-night. Now, if the statement is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, these men are not justly entitled to this 5d. a day. What I want to find fault with is his authority; if there is this doubt and dissatisfaction amongst the men of the Fleet, the authorities ought to send round a circular and let the men know clearly how they stand, because it is not right that the men should be under the idea that the Government have broken their contract. It is neither right nor good for the country or the Fleet, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will make some arrangements by which it shall be made clear to the men who joined the Service prior to 1878. We know very well that the men who joined after that time are not entitled; but there are a good many men, shipmates of my own, who joined the Service in 1858 who think they have a grievance in not obtaining that which, according to what has been read out to-night, they are not entitled to; and I hope it will be made quite clear to the lower deck of the Service that they are under a delusion and are not entitled to the pension, and were not entitled to it when they joined. I quite agree with the point of selection which has been taken by the First Lord. I think, as

        119
        matters stand, that is quite right; there are men, as one knows, who are well off, men who have inherited money, or who have got money in some way or other, and who are well off, whereas there is a large number of men who are not well off, and I think that if you have only so much money you should give it to those who are hard up, and not to those who are well off. Now let me allude to the Chatham chest, because I do not think the Committee really know why the men do not consider that they are treated fairly in this case. It has been brought out in this House, and it is not generally known to the public, that the Chatham chest was founded in the year 1590. It was founded by means of a subscription of 6d. a month, which was paid out of his wages by every man in the Service. From the time of its foundation to the present year we have had a large number of men in the Fleet—I think the largest dumber we have had is 140,000, but every man paid 6d. a month out of his wages into the Chatham chest. Five per cent. of the prize money of the officers and men was also contributed to the Chatham chest, together with all unclaimed prize money, and extensive additions have been made to it by will and otherwise, and the result was that the Chatham chest had a great many millions of money mainly provided by the 6d. a month from the wages of the men. In 1814 it was found that from £5,000,000 to £7,000,000 of the money of the Chatham chest had disappeared; they never had any accounts, or, at least, could never find any; but it is quite clear that in that year the amount of money disappeared. I do not like to say that the chest was robbed of it—I think I will say it was robbed of it; I do not mean to say that it was taken out and put into anybody's pocket, but this money, which had been contributed by the men for the purposes of providing for themselves pensions m their old age, was taken by the Government because they were in difficulties over the war in the beginning of the century, and, finding themselves in pecuniary difficulties, they took this money and used it for the purposes of the war. But that money belonged to the men; it was subscribed by the men in order to secure them certain pensions when they got old.
        *MR. MACARTNEY: The noble Member (Mr. A. Chamberlain) will excuse
        120
        my interrupting, but I would point out that the money was not voted to war purposes in the ordinary sense of the term of war expenditure; it was expended in pensions.
        LORD C. BERESFORD: I think my honourable Friend is quite wrong there. If he will read the details of it he will find that there were from £5,000,000 to £7,000,000 never accounted for; and there is no doubt as to how the money was disposed of. It was said to be used for war purposes. I find as I make it out, that the amount of the Greenwich Hospital Fund is £4,500,000, which includes £1,356,000, which is all that is left of this enormous sum of money of the Chatham chest. The sixpenny subscriptions were stopped in the year 1829, but what these men feel is this: that since these pensions have been started a large sum, something like £8,000, every year, goes to the officers. I for one think they deserve that pension, but I think that sum should come out of the Navy Vote, because, although my honourable Friend is right in saying that the officers did subscribe to the Chatham chest in so far that they paid 5 per cent. of their prize money into that chest, and all prize money unclaimed was paid into that chest, the fact remains that the great sum of the Chatham chest was not money that accrued to the people, but was made up of the 6d. per month which every man subscribed from his wages. I sympathise with the men in this case, and I see the difficulties of the Admiralty, and I differ from those honourable Gentlemen opposite when they say the Admiralty or the Government have broken their contract. But what they have not done is to make it clear to the men that the men are not entitled to this pension. It is no use finding faults without remedying them. This is the place to remedy these things, because, if Parliament says "so and so," the Admiralty will have to do it. Now, I would suggest that they should put the officers' pensions upon the Navy Vote, and that all these men who serve their country up to the age of 55 should get their 5d. a day. I do not think it would be a very great thing for the country to do to make this arrangement, as there are so many means of doing so. Take

        121
        the one which the honourable and gallant Admiral mentioned just now, that of the saving fund.
        *MR. MACARTNEY: There is no saving fund.
        LORD C. BERESFORD: Then what has become of it? I think this question ought to be cleared up. I would propose, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty and his Board will devise, some means of allowing a pension of 5d. a day to all the pensioners of the Royal Navy who arrive at the age of 55 years. Now there is one other point with regard to this question. There are the different Committees which have sat upon this matter, and which have invariably, so far as I can understand, found that the men are right, and there is some fund remaining. I think it is a very wise thing that these things should be brought before Parliament, and that it should clear them up in the light of day, and prove the men are right or wrong; but let us at the same time see whether we cannot give the men this 5d. a day. There is one more point I should like to mention before I sit down. The chief petty officers of the Navy come under this head. Now, the chief petty officers of the Navy do not receive a pension at all commensurate with their services to the country. They simply get the same pension as the ordinary first-class petty officer gets. I do not think that is fair, and I might remind the First Lord of the Admiralty that he has—and I certainly have—given the men to understand that this question would be taken up. Therefore the men are not agitating, they are waiting, and are looking to authority to put this matter right. They ask for a halfpenny a day for every year they serve in the Navy. This question interests the whole of the lower deck, because the chief petty officer is the highest rank to which a man can rise on the lower deck. Having regard to the injustices which have been done to the men in connection with sick pay and the paying off of ships, I do hope the Board will see to this, because it is a matter which the men feel very keenly, and a matter which must redound to the benefit of the men of the whole Service. If these injustices are taken into consideration by the Board of
        122
        Admiralty, and the Board sees what it can do—I know that they have only so much money, I know the difficulties of this, case; but the great thing is to have the officers and men happy and contented, and not suffering from a shadow of an idea that they are being unfairly treated.
        *MR. MACARTNEY: My noble Friend has just called attention to the position of the chief petty officers with regard to their pensions. It is perfectly true, as he has pointed out, that the chief petty officers are on the same scale as the first-class petty officers. This question has raised a good deal of feeling amongst the different ratings in the Navy, but I must remind the House that the pensions in the Navy are not determined by the rank, the rating, or the emoluments of the men in the Service. Pensions in the Navy are decided entirely upon the basis of the length of service of the man who earns the pension. As my noble Friend, no doubt, perfectly well knows, after 20 years' continuous service before 1885, and after 22 years' continuous service subsequent to 1885, men, whether they be chief petty officers, first-class or second-class petty officers, or able seamen, are entitled to a pension of 10d. a day—whatever their rating may be. It is neither their rank nor their emoluments that are considered in arriving at the pension. The pension of 10d. a day may be increased according to the number of the badges a man has. A man receives, if he has one badge, a halfpenny; two badges, 1d.; and three badges, 2d. a day; and for good character throughout, an additional 1d.; and for each three years they have completed after having served their full time they have another 1d. a day. That is to say, every man, if he has these badges, is entitled, when he leaves the Service, to 1s. 2d. a day whether he is a chief petty officer, first-class petty officer, second-class petty officer, or ordinary seaman. That pension of 1s. 2d. a day is liable to be increased by the amount of time which petty officers or chief petty officers may have served in that rank. He gets a farthing a day for his service as second-class petty officer, and he gets a halfpenny a day for his services as first-class petty officer. These rates are doubled

        123
        after 15 years' service. The principles on which naval pensions are based are entirely different from that of Civil Service pensions, which are granted upon the emoluments which persons receive at the time, whereas naval pensions are based entirely upon the service rendered. The grievance which is alleged is that certain chief petty officers are at the present moment in receipt of smaller pensions than first-class petty officers. That grievance can only be established by comparing the pensions of chief petty officers of the seamen class with the pensions of the first and second class petty officers of the skilled rating class. I may tell my noble Friend that the whole of this question is under the careful and minute examination of the Admiralty; and the examination has convinced the members of the Board that chief petty officers in each particular line at the present moment get higher pensions than first-class petty officers in that line. But because of the principle on which pensions are based, which may give a second-class petty officer a higher pension than a first-class petty officer, it happens that when you compare the pensions of the chief petty officers in the seamen class you find he gets less pension than the first and second class petty officers in the skilled rating class. I think my noble Friend will agree that this question is surrounded by considerable difficulties. He will admit, I am sure, that the system of pensions, well understood by the men of the service, cannot be altered without mature consideration. The difficulties which surround it are largely increased by the very great number of different ratings in the service—the distinctions that have to be maintained, both in the rates of pay and in the rates of pension. I think he will also agree with me that it would not be unreasonable for the Board of Admiralty to be very careful in any recommendation they might present to the House of Commons in future. But, as I have told him, the matter is under the consideration of the Board, and we hope to be able to come to a conclusion that will enable us, when the Estimates for the future financial year are being prepared, to lay before the House of Commons certain recommendations which we believe will obviate some of the anomalies which exist at
        124
        the present moment, and which we hope will go a long way, if not all the way, to settle the grievances that these petty officers feel. I hope my noble Friend will not assume from what I have said that we can go all the way in the particular direction that has been indicated in the petitions that have been presented to the Board of Admiralty. But we believe that we do see our way to lay before the House of Commons what will be a practical solution of this question. I feel sure that he and other Members of the Committee will recognise that the Board of Admiralty are not only bound to consider the grievances that exist among naval pensioners, but that they must also have due regard to the liabilities of the taxpayers of the country, and that they will recognise that the Vote for the non-effective service is already extremely large, and that no Board of Admiralty would be justified in largely increasing that Vote, unless at the same time we can secure to the country the further efficiency of the naval service and a corresponding advantage in the administration of the Navy. I trust my noble Friend will be satisfied by what I have said to him, that we are giving this matter most careful and minute examination, and that we believe we see our way in the future to place before Parliament some solution of the question, which will not be unsatisfactory, both from the point of view of the pensioners themselves, and also from the point of view of economy to the taxpayers.
        MR. E. MORTON: I hope the honourable Gentleman will not think it want of respect if I do not answer his speech, though it is a speech dealing with a matter I take a great interest in. I am happy to hear he is able to give us some hope from the Government in that direction. I do not want to lay any blame on the noble Lord opposite for introducing this particular subject to come under this Vote; but, coming as it does at the present moment, this matter of petty officers' pensions is in the nature of a red herring drawn across the scent of the Greenwich pension question. There is one point on which I must join issue with the Civil Lord at once. He referred to our action in this House as being in the nature of teaching these pensioners

        125
        that they have grievances, when they have not one. Now if the honourable Member had ever been a Member for a dockyard constituency he would have known that no necessity exists for teaching our constituencies what their rights are.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that it was encouraging them. I only wish the honourable Member would teach his constituents what their rights are. There is great room for it.
        MR. E. MORTON: It is not in the interests of a dockyard Member to encourage the grievances of his constituents and teach them what their rights are. I can assure him that we do not encourage them. Every piece of information I myself have got upon this question has been given to me by my constituents. I have the keenest possible recollection at this moment of the circumstances under which I first began to study these things. It was previous to the General Election of 1892. Is it supposed that there is something disgraceful or unusual for a Member to possess himself of information about matters affecting his constituency? The fact is that at that time I had a prejudice in my own mind, and I recollect I was surprised to find how good a case the men had. If it is possible for an officer in the Navy of so much recognised ability as the noble Lord opposite to declare that they have a moral right, is it not obvious that, at any rate, there is some grievance, and that these men are not to be blamed for supposing that they have an actual right? I remember when I first began to investigate this subject the honourable Member for Bodmin made a speech, in which he said I promised my constituents things that could not be done, and instanced the fact that I stated that the Greenwich pensioners were entitled to £20,000 a year more than they got. It was not more than a year later when that very thing was done. There was an objection at first, but the Admiralty had to yield. It seems to me that the honourable Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty has his case to some extent weakened by the fact that we nave heard the same sort of speech as he has made, refusing the claims of these
        126
        men over and over again, and yet one time after another we have made the Admiralty and the Treasury yield. If they have no rights, why is it that the Admiralty have yielded over and over again? These men have certain rights, and I do not despair for a moment that the Admiralty and the Treasury will nave to deal with this question as they have had to deal with the previous questions. But there is one point made by the senior Memer for Devonport to which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty made no reply whatever: that is as to the moral right that has been conferred upon these men by the deflection of the funds which ought to have gone to these pensioners, to other purposes. I may point out that it is admitted that there are large numbers of men in the Navy who are discontented, and that this situation is a bad advertisement for the British Navy at a time when the greatest difficulty we have is to get men.
        THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No, no!
        MR. E. MORTON: I do not say it is a serious difficulty; all I say is that probably it is the most serious. This discontent has been admitted to-night, also that it is a bad advertisement for the British Navy when we want a good advertisement for it. While enormous sums of money have been deflected from the funds, the demand we make is extremely small—only £12,000—and it must be a diminishing amount.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that it must increase until 1915.
        MR. E. MORTON: It is an extinguishable sum; it is expenditure to give only what are regarded as the just rights of the men who enlisted in the Navy between 1865 and 1878. It seems to me that the Government might look with a more kindly eye upon the demands that are made. The evidence given before the Duke of Edinburgh's Commission showed that the recruiting placards held out to the men the hope and belief that they would receive what they now demanded, or else I do not understand the English language. Under all the

        127
        circumstances the Government might yield to the very moderate demand we make.
        *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot allow the last sentence of the honourable Member to pass without some observation. There was no hope or expectation held out by the Recruiting Bills which has not been amply fulfilled by the Admiralty.
        MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is quite clear that there is no addition required for pensions in order to make the Navy more popular. What may be required is something to make the honourable Gentleman the Member for Devonport more popular in his own constituency, and perhaps a little more acquainted with the subject he has spoken of. He has admitted he has obtained the £20,000 from the Treasury which was represented to be necessary to satisfy the claims of these pensioners, and he seems now to have nothing to complain of.
        MR. E. MORTON: I did not demonstrate that at all. I was asked by these pensioners as to whether their claims were not just. I investigated the matter, and I came to the conclusion that they were. When I had the opportunity as a Member of Parliament of advocating their claims, my colleague and myself made out a case for the money being granted, and the money was granted.
        MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Such was the effect of his oratory upon a recalcitrant Exchequer and the House of Commons, that he got that £20,000.
        MR. E. MORTON: The honourable Member has not been present at the Debate, and he is not quite cognisant of the facts. The facts are that at that time £20,000 was the sum which would be necessary to fulfil the demands of the men; but the Navy has been increasing, and the amount is not sufficient. We say that we ought to give another £13,000 to satisfy the men's claims.
        MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The honourable Member is unfair when he says I was not acquainted with the facts. I was not quoting facts, I was quoting the honourable Member's speech. I
        128
        understand he took credit for getting £20,000, which he originally stated was the amount of the claim. Although the able speech of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty is no doubt quite satisfactory to the lawyer-minded man, it might not be so satisfactory to the seaman-minded man. He admitted that the enlisting placards promised £76,000 to be divided among eligible men in pensions. Every man who enlists supposes that he will be eligible when he reaches the age of 55; and if he has got a clean sheet I think he is entitled to be classed as an eligible man. Though those men may not have a legal claim, they may well be supposed to have a moral claim to a pension. The Government have made an unfortunate series of admissions. The payment by the Government of £16,000 a year towards these pensions, while the rest was provided by Greenwich, is a serious admission that there is something to be said for adding to the pensions, and giving a pension to all the men. That is a weakness of the Government's position. I want to take a somewhat larger view. The Civil Lord has shown that the men had no strictly legal claim. I do not know how much it will cost to satisfy the whole of these claims, but I submit to the Committee that, taking a reasonable and rational and profitable view of how a sailor ought to be treated, it is better to divert attention from the pensions and fix it upon the present pay. What a sailor values, is not the pension. What he values is the present pay. No sailor of 20 or 25 years of age believes that he will live to the pension age, and many sailors do not live long enough to get a pension. That is the reason why so many of our men go to the American Navy, where there are no pensions. Sailors do not value pensions. That is the system on which the American. Navy is manned; they give enormously higher pay, but no pensions. I think the principle is a right one to make the pension rather smaller than it is at present, and the present pay much higher; otherwise you would lose the most desirable of your men, for men who are trained are of the utmost importance in the day of battle, and these are the men who are being taken away from you. You will certainly have to increase your present rate of pay, and

        129
        coincidently you will have to decrease your pension. That is the principle on which to act.
        SIR J. BAKER: Even the Admiralty admit with the noble Lord opposite that the men themselves thoroughly believe they are entitled to fivepence a day. When I hear that the question has been disposed of by the Admiralty on the technical and legal aspect of the case, I am astounded that they did not see there was another aspect of the question which requires a little consideration. The noble Lord opposite has mentioned the case of the chief petty officers, and I congratulate the Admiralty on the advance they have made with reference to the claims of the lower-deck. Up to now they have been told that they had no case with regard to an additional pension. The First Lord may not know much about the methods by Which these men advance their claims, but I happen to know, and I assure him that throughout the Navy the chief petty officers are of one mind—that they are fairly entitled to the consideration that has been denied them. I think that that consideration should be shown, and if it were so, considering the important position these men hold in the Service, and the great advantage it is to have men satisfied and contented, the Admiralty would thereby gain in strength and we should have perfect confidence in the future. But there is another aspect of the case which has been alluded to, and which I wish to impress upon the Admiralty to favourably consider, and that is that the lower deck men—and I can vouch for the fact—have their conferences about this matter, that the Admiralty should make something in the nature of a concession, suggested a few years since, in providing a pension fund. The men, on their part, are quite willing, and indeed most anxious, to contribute a sum sufficient to meet the requirements of such a case. It rests with the Admiralty to take up the question in a way which will meet the requirements of the public service as well as the wishes of the men. Provision is made in the higher grades of the Service and should be made in the lower. If the men die before receiving their pension the families suffer. If the
        130
        Admiralty will make a subvention, the men will contribute in a way that will be just to the public service, and eminently satisfactory to the families when they require this support.
        *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: Mr. Lowther, I entirely agree with a great deal of the speech of the honourable Member for King's Lynn as to the legality of the claim made by the seamen pensioners, and I hope that the Admiralty will see their way to take into their favourable consideration the morality of the claim. For some years I have been living in a neighbourhood where there are a number of pensioners, and many of them have come to me and asked me to apply for the Greenwich Age Pension for them. Some have been successful, and others have not. But I am bound to say, with respect to the observations which fell from the honourable Member for Devonport as to the inquiries that are made before these pensions are granted, I have never heard any complaint from the men. With regard to the remark made by the honourable Member for King's Lynn that they think little about their pensions, I can only say that my experience is very different. I am quite certain that bluejackets, from the time they join the Service, think a great deal about these matters. I believe it is an inducement to them when they first join a training ship, and I am quite certain that after some years' experience of the Service they look forward to the pension. As regards the men who leave and form the nucleus of the American Navy, I have no doubt that some of them who like a change, after completing their first term in the Service, do join the American Navy, but I do not think it is a very large number at the present time. I can only say—and I have heard it firsts hand—that those who have joined have been sorry for it afterwards, and would be extremely glad to come back under the old flag again. Others who do not join for a second period do join the Naval Reserves, and are among the best men we have in that force; and, if additional inducements were held out to them to join the Reserve, an even greater number would do so. I will give one instance. Only a short time ago I was talking to a labouring man. He said he

        131
        was in the Navy. I asked him what made him leave. He said, "Because I was a fool." Well, I quite agreed that he had been a fool. He said he wished he could go back, but he could not, because he had remained out of the Service too long to return under the regulations then in force. With respect to the proposed increase of ½d. a day, which the chief petty officers ask for, I do think it is a claim that they are entitled to. The chief petty officers undoubtedly have much more important duties and greater responsibilities than those in the inferior grades, and I hope that before this Vote comes up again something will be done to grant what is to my mind a very reasonable request. Before I sit down I should like to call attention to one other matter. We were told the other night that the Victoria Cross pensioners in the Army were under certain circumstances to be granted a special pension. I should like to know whether the same consideration will apply to possessors of the Victoria Cross in the Navy. There are seven men of the seaman class who hold the Victoria Cross, and several of them were granted in the Crimean War. They must now be old, and past their work, and I hope the same consideration will be shown to them as to the Victoria Cross men in the Army.
        MR. MENDL: I do not propose to speak many moments in support of the Motion of my honourable Friend the Member for Devonport. I do not profess to be an authority on the legal construction of documents, but that there is a strong feeling on the subject has been fully exemplified not only by the speech of the noble Lord the honourable and gallant Member for York, but by the speeches of honourable Members from all parts of the country, including Members who represent dockyard constituencies and those who represent other kinds of constituencies. There is a rankling sense of injustice all over the country in consequence of these men being deprived of what they, at any rate, consider their rights, and I do think that it is a question which the Admiralty might take up and consider with more sympathy than, in some respects, has been expressed to-night, as to whether it is worth while to allow this sense of
        132
        injustice to go on in the minds of the men all over the country. I know there have been concessions in some quarters, but it seems to me that they only leave the sense of injustice stronger than it was before. I really do think—and I think it is the opinion of naval officers, and I know it is the opinion of seamen—that this is an opportunity which the Government might take advantage of in remedying this sense of injustice, and so removing the grievances which, when we come to regard them properly, are of great national importance.
        *SIR J. COLOMB: There are two points under the consideration of the Committee. The first is with reference to the breach of contract as between the Admiralty and the men, and the second is with regard to the diversion of money from its proper purpose—namely, for the benefit of the naval and marine pensioners. With regard to the contract, I do think that the honourable Members who represent dockyard constituencies are largely responsible for the assumption that there has been a breach of contract. I constantly, like other Members of the House, receive letters from all parts of the kingdom, from claimants for the pension, asserting that there has been a breach of contract, and when I try to explain to them that there was none they always inform me that they have the highest authority for saying it; and when I trace the matter home it generally turns out that it was a statement by one of the honourable Members who represent dockyard constituencies in this House. With regard to the second point, I think there may have been an improper division of funds, and if the funds had been properly adjusted there would be enough money to award to all seamen and marines who are at present in need of assistance. But, Sir, as an instance of the accuracy of some honourable Members, I have been very much struck by the speech of the honourable Member for Devonport. When my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn was complimenting him upon the fact that within a year of his election, he has succeeded in getting £20,000 out of the Government, and pointing out that his claim was satisfied, the junior Member for Devonport was indignant. But the honourable

        133
        Member unfortunately gave his reasons, which were that owing to the increase of the Navy there was an increased sum of money required to satisfy the pensioners. The honourable Member was elected in 1892, and therefore, according to his statement, 1,800 men have, in six years, served 20 years, and suddenly become 55 years of age!
        MR. E. MORTON: An increase has taken place.
        *SIR J. COLOMB: I wish the honourable Member would point out where the increase took place.
        MR. E. MORTON: Does the honourable Member dispute that there are about 1,800 men under the age of 25 who consider themselves entitled to this pension? The Government admit it. At the time I was speaking of £20,000 was sufficient, but as the Navy was increasing £13,000 more is now necessary.
        MR. MENDLsaid that there was a rankling sense of injustice in the Navy, in consequence of men being deprived of what they conceived to be their rights.
        MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What we suggest is, that honourable and learned Gentlemen in want of seats in Parliament go down to the dockyard, and there find questions to raise, and thereby become Members of Parliament.
        The Amendment was put and negatived, and the Vote agreed to.
        A Vote of £332,000 for Civil pensions and gratuities was agreed to.
        Resolutions to be reported.
        Motion made and Question proposed—

        REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES.
        "That a sum not exceeding £1,330,323 be granted to Her Majesty to complete the Vote for salaries and expenses of the Inland Revenue Departments."
        MR. DILLON: On a point of order, surely the practice, as I understand it, is to take the Estimates in the order in which they are placed on the Paper.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: They should be taken in the order in which they are moved.
        MR. DILLON: I never knew of a Minister altering the order, unless under notice.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: I think it has been done before.
        MR. DILLON: I think it is an inconvenient practice. I have been 18 years in this House and I never heard of it before.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: As long as notice is given that the Votes are to be taken, they can be taken in the order that the responsible Minister chooses.
        MR. DILLON: I have never known of orders of Votes being altered except by notice to the House. The reason I take objection is that it would be a most dangerous and unfair rule, because Members might be absent, not knowing that a particular Vote would be taken. Now a common thing is for Members talking amongst themselves for one to say that "Number one will take an hour or two." They may go away, and in their absence the Vote might be taken. In this way I think a grave injustice might be done.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: If a special order is agreed upon, I think that special order ought to be kept, but no special order is on the Notice Paper to-day, and I am prepared to rule that it is in order to take the Vote.
        MR. DILLON: As I read it, whenever a Member proposes to take a Vote out of order he always gives notice to the House. For instance, on the Navy Estimates to-night. What would be the object of putting that notice on the Paper unless it was assumed that when the Minister put down the Navy Estimates he intended to take them out of order?
        *THE CHAIRMAN: I decide that the honourable Member in charge of the Estimates is entitled to move.
        MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it competent for a Minister during the course of discussion to vary the Orders of the Day? If so, it will seriously affect honourable Members. Of course I do not question your ruling, Sir.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: I have already said that if the Votes appear in a particular order they ought to be kept in that

        135
        order, but when a statement is made that the Inland Revenue Estimates are to be taken, I think it is perfectly possible for the Minister to take one of these Votes, or any, in whatever order he pleases.
        MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Sometimes the Chairman speaks with a certain amount of rapidity, and we do not hear. That was my case in this instance. I thought you would put the Customs Vote, and I was taken by surprise. We might perhaps appeal to the Minister to restore the Votes to their proper order.
        MR. STUART: Without in any sense calling your ruling into question, I would appeal to the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Estimates whether it is a wise proceeding. It would be most inconvenient if the Minister in charge jumps from one Vote to another.
        MR. DILLON: Mr. Lowther, on the point of order now being discussed I think I can state it as a fact that, so far as my experience goes, extending over 18 years, this procedure is entirely without precedent. I quite accept your ruling, however; but I must say that this is a new departure. I never once remember a Minister in charge of the Estimates, without giving to the House notice or without consulting those present, alter the Orders of the Day, as considerable interest is excited in the Estimates. On the contrary, I have frequently heard the point raised, and so far from adopting the practice, of which I now complain, I have known Ministers abstain from altering the Order, in face of the objection of honourable Members. I have known, Ministers, by consent, when in Committee of Supply, drop one or two Votes and proceed with others; but if any Member raises the point of precedence by way of convenience, and to give an honourable Member an opportunity of being present to discuss that particular Vote, I have known a Minister proceed with that Vote. Moreover, I think that we are now, for the first time in the history of the House of Commons, attempting to deprive Members of the House of their right in discussing these Estimates. We are now on the Vote for the Revenue Department. What is the Revenue Department? We have Votes for the Post Office, and the Post Office
        136
        Packet Service to deal with, and the Postal Telegraph besides; and, in examining the Notice Paper, honourable Members would be perfectly entitled to assume that the Inland Revenue and the Customs Votes would occupy the whole of this night, and that there would not be the slightest chance of getting beyond them. Taking that view of the Paper and the prospects, honourable Members who are interested in the Post Office and the Packet Service might confidently go home in the expectation that those Estimates would not be reached to-night. What is it we are going to do? Are we now going, with those Members absent from the House who are interested in these Votes, to get thorn through without giving them the opportunity of discussing them? What is the object of a Notice Paper at all? Is it not to give honourable Members every reasonable notice that certain business will come on at a particular time, and give them some idea of when that time will be? I do not for a moment accuse the Secretary of the Treasury, or any Member of that bench, of any unfair preference, or anything of that sort; but the reason why I protest on the present occasion is because—and I assert it with confidence—it is a new practice, and entirely unknown in the House of Commons; and I do appeal to the Minister that on the point of order the ruling—which I accept, however—is scarcely in accordance with the facts.
        THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Mr. Chairman, there are two points raised—one is a question of order, and the other is a question of convenience. On the point of order I think we are perfectly entitled to put down the Revenue Department Votes and take them in whatever order we choose. These were distinctly put down in a definite order. I knew there would be considerable discussion on the Customs Vote, and I also knew that there were no notices of Amendment to the Inland Revenue Vote; so I anticipated that, in any case, there would only be a short discussion upon that, and that it would be easily obtained. The main interest, I think, is centred in the Customs Vote. Thus it is that the Inland Revenue Vote was put first. We have so far been able to get very little money out of the House, and I therefore hope honourable Members

        137
        will allow us to proceed to the Customs Vote, in which considerable interest is centred.
        MR. BUXTON: Mr. Chairman, under our new rule—an excellent one in its way—of Friday Supply there is only a limited time in which we can discuss these questions, and what we have done up to now is not to put down Votes for money they expect to get at a particular time, without discussion, but to put down Votes on which they expect a discussion to take place. It does not matter to them when they get a particular Vote, for they will get it eventually on the last Friday, and all the money they require. In raising a point like this it certainly shows how it stands in the way of business, and interferes with questions which honourable Members come down to discuss. It is taking up—a discussion like this—a certain amount of time which presents no difficulty to the Government in getting the money. You, Mr. Lowther, have given us your ruling, and I hope the discussion which has taken place will show the right honourable Gentleman the unwisdom of trying, as it would seem, to snatch this Vote, though no one accuses anyone in the position of the right honourable Gentleman of doing that. But it will show him that when Votes are put down they should be adhered to in the order in which they appear.
        MR. GIBSON BOWLES: There is a proper rule to be observed on this subject, and the order has been somewhat departed from. It may be that there is a good reason for the Votes being taken in the order now proposed; and had my right honourable Friend told us that he intended to take the Inland Revenue Vote first we should have come down knowing where we were. What we complain of is—and it is a most serious thing—that having come down to discuss the Revenue Department Estimates in order, Vote 2 is suddenly sprung upon us unawares, and Vote 1 is passed by. Then there is another thing. My right honourable Friend says he wished the Inland Revenue Vote to be discussed first. Well, that is a reason against discussing it
        138
        first; because, while we are taking up time discussing Votes of no interest, when the Votes which are interesting come to be taken they are closured before the proper time. That is a reason, I submit, for saying that the Revenue Vote should be taken last instead of first. It is the Customs Vote which requires discussion. It is this one we wanted to discuss with the honourable and gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne. The Inland Revenue Vote might have followed. Sir, I am bound to say that this is a most important question. This House cannot have its business carried on in a business-like manner unless we know the order of such business; and when we expect certain business to be taken first, whatever the rule of the order may be, I trust that order will be adhered to, and that the right honourable Gentleman will in future use his influence to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate departure.
        MR. HANBURY: I can quite understand that there might be some formal objection to the order proposed of taking this Vote, and while I still ask that the Vote should be agreed to, if there is a strong feeling on the subject, I have no hesitation in withdrawing the Vote.
        MR. DILLON: Mr. Lowther, I am glad that my right honourable Friend has taken that view; but I notice that the right honourable Gentleman, who has had unparalleled experience in the conduct of Supply, did not undertake to say that it had never been done before. The reason I object to it is on principle. I object to the practice. He might just as well have put the Vote for the telegraphs without notice.
        COMMANDER BETHELL: I thought my honourable Friend had some formal objection to make. I should have thought he would have been the last man to take such an objection. I agree with my Friend the honourable Member for King's Lynn that although the point of order is settled, when it is proposed to transpose the order in which Votes are to be taken notice should be given.
        MR. HAZELL: I join in the appeal of the honourable Member.

        139
        We all know that it sometimes unavoidably happens that a discussion is protracted, and it is difficult to sit in the House all the time. I was told only 20 minutes ago that the Customs Vote would be taken next.
        MR. HANBURY: If there is any idea prevailing that it was proposed to take this Vote out of its order to obviate discussion I withdraw it.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        Motion made, and Question proposed—
        "That a sum, not exceeding £575,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs Department."
        Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed—
        "That Item 'A' (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Chairman of the Board of Customs."—(Mr. Strachey.)
        MR. STRACHEY: I desire to move the reduction of the salary of the chairman of the Board of Customs by £100, in order to call attention to the inadequacy of the steps taken by the Department to prevent the importation of adulterated foods. The importation of butter is largely increasing, and, having regard to the price at which it is sold, it is impossible to believe that it is all perfectly pure. Adulterated butter ought to be dealt with at the port of entry for the protection of the consumer. Samples of butter and samples of cheese should be taken and examined when landed before being despatched to the various centres for which they are intended. It seems to me that, although notice is given to the local authority that these goods have been adulterated, some good might be done where the local authority is acting, and is desirous of preventing adulterated products from being sold and consumers suffering thereby. There may be instances where the local authorities are lax in this matter, and do not take much trouble to stop the free sale of adulterated products coming from abroad or from some places in this country. Well, Mr. Lowther, it is a well-known fact that
        140
        the increase is very large indeed in the adulteration of butter, and that at the price at which it is sold it is impossible that it can be pure. A great deal of the butter imported from abroad is adulterated to a very large extent, and I cannot help thinking that the Board of Customs would only be doing their duty if they would only take precautions not only to sample, but to test and see that the butter was pure, and not largely adulterated, and so prevent it being sold to the detriment of the consumer. By doing this they would stop it at the port it arrived at until it was properly analysed, and thereby the consumer would be protected. I take this point of view simply in the interests of the consumer, because I am anxious that butter should be imported perfectly free from adulteration. I feel that the consumer should be protected, and should not have butter sold to him except it is the real genuine article. At present butter is consigned to tradesmen largely adulterated from abroad, and naturally they are unprotected in this matter. If it was adulterated margarine, they would be obliged to sell it as margarine; and if they receive it as butter they are perfectly justified in selling it as butter, and the whole fault lies with the Board of Customs, who allow such a state of things to be possible. If the Board of Customs did their duty it would be impossible for this adulterated butter to be distributed to the detriment of the consumer in this matter. There is another article of large consumption imported into this country—I refer to milk. Milk is largely adulterated with boracic acid, and is largely adulterated with other drugs detrimental to health. It is a well-known fact, and it is asserted in medical papers, that it is a very serious matter when milk is adulterated with boracic acid and imported in very large quantities from abroad. I say that the Board of Customs is not doing its duty unless it makes itself perfectly certain that milk does not contain boracic acid and other drugs which are at the same time prejudicial to health, and in the case of children have been known to produce very serious injury, and in some cases death has resulted. I think in cases of this sort great discretion should be used by the Board of

        141
        Customs, and they should not only inform the local authority what they have done to prevent these adulterated products being introduced into this country but they should stop the importation o these adulterated products. It seems to me that it would be very unjust, no only from the consumer's point of view—and we must principally look after the consumer in this matter—but it is unfair to the producer, who has to compete with these adulterated dairy products, and, naturally, he very much resents that, while he himself has to exercise the greatest care in the products he produces, whether butter or milk, to see that they an pure, on the other hand the foreigner is allowed to meet him in his own market with adulterated stuff. Therefore it is only fair and just that the law should be altered to prevent that injustice.
        *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I really fail to see how the observations of the honourable Member are relevant to the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Customs. I do not gather that the honourable Member alleges that the Chairman of the Board of Customs does not perform all the duties which the law cast upon him; but he appears to desire some alteration of the law by which the Chairman shall be empowered to take certain proceedings with reference to food articles imported from abroad which he does not now take, because the law does not empower him to do so. But surely it is a little hard that the salary of the chairman of the Board of Customs should be reduced because he does not carry out a law which does not exist. It would be acting contrary to law if he attempted to carry out the views of the honourable Member. The honourable Member may be perfectly right, and there may be a very good case for his contention for some alteration of the law in this matter, but it is hardly fair to the chairman of the Board of Customs that he should suffer for any deficiency in the law which the honourable Member may believe exists.
        *MR. ERNEST GRAY: There are a number of grievances of which the customs officers complain.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: Are the honourable Member's remarks going to be applicable to the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Customs?
        *MR. GRAY: I hope so.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: The honourable Member must confine his remarks to the chairman.
        *MR. GRAY: I think that I shall be in order in discussing the salary of the chairman as the controlling force.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: The honourable Member would be more in order if he raised that point upon the whole Vote. This is the salary of one official, and the honourable Member will have an opportunity of bringing forward his point upon the whole Vote.
        MR. STRACHEY: It has been said that the chairman of the Board of Customs has no power to deal with this matter. If so, why does he stop these foreign goods and take samples of them? If he has power to stop them and take samples on the ground that they are adulterated, he would have power to stop them altogether.
        *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is precisely what he has not got power to do. He has power to take samples of food products, but no power to stop importation.
        MR. STRACHEY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer having assured me that it is not the fault of the chairman of the Board of Customs, but the fault of Her Majesty's Government that there is no law to prevent adulterated food products being brought into this country, although they told us that they were going to introduce a Bill on the subject. I think that I had better, withdraw my Motion.
        *MR. KEARLEY: My honourable Friend has been endeavouring to fix responsibility upon the chairman of the Board of Customs, whereas he has no power. That, of course, we perfectly understand, seeing that a Committee upon this question has made a strong recommendation in favour of an Amendment of

        143
        the Customs Consolidated Act. Seeing that the recommendation has been made, I am quite sure, if I am in order in saying so, that the Government should take some steps to bring that question into the Queen's Speech.
        *THE CHAIRMAN: That raises a matter of legislation which cannot be dealt with in a Committee of Supply.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Original Question again proposed—
        Whereupon Motion made, and Question put—
        "That Item B, 1, A (Salaries and Allowances), be reduced by £100."—(Captain Norton.)
        *CAPTAIN NORTON: I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the grievances of a small but useful body of men who, in my opinion, are the poorest paid of the customs officials. They are now known as "watchers," and this body of men has only recently been formed out of another class. They have succeeded to the duties of those who are known as outdoor officers, and my contention is that these men, I might also venture to say, are shamefully underpaid, inasmuch as their predecessors received £10 per year, with two-thirds as a pension. Further, they had an allowance of 8d., and what is known as the cab allowance of 1s. 6d. Now, Sir, these men number throughout the kingdom something like 600, but I only propose dealing with less than half of that number, who are connected with the port of London, and I may add that the majority of these men now employed are men who have had more than ten years' service in Her Majesty's customs. The right honourable Gentleman, in answer to a question of mine in the House, stated that when the Department was reorganised and this class formed it was done in order to put an end to a system under which certain duties were being discharged by officers at an unnecessarily high rate of pay. Well, Sir, with that I entirely agree, and I think credit is due to the Department for having made this change in the interests of the taxpayer. It is their duty to get the best possible work and to fairly and justly pay for it,
        144
        but my contention is that they have done too much. Well, they have underpaid, and overworked them; they have formed from an overpaid class a class of whom I will not say that they are overworked to any great extent, but are certainly underpaid. Now what are their duties? Let me just point out the duties which these men have to perform. These men assist, at any rate, in the protection and collection of the great Customs Revenue, a Department which supplies to the Exchequer £21,000,000 sterling, and which produced an excess of half a million last year compared with that of the previous year; and, furthermore, in their estimate they make a demand for some £5,000 or £6,000 less than formerly. Indeed, it is perfectly fair to presume that a certain proportion of the economy has been due to the diminution in the pay of the outdoor Department. Now, Sir, what are the duties which these men perform? I say that these men perform, with the exception of some few superior duties, almost all the duties performed by that class which received the very fair wages to which I alluded; with very few exceptions they perform the duties of that class. Now, I know that point will be contested by the right honourable Gentleman, and I will draw his attention to a few words in a footnote to the Estimates—
        "As outdoor officers retire or are promoted, watchers are appointed."
        I think that goes to prove that these watchers are acting as substitutes for their predecessors. They perform the very important duties of tallying and locking. In performing those duties they are open to very great temptations, in as much as there is nothing to prevent a watcher from entering into collusion with the lighterman and tallying for 499 cases instead of 500 cases of brandy containing six bottles, and thereby defrauding the Government, of the duty. They also perform the duties of locking. Now locking bonded warehouses is again an important duty, because, until the whole of the goods are cleared out, if an irregularity took place it would not be discovered, and the man might be at the other end of the world by that time. Now the dock company's locker who

        145
        does this duty receives 25s. per week plus 8d. overtime, and in addition to this he has a pension. Now, will the House believe me when I tell them that these watchers receive but 21s. per week? Now, I have no doubt that many of the country Members not familiar with the way the working man lives in London will say, "Not a bad wage either." I frankly admit that in many parts of the country where a working man could get a decent four-roomed cottage for 3s. a week, and has 18s. left to live on, that such a wage is not a bad one. But that is not the case with the London man, as every London Member well knows. London workmen cannot get three miserable rooms for less than 7s. per week. That is a well-known fact. Therefore their wages are reduced to 14s. But the London workman cannot get accommodation near the docks, and he is obliged to live at some distance from the docks, and if you allow a penny for an omnibus, you must take 1s. a week off, and that reduces them to 13s. Upon that, according to the regulations, he has to be neatly dressed and wear a uniform, and that uniform he has to supply out of these wretched wages; and if you allow 52s. for a uniform, you bring him down to some 12s. a week. Now, I appeal to the Committee and ask whether it is fair to employ men in London to-day to do these responsible duties, and that he should be compelled to feed and clothe himself and his wife and family upon 12s. a week. I do not think, Mr. Lowther, that that is adequate pay. Moreover, it is not a trade, as in many other services, where a man begins at an age before he has the responsibilities of a family cast upon him. These men, before they can enter the service, must be 30 years of age. They are in the prime of manhood, with all the responsibilities of citizenship upon them, and in most cases they have a family. Moreover, they have to be in good health, and to pass the doctor, and, furthermore, they have to be of good character. The private employer of labour is in an altogether different position from that occupied by the Government. The private employer has frequently to keep his factory running at a very narrow margin of profit, sometimes at an absolute loss, hoping for better times. He
        146
        is on the horns of a dilemma: he must either break up his establishment and run the risk of not being able to get his workmen together when good times come, or he must keep on, although at a loss. I am not an employer of labour myself, but I have every sympathy with a man placed in that position. But that the Government which is supposed to be the model employer of labour, and which forces on contractors the very conditions which they will not themselves work under—the Government of a great nation, with wealth such as the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer justly boasted of some time ago, and with a credit such as no nation ever had before—that a Government in that position should deny its own employees a living wage is more than I can fathom. I shall probably be asked why I fix upon 24s. a week as the rate which these men receive. It is for this reason: that there is no public body in London which does not give the humblest of its employees 24s. a week. In the case of the vestry of the parish, half of which I have the honour to represent, and in the case of almost every vestry, it is returned on the understanding that no employee shall be taken into its service and paid less than 24s. a week. Why? Because in the Minority Report of the Labour Commission it was reported that that was the lowest sum at which a man could bring up himself and his family in decency and comfort within the county of London. I am not asking for anything for those men outside London—their position is different; I speak simply as a London Member, and I have considerable knowledge of the way in which the London workman lives. I say that this demand for a living wage is a perfectly just and reasonable demand, and I have reason to think that the right honourable Gentleman will meet me fairly. We all know that the right honourable Gentleman goes very fully into everything in connection with, I might almost say, the two Departments which he so ably represents on that Bench. We all know that the right honourable Gentleman has the courage of his opinions, and if I can only make out a good case I believe he will meet me fairly. They do say that evil communications corrupt good manners, but I must say that the right honourable

        147
        Gentleman has not deteriorated in the least through sitting on that Bench. It is true that in 1886 these men received an increase of pay; their wages were raised from 19s. to 21s., but that was a fallacious and altogether Jesuitical rise. Whereas they were given 21s. instead of 19s. a week, their hours of labour were increased from 48 to 54. The right honourable Gentleman says that it is only in rare instances that the men actually work for 54 hours in the week. I can assure him that it is the rule rather than the exception for them to work for 54 hours. Now, I come to the general question of the hours of labour. Apart from the question of pay, the men complain that their hours are inconveniently arranged, inasmuch as a man is called upon to work 12 hours on one day, and on the following day he is simply put on from 6 to 12 o'clock. That is really a disadvantage to the man, inasmuch as he is unable to avail himself of the workmen's trains to go to and from his home. By the London Port Order of 1892 the hours were, to meet the convenience of merchants, extended from 10 to 6. Prior to that the hours were different, but by this re-arrangement of hours the men were robbed of their overtime; so that whereas formerly a man was able to make up this meagre pay by overtime he is now deprived of that. The right honourable Gentleman will probably say that it is only in a few instances that the new arrangement would work in this way. The instances are, in fact, very many. At most of the docks connected with the Continental trade in London the men are obliged to be at work on three days of the week at 6 o'clock in the morning, and in many instances at five in the morning, necessitating their leaving their homes between three and four o'clock. That, practically, amounts to night work, and we all know that night work is paid at a higher rate than day work. Under these circumstances the men ask that the old rate of 8d. an hour should be restored. The Government can afford to be generous, because, owing to this re-arrangement of hours, the Government have succeeded in economising to the extent of about £4,000 in the way of overtime, which the men previously received. Further, these men work side by side with established men who do not
        148
        come On duty till 8 o'clock, or, if they do, receive a higher rate of pay. There is one dock which is known as the overtime dock, where the men work steadily 54 hours a week. The point, however, on which these men feel most keenly is this: that the Government took what they consider an unfair advantage of them by the general order of 1896, which established the nine hours rule. At the time the men were given to understand, and the order so reads, that they should work but nine hours. Two months and a few days afterwards the Government brought in a memorandum which is to be read in conjunction with the general order, which robs them of the little overtime that they might have made, because it provides that unless a man works 54 hours in six days he cannot count any overtime at all. Then I come to the question of gratuities. By Treasury Minute, No. 6,215 of 1896, these watchers have to work at least 300 days in every year for 15 consecutive years before they can receive their wretched gratuity of £1 a year. These men found it impossible to work the 300 days per year under the old regulations, and therefore they are practically driven out of the service at 60 years of age without any gratuity at all. At the present moment there are a certain number of these men who have served more than the necessary number of years, but who, owing to no fault of their own, having been unable to work the exact number of days in every year, are deprived of the gratuity to which they are nominally entitled. I hope and believe that the right honourable Gentleman will put that right. I contend that the present system does not give a just and fair interpretation to the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891, and I ask whether from the moral point of view it is a wise thing to employ men at sweating wages. If it is desirable, as was declared by the Royal Commission's Report on the sweating system, that there should be an increased sense of responsibility on the part of employers, how much more desirable is it that the Government, who run none of the ordinary commercial risks, should feel its responsibilities. It is most unjust to compel contractors and municipal authorities to keep up to a certain standard when the central Government themselves do not.

        149
        There is nothing the workers of this country resent more than that the Government or even private employers should take advantage of the fact that a man has a pension in order to beat down the rate of Wages in a particular branch of labour. They maintain that a pension is part payment for previous service, and that it is unfair and unjust on the part of the Government to utilise the services of old soldiers and sailors to beat down the rate of wages in a particular locality. But, Sir, I would appeal to the Committee also on other grounds. Leaving aside the Resolution which was passed in this House in 1891, I know the right honourable Gentleman will reply that at the present time the men who are being taken for this particular duty, or at any rate the men who are taken in preference to others, are men who have served in the Army, or the Navy, Or the police force, or the fire brigade services throughout the country; and I am one of those who advocate that, wherever possible, discharged soldiers and sailors should have the first chance of this class of employment. But if these men from the Services, who are raw recruits so far as the work in the Customs is concerned, are worth 21s. a week to the Government, surely the older hands, with over 10 years' service, and well acquainted with all the various duties, must be worth 24s. There is no excuse for the Government paying less than the market rate of wages, and thereby forcing men to bring up their families in such a way that many of them must eventually become a burden upon the community. Mr. Lowther, I well remember many years ago being keenly touched by a speech delivered by the late Mr. John Bright in Glasgow, when he made a powerful and pathetic appeal on behalf of the dwellers in one-roomed homes. The magic of Mr. Bright's oratory secured him a great measure of success; but my case is really far stronger than his. He pleaded for pity; I plead for justice. He pleaded for men who are, after all, the wastrels and ne'er-do-wells of society; I plead for men whose honesty, whose industry, whose usefulness cannot be denied—men who are struggling with the demon of poverty, and who, if this present treatment is con-
        150
        tinued, must be crushed in his iron grasp, and must leave a progeny who will inevitably drift towards those one-roomed homes which are the forcing-houses of degeneracy, vice, and crime.
        *MR. MARKS: I should like to submit to the Committee a few brief observations in support of the plea advanced by the honourable Gentleman on behalf of the Customs watchers of the port of London. In respect of the pay they receive and the hours they work, and the arrangement of those hours of work, they are not only the worst treated of all the employees of the Crown, but the worst treated of all the working classes of the country. These men receive for 54 hours a week a pay of 21s., or about 4½d. an hour. For 4½d. an hour they wear the Queen's uniform and do Government duty. The waterside workers, who work alongside them, receive 6d. an hour, or 24s. a week. Shipworkers get 8d. an hour, or equal, on the same basis, to 38s. a week; and even the unskilled workmen in the naval yards receive 20s. a week for a 48 hours' week. The duties entrusted to these men are responsible duties which bring them constantly in contact with the docker, whose "tanner an hour" is a matter of envy to the ill-used watcher in the Queen's uniform. Something has been said about the Government being a model employer of labour. I am no great advocate of the Government being a model employer if that means that the Government should pay their employees out of the public funds a rate of wage which, is in excess of the wages paid by other employers; but I do think the Government might be a model employer to this extent: that it should not use its power and influence to underpay workmen, and should not pay less than the average wages paid by private employers for similar work. It should not set an example of parsimony. It may be urged that many of these men have pensions. Some of them undoubtedly have, but that fact certainly does not justify Government in underpaying them—pensioners and non-pensioners alike. A pension is given in recognition of work done:

        151
        it is not a subsidy to induce men to accept unfair pay for work to be done hereafter. Pensioners are introduced into the Postal Service, but surely their pensions will not be cited as an excuse for keeping down the pay of postal employees. If pensions are to be regarded as affording an excuse for Government sweating, the granting of pensions will come to be regarded with little favour by the recipients, and with some fear by the general body of working-men. Now what is it that is asked for by these men? There are only 300 of them in London, and it cannot be argued that the increased pay and reduction of hours that they ask for would bear very heavily on the Exchequer. The plea is not put forward on behalf of a large and influential body of men. The body is not large, and by reason of their employment in Government work they are not an influential body, but these 300 men do responsible work, and do it well. All they ask is the modest pittance of 6d. an hour—24s. for 48 hours' work. It does not need very intricate calculation to show that what they ask is a mere bagatelle, so far as money is concerned. I cannot help thinking that they have a right to ask for it, and that the Secretary to the Treasury will be doing, if not a generous at least a just thing in granting it.
        MR. HANBURY: The honourable Members for Newington and for the St. George's Division have presented only one side of the case. The honourable Member for Newington said that these men were receiving 21s. a week for work the outside market rate of which was 24s. The honourable Member must be aware that as a result of the great dock strike a considerable alteration has taken place in the system of casual labour. True, the men were paid a high rate of wage, but it must not be forgotten that they were out of employment for long periods, during which they earned nothing at all. These men have now permanent employment, and they are receiving, instead of the 19s. that they got two years ago, 21s. a week, which is, at any rate, a considerable improvement upon what they had before. Then we are told that 24s. a week is the ordinary rate of wage which they should have according to the London
        152
        scale. That may be true if these men were doing a full day's work, but I suppose nobody would maintain that 24s. is a fair rate of pay for men who are not doing anything like a full day's work. These men are liable to be called on at any time during nine hours to do a certain amount of work, but I am able say that, on an average, they do not work more than five hours a day. Then, in addition to this 21s. a week for what is practically only five hours a day, the men have considerable advantages which outside workmen do not receive. In the first place, they are practically guaranteed constant employment. Then, of course, they have a considerable amount of sick leave, during which they are paid, and in addition to that they have 14 days' holiday every year. All these things nave to be taken into consideration in discussing the advantages which workmen in Government employ receive, as compared with those who have higher pay in the outside market. Then the honourable Member says that we ought not to take into consideration the pensions which these men receive. To a large extent I agree with him. I do not think it is fair that these pensions should in any way be used to cut down the average rate of wages.
        *CAPTAIN NORTON: One half of these men do not have pensions.
        MR. HANBURY: But more than one half of the men who get 21s. a week get pensions. If we employ—as I hope we shall employ—in the public service, as far as we possibly can, our discharged sailors and soldiers, I cannot conceive any Department of State in which it is more desirable that they should be employed than the one we are discussing. This is a kind of work which, after all, is not sought for by able-bodied men. The great majority of these men are men who can in no sense be described as able-bodied. I am told, for instance, that the leader of the agitation himself is a one-armed man, and there are many of the men who are lame, and who have really been taken on out of charity more than anything else—men who would have been dismissed by an ordinary employer. But it was felt that men who had been in the employment of the State for a consider-

        153
        able period ought not to be dismissed as they would be by a private employer, and when this new staff of watchers was formed it was felt that this was just the kind of Work which could be done by men who had not all the physical advantages of able-bodied men, and was just the kind of work that ought to be given to pensioners from the Navy or the Army. Then we are told that this is a question of a living wage. In the first place, I say we are not talking of men who do a full day's work, and it is in no sense a question of a living wage. While it would be unfair to take pensions into account in order to cut down the rate of wages, it is, I think, fair at least to take into consideration that we are dealing with men who only do half a day's work. The honourable Member must know that their work is done under such constant supervision that very little responsibility attaches to them, and the rate of wages given to them is quite up to the average rate for work of that description. The honourable Member for Newington spoke of the watchers having "duties of great responsibility and much temptation." He must be aware that with the supervision they have there is practically no responsibility attaching to them. There is one point on which, I think, it is fair to meet the honourable Member, and I think he has made out a case—namely, with regard to the cab allowance. In the old days the overtime rate used to be 8d. per hour, after a much longer limit of hours; I think it was 72, as against 54. That has been reduced to 6d. per hour after 54 hours, which is a considerable gain to the men. But with regard to this cab allowance I do not think that it works out as favourably for them as under the old system. While they would get 1s. 6d. and 8d. for the extra hour under the old system, making 2s. 2d. altogether, they now get only two hours' overtime at 6d., which represents only 1s., so that there is a difference of 1s. 2d. I think the men have some reason to complain of that, and I can promise the honourable Member that I shall take steps to see whether some amelioration cannot be effected. Then again, with regard to the gratuity on retirement. I had to go into a similar case some time ago, and it struck me as lard that the gratuity should be contin-
        154
        gent on 300 days having been actually worked during the year, without any allowance for sick leave, holidays, or anything of that kind. Here, again, I shall consider how far the system can be altered in favour of the men. But on the very much larger question of wages I am perfectly convinced, having gone thoroughly into the case, that the 24s., which the honourable Member claims, although it might be perfectly fair if the men were kept at work for nine hours a day, is a great deal more than these men are entitled to, seeing that, in the first place, they are not able-bodied men, and further, that they work not nine hours a day but five.
        *CAPTAIN NORTON: May I point out that these men are not in a position to earn any other money, because they are obliged to give the Government the first call upon their work, and therefore the Government put them in this position, that they must either leave themselves and their families to starve on this 21s. a week, or they must go into the workhouse?
        MR. STEADMAN: The Secretary to the Treasury laid great stress upon the fact that, although these men have to be in attendance nine hours during the day, they actually work only five hours. I can only say that I would much rather work nine hours straight off the reel than work five hours and loaf about during the other four. I know from experience that when a man is wording the time passes much more quickly than when he is loafing about. The honourable Gentleman compared their rate of pay to the rate of wages paid in docks, and in order to make good his point he is trying to make out that whereas these men are in constant employment the dock labourers are only in casual employment. As a matter of fact, in our docks we have one class of men known as permanent men, who receive a permanent rate of 24s. a week full pay and sick leave allowances and pensions. There is another class of men employed who likewise receive 24s. a week, but without pension or sick leave. The honourable Gentleman went on to say that these men are not able-bodied men and that the leader of the

        155
        agitation himself was a one-armed man. Well, if he is a one-armed man I suppose he has lost his arm in the service of the country, and one-armed or two-armed he is fit for the work given him to do. The honourable Member for Newington, and also the honourable Member for the Tower Hamlets, have dealt very fully with the question of watchers, but I would call attention to another class of workmen—namely, the boatmen. The Secretary to the Treasury, I think, will not argue that the boatmen are not able-bodied men. They commence with the salary of £55, rising by annual increments of £1 10s. to £65 a year. Now these men hold a responsible position alongside the watchers. At the present time their hours of labour are 96 hours the first week and 72 hours the following week, or an average of 84 hours per week, so that they actually receive for wages a minimum of 3d. per hour, or a maximum of 8¾d. These men are in a different position to that of the dock labourer. I am a waterside watcher myself, and I therefore know the temptation that these men are put to, and I ask the Government to-day how they can expect workmen in their employment holding such responsible positions to be satisfied with a wage of 21s. or even 24s. a week? I should like to give the House my own personal experience as a workman. I had to live myself, and bring up a family for 23 years, on the wages of a journeyman mechanic. Those wages averaged two guineas per week, and I found I was unable to put anything by for old age upon that wage.
        AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What are you living on now?
        ANOTHER HONOURABLE MEMBER: He does not buy any of your beer.
        MR. STEADMAN: The honourable Member asks what I am doing now. I am simply doing my level best, so far as my humble abilities go, to plead for a body of men of which I have the honour to be one. All I can say is that if honourable Members opposite had to live and bring up a family on 21s. a week perhaps they would have a little more
        156
        feeling for their fellow-men. These men are equal with any honourable Members in this House—they have just as much right to live as any honourable Member of this House. It is bad enough for the private employer to conduct all his operations under the cast-iron rules which he imagines regulate the law of supply and demand in the labour market. But the position of the Government is altogether different from that of a private employer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has only recently told this House that the country was never in a more prosperous and flourishing condition. That being so, I say the Government ought to set an example to private employers, and even to county councils and vestries, and other public bodies in the matter of payment of wages. I say that 24s. a week is not a living wage. If any man says it is let him try to live upon it. Workmen have no right to live in hovels, but by this starvation rate you compel them to live in the slums and hovels which abound throughout London. The right honourable Gentleman opposite the other day was deploring the fact that children left the Board school before they had received the education they ought to have. Can you wonder at the parents being forced to take their children away from school in order to earn the few shillings that they can earn whilst you pay them the miserable pittance of 21s. a week?
        *MR. GRAY: I do not propose at this late hour of the evening to detain the Committee at any length, but I observe that there is a Vote included under this total for a certain class of public servants known as abstractors. These men have been working under somewhat unfair conditions for many years past, and I want to ask the honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he cannot see his way to make some alteration in their favour. They are divided into two grades, and their wages are £70, increasing by annual increments to £150. The grievance is that a man in the lower grade may serve a sufficient number of years to have increased his salary to £130, but if he is promoted to the higher grade and accepts the appointment, he

        157
        has to drop at once to £70. I am sure the honourable Gentleman will recognise that this is not the way to treat any class of public servants, and he has promised to look into the matter. If he is able to say to-night that he has been able to do something in this matter, I am sure it will give satisfaction to a number of Members on this side and on the opposite side who take an interest in the question.
        MR. HANBURY: I would just remind the honourable Gentleman that these
        abstractors are not a large body of men, and there are very few cases of promotion from the one grade into the other. I confess I think the case he has put seems rather a hard one, and I will consider whether it is not possible to make some alteration in the rule.
        *CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg, Sir, to formally move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 113.—(Division List No. 167.)

        AYES

        Ashton, Thomas Gair

        Hazell, Walter

        Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

        Baker, Sir John

        Healy, Maurice (Cork)

        Robson, William Snowdon

        Brigg, John

        Jones, Win. (Carnarvonshire)

        Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

        Burns, John

        Lambert, George

        Soames, Arthur Wellesley

        Caldwell, James

        Lewis, John Herbert

        Spicer, Albert

        Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

        Lloyd-George, David

        Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

        Channing, Francis Allston

        Macaleese, Daniel

        Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

        Clough, Walter Owen

        McArthur, Win. (Cornwall)

        Tennant, Harold John

        Colville, John

        Maddison, Fred.

        Tritton, Charles Ernest

        Daly, James

        Marks, Henry H.

        Ure, Alexander

        Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

        Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

        Warner, Thomas C. T.

        Dillon, John

        Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

        Wilson, John (Govan)

        Doogan, P. C.

        Nussey, Thomas Willans

        Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

        Duckworth, James

        Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

        Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

        Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

        Pickersgill, Edward Hare

        Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

        Pirie, Duncan V.

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

        Goddard, Daniel Ford

        Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

        Captain Norton and Mr. Steadman.

        Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

        Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

        NOES

        Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

        Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

        Gordon, Hon. John Edward

        Allsopp, Hon. George

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

        Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

        Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

        Coghill, Douglas Harry

        Graham, Henry Robert

        Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

        Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

        Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

        Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

        Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

        Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

        Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

        Compton, Lord Alwyne

        Gretton, John

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

        Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

        Greville, Captain

        Banbury, Frederick George

        Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

        Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

        Barton, Dunbar Plunket

        Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

        Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

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

        Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

        Henderson, Alexander

        Beresford, Lord Charles

        Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

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

        Bill, Charles

        Dalrymple, Sir Charles

        Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

        Blundell, Colonel Henry

        Dane, Richard M.

        Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

        Bond, Edward

        Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

        Johnston, William (Belfast)

        Brassey, Albert

        Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

        Kenyon, James

        Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

        Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

        Kimber, Henry

        Bullard, Sir Harry

        Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

        Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornw.)

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

        Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

        Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

        Cecil, Lord Hugh

        Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

        Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

        Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

        Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

        Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

        Fisher, William Hayes

        Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

        Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

        Fletcher, Sir Henry

        Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

        Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

        Garfit, William

        Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

        Charrington, Spencer

        Gedge, Sydney

        Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

        Nicol, Donald Ninian

        Thornton, Percy M.

        Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

        Phillpotts, Capt, Arthur

        Valentia, Viscount

        Lowe, Francis William

        Pollock, Harry Frederick

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

        Loyd, Archie Kirkman

        Pryce-Jones, Edward

        Warkworth, Lord

        Lucas-Shadwell, William

        Purvis, Robert

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

        Maclure, Sir John William

        Rasch, Major Frederic Came

        Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

        McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

        Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

        Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

        Milward, Colonel Victor

        Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

        Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

        Monckton, Edward Philip

        Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

        Wilson, John (Falkirk)

        More, Robert Jasper

        Robinson, Brooke

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

        Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

        Round, James

        Wylie, Alexander

        Morrell, George Herbert

        Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

        Simeon, Sir Barrington

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

        Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

        Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

        Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

        Nicolson, William Graham

        Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

        And it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
        Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
        House resumed.

        SUPPLY [17TH JUNE.]
        Resolution reported.
      CLASS IV.

        CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1898–9.
        "That a sum, not exceeding £4,920,175 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for Public Education in England and Wales, including Expenses of the Education Office in London."
        Resolution read a second time—
        Amendment proposed—
        "To leave out '£4,920,175,' and insert '£4,920,075.'"—(Mr. Nussey.)
        MR. NUSSEY: On this Vote I desire to call the attention of the House to the salary of the consulting architect to the Education Department. I find that this officer receives for his work in England £850 a year, for acting as consulting architect in Scotland he receives £150 a year, and for acting as consulting engineer in Ireland he receives £105 a year, making altogether a salary of £1,105. In addition to this, he also acts as occasional consulting architect to the Charity Commissioners, and for this he receives no stipend, but he is paid something for each job. Now, if this Gentleman receives only these
        160
        sums for the work he does, and that is the whole of his income, I am not going to say he is too well paid; but, as a matter of fact, this is not all that he makes out of his position. The right honourable Gentleman, in replying to a question I put to him the other day, informed me that this officer is expressly authorised to charge fees for advising certain public departments; so that this gentleman is entitled to make a general charge for various descriptions of work in addition to his salary. I say that that is an exceedingly bad system, and I object to it on two principles. In the first place, I consider the work of the Department quite sufficient for any man adequately and properly to discharge. In the second place, I consider that the principle of allowing him to take work outside his official work is extremely bad. The work of these Departments must of necessity have increased very largely during the last five years. The late Vice-President in 1893 issued a circular calling for the inspection of all schools, and for particular care to be taken with regard to ventilation, air, space, and so on. In view of that circular, many schools have had to undertake various alterations, and the plans of those alterations must have been vouched for by this architect. Through the increase of the population, there has of necessity been an increase in the number of Board schools and Voluntary schools built each year. In 1895 the number of new elementary schools built was 179, and in 1896 the number was 172. In regard to each of those schools two plans would have to be sent up to the architect to this Department. Then there are, of course, higher grade schools, and there are reformatory and industrial

        161
        schools, and the plans of all of them have to pass through the hands of this Gentleman; yet with all these many duties devolving upon him he is also allowed to take private practice. I think this officer should be required to devote the whole of his time and abilities to the work of his Department, and that the present system is open to very grave abuses. Then there is another point that I desire to call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman. The First Lord, in reply to a question put to him the other day, said he would consider the advisability of granting a Return showing the number of Nonconformist teachers employed in Church schools in this country. I hope the right honourable Gentleman has considered the question, and that he will be able to announce that he will grant that Return.
        THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GOBST,): The officer referred to by the honourable Member was appointed in 1884. He was not a candidate for the office, but being a gentleman who had had great experience as an architect, and especially in the erection of school buildings, the position was offered to him, and he accepted it on the express terms that be should be allowed to continue his private practice as an architect for school buildings. He would not have accepted the office proposed to him by my Friend the late Mr. Mundella unless on those terms. In 1887 there was a change made. The original arrangement was that this officer should only give advice before a plan was sent to the Education Department. The circular of 1887 enabled him to give advice after plans had been sent in to the Department. While the circular was in force—namely, in 1889—the terms on which the office was held were the subject of a question of this House, and, as the result of inquiry, the circular was withdrawn and is no longer in force, and the architect now, after the plans have been before the Department, cannot charge any fees, He is relegated to the position which he held in 1884, when he originally accepted the appointment, and can only be consulted before the plans
        162
        are sent to the Department. That is the state of things now. I do not think it is a very satisfactory state of things, but it would be impossible to alter it during the present holder's tenure of the office, because he made it a condition on accepting the office in 1884, and it is to be presumed that he would not now consent to the condition being altered. The present officer is a very valuable public servant, and the Department will be very sorry to lose him. All I can say is, that whenever a vacancy arises the present arrangement will be considered, and I should not think that the same arrangement will be made again. At the same time I do not think it would be in the interest of the public service to make any alteration at the present moment, because it would result in our losing the service of a very valuable officer.
        MR. BUXTON: I do not think the answer of the right honourable Gentleman is satisfactory. So far as we learn from what he has stated, he does not appear to have made any attempt to find out whether any alteration of the present arrangement would involve the resignation of the gentleman who now holds the office. The practical issue involved is, whether or not the consulting architect to the Department should be permitted as a matter of private practice to advise with regard to schools upon which he afterwards has to advise officially. I do not think anyone would desire that he should give up private practice altogether, but there certainly ought to be the limitation suggested by my honourable Friend the Member for Pontefract. I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to approach the matter again, and endeavour to come to some arrangement with the present architect, because I think when the head of ah important Department is in such an unsatisfactory position, it should not be allowed to continue.
        MR. LEWIS: There is one point which was alluded to in the speech of the honourable Member for Pontefract, to which the Vice-President has given no reply. My honourable Friend asked whether the Vice-President would be

        163
        prepared to grant a return of the pupil teachers and other teachers who are Nonconformists and who are employed in Church schools in this country. A question was put the other evening by the honourable Member for Carnarvon, and the First Lord of the Treasury said that if a question ware put to the right honourable Gentleman either in the ordinary way on the Paper, or raised in the course of Debate across the floor of the House, he would be prepared to answer it. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will be able before we part from this Vote to announce that the return will be granted. Then there is a question which I desire to raise, and which I desired to raise when this Vote was under discussion in Committee. I am not going to complain that the Debate the other evening was Closured, but I may say that I sat in this House very patiently for seven or eight hours without finding an opportunity, and therefore I am compelled to bring the question forward in the Report stage. This Vote contains an item of £621,000 for the aid grant that is given to Voluntary schools under last year's Act. As long as that aid grant remains on the Paper and forms part of the Supply, and as long as those grievances which we have urged in this House over and over again are not repressed, so long will we protest against that aid grant being Voted in any particular year. The position in which Nonconformists find themselves in thousands of parishes at the present time is this. There is one school only in the parish, and under a penal Act Nonconformists are obliged to send their children to school. The administration of that school is entirely under the control of one denomination; the religious tenets taught in the school are those to which Nonconformists cannot subscribe, and we say it is unjust and unfair to Nonconformists to continue such a system. Grant after grant if made to Voluntary schools, and not a vestige of popular control of a local nature is established. We attempted again last year to obtain representation for the parents of the children, or to obtain representation for the public in any form, but without success. In the case of Wales the grievance is such that a large majority of the representatives were against giving this
        164
        grant to Voluntary schools. They knew now keenly the Nonconformists of this country felt the bitter grievance under which they suffered. For these reasons, Sir, I take this opportunity—I hope not unduly trespassing on the patience of the House—to make my formal protest—a protest which will be renewed so long as the grievances to which I have alluded are unredressed.
        LORD H. CECIL: There are many, myself among the number, who acknowledge to the full the grievances under which Nonconformists suffer in the country districts, and would be most happy to co-operate with them in securing a reform, if they, on their side, would co-operate with Churchmen in removing the grievances which they suffer in Board school districts.
        AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What are they?
        LORD H. CECIL: That the children of Church of England parents should be obliged to go to undenominational schools is just as great a grievance as that the children of Nonconformist parents should be compelled to go to Church schools. However, I do not desire now to go into the queston, important as it is. My object in rising to address the House to-night was rather to refer to the very remarkable speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council on the Committee stage of this Vote. The right honourable Gentleman made a very elaborate attack upon Voluntary schools ("No, no"); that was the impression, at any rate, left on the minds of a very large number of those who heard him. That speech, it is a matter of notoriety, caused very great annoyance and pain to a large number of supporters of Voluntary schools, and the managers and teachers of those institutions. In particular annoyance was caused by his criticism of the religious education given in Voluntary schools in London. I have referred to the right honourable Gentleman's words; I find that very few facts were brought forward by him to bear out the attack that he made on the Voluntary schools in the matter of religious education. He laid it down, as it were,

        165
        ex cathedrâ, that in his opinion the religious education given in the Board schools was much better in London than that which was given in the Voluntary schools. I am informed, and it has been published in the papers, that that is vehemently denied by those who are responsible, and I really think that the right honourable Gentleman should not use his great position as Vice-President of the Committee of Council to send about accusations of this kind, knowing, as he must have known, that they would cause pain and annoyance. The honourable Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in a very able and lucid speech that he made this evening, said it was not desirable for honourable Members in this House to give currency to statements which they had no facts to substantiate. If it is not desirable for private Members to take that course, it is a still less desirable course to be taken by a Minister of the Crown, even assuming that the right honourable Gentleman's general accusation against Voluntary schools was perfectly accurate.
        SIR J. GORST: I made no general accusation against them.
        LORD H. CECIL: Then I will say, what was generally understood to be a general accusation. Even supposing that impression was unwarranted, it does not make the right honourable 'Gentleman's position very much better because he will not deny that the weakness of Voluntary schools in the matter of secular education, at any rate, arises from want of funds. It is the Government of which the right honourable Gentleman is a member that is responsible for not giving them more liberal assistance, and thus enabling them, to avoid the educational deficiencies with which they are now taunted. If last year the Government had co-operated with honourable Members below the Gangway, and had adopted their more generous views as to the assistance of Voluntary schools, then the education of the Voluntary schools would have been much better than it is. But the Government of which my honourable Friend is a member declined to take that course. In those circumstances I think the right honourable Gentleman would do better not to taunt the Voluntary
        166
        schools with, defects and weaknesses which are the result of the penury of the Government of which he is a member.
        SIR J. GORST: As I cannot answer the noble Lord's criticisms, I think it is very unfair to make statements which are absolutely contrary to what I said.
        LORD H. CECIL: The right honourable Gentleman will be able to reply as soon as this Amendment is disposed of, and the main question is put from the Chair, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will take that course. At any rate, the fact remains that whereas the friends of Voluntary schools have constantly appealed to the Government to give more liberal assistance to them, they have been told it was not necessary to do so, and that if the Voluntary schools were given just enough assistance, by a great deal of screwing from private subscribers, to enable to keep on, that was all the country cared about. If that be so, do not let us hear any more about the enthusiasm of the Government and of my right honourable Friend for educational progress. My right honourable Friend must not, I submit, at once take up a position of a member of the Government that refuses to aid Voluntary schools to make themselves efficient, and the position of a caustic critic commenting severely on their want of efficiency.
        MR. W. JONESsaid that he knew what the religious education provided in Voluntary schools was, and declared that the religious education given in the Board schools of London would compare favourably with that of any Voluntary school in the Kingdom. With regard to Wales, it was true that in many of the Board schools there was no specific religious teaching, but it was absurd to say that the grievance of the Church of England parents whose children had to go to those schools was in any way to be compared with the grievance of Nonconformist parents who were compelled to send their children to Church schools, to receive a religious education in which they did not believe. Some of the Welsh Board schools had been characterised by some honourable Gentlemen opposite as "Godless," but they were situated in some of the most crimeless districts in the Principality, and where religion was taught

        167
        not in the day schools, but in the Sunday schools, and at home. The right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President said that we did not get the first-class teachers in Voluntary schools that we get in Board schools. What was the reason of that? It was because most of the training colleges were Church training colleges, and Nonconformist pupil teachers could not go to them. There could be no real educational progress in this country until we had the best trained teachers, and under the present system the most promising pupil teachers were barred from the training which would make them efficient masters.
        MR. NUSSEY: I do not propose to press my Amendment to a Division.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Main question again proposed.
        MR. BRYN ROBERTS, to illustrate the injustice and hardship from which Nonconformists suffered under the present system, instanced a case in his own constituency. A certain village contains a Board school and a Church school. There is an Irish family living there who are Roman Catholics. There being no Roman Catholic school within five miles, the children are sent to the Church school. One of the children, an exceedingly bright girl, applied to the church in which she had been brought up to become a pupil teacher, and she was told that in order to do so she must become a member of the Church of England. The consequence was that she left the Church school and was accepted in the Board school as a pupil teacher, and has remained in the teaching profession ever since. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich spoke of the grievances of Churchmen: was it possible for them to point to anything approaching such a grievance as that? The noble Lord contended that the want of efficiency in Voluntary schools was due to the lack of funds, and said that the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President was greatly to blame because he was a member of the Government who refused to give to Voluntary schools the financial assistance they required. That was a very bold complaint to make
        168
        when it was remembered that the Voluntary schools already took a considerable grant-in-aid from the public funds. The ground on which the grants-in-aid to the Voluntary schools were given was that thereby rates would be relieved, but, as a matter of fact, they were now taking advantage of the Voluntary Schools Act to ask that their entire support should be drawn from the public funds. He submitted that that was an utterly untenable proposition, and that the only fair proposition was that there should be a Board school in every district, and that Voluntary schools should only be provided where sufficient private support was obtained to maintain them efficiently.
        MAJOR RASCH: My constituents take very little interest in the question of Board schools or Voluntary schools. The right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President in his speech the other night made an extraordinary statement that the county Members were hostile to education, and that they considered elementary education to be the cause of agricultural depression. Sir, the county Members know better than that. They know perfectly well that agricultural depression is caused by having to grow wheat at 40s. a quarter and sell it at 30s. What the agricultural interest does dislike and repudiate is raising the age for compulsory education, because the agricultural labourer thinks that when his boy had learnt the three R's and learnt the rudiments of education he ought to be able to leave school and earn his humble 6d. a day, or, at any rate, do something to keep the family pot boiling.
        SIR J. GORST: With regard to the Return asked for by the honourable Member for Pontefract, I am afraid I cannot grant it without notice; but if notice is put on the Paper I will consider whether it is possible to grant the Return. As to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, the noble Lord has attributed to me opinions which I have never expressed. The remarks I made the other night were applied not to Voluntary schools generally: they were applied only to Voluntary schools in the great

        169
        towns. I have frequently expressed the opinion that the Voluntary schools in the country are better than the Board schools, and I think it is wrong of the noble Lord to represent as applying to Voluntary schools generally the remarks which I exclusively and carefully applied to the Voluntary schools in the great cities. With regard to the religious education, I was very careful to point out that my remarks were confined to religious teaching in London, and what I said applied only to London, and only to that part of the religious education given in London schools which is common to Board schools and Voluntary schools. Then I said that the inferiority of Voluntary schools in the great towns was not the fault of the managers: I said it was a consequence of their not having sufficient means. The only point is whether it is to the interest of the Voluntary schools that these facts should be openly and plainly stated, or that they should be hushed up. That is a question of policy on which the noble Lord and I differ. I think it is for the interest of Voluntary schools that these facts, which are undoubted facts, should be openly and plainly stated. If the noble Lord had had the experience that I have had in the Education Department he would have had this most painfully borne in upon him, as I have it borne in upon me every day, that in the great towns the Voluntary schools have the greatest difficulty in holding their own because of their want of means and because of their own inferiority to the Board schools, who are their rivals. I think myself that the only way of preserving the Voluntary schools is plainly and fairly to state the deficiencies that exist, in the hope that in the lierality of Parliament, or the liberality of Churchmen, some other means may be found by which this danger in which the Voluntary schools stand, and which threatens their existence in the great centres of industry, may be done away with.
        MR. LLOYD-GEORGEetc.)said that the grievances of Nonconformists in regard to the lack of facilities for obtaining posts as pupil teachers, and subsequently posts in the
        170
        training colleges, were very serious. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had spoken of the grievances of Church schools, but he [Mr. Bryn Roberts] challenged the noble Lord to give an instance where a Churchman had been compelled to become a Nonconformist, or to attend a Nonconformist place of worship, as a condition of following the teaching profession. In the case of London there were Board schools and Voluntary schools. With regard to the Voluntary schools, they were exclusively under Church management. The Board schools in London for years and years were under the control of Churchmen. The doctrines taught in the schools were those held by Churchmen, and the religious curriculum was that of the Church of England. In any rural district where there was only a Church of England school the children were compelled to either learn the whole catechism or to go without any religious teaching at all. A Nonconformist teacher was not allowed simply to take the duty of merely teaching the historical facts of the Bible, and omitting the teaching of the catechism; he must either take the whole of the religious duty of the school or none at all. Church of England teachers suffer from no grievance analogous to this. He again pressed on the Government the importance of granting the Return asked for by the honourable Member for Pontefract.
        MR. J. H. ROBERTS: No doubt there are thousands of cases in this country where the grievances which have been pointed out by honourable Members press very hardly, but I would like to remind the Committee how matters stand in Wales. In the Welsh parishes, where there are a Board school and a Church school, it seems to be the policy of the Education Department—in fact, I am informed that they have no alternative to put in the place of this policy—that, although the Board school may be crowded, no additional undenominational accommodation is to be afforded so long as there is room in the Church school. The Educational Department hold that so long as there is room for a single child in a Church

        171
        school no separate provision need be made for Nonconformist children. Two effects follow from that state of things. In regard to the elementary education of a parish so situated with reference to Board schools one of two things must happen. Either the head master of the school must discourage a regular attendance, or else he must do his best to persuade his children to leave the school as soon as possible. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman is prepared to give us now any satisfactory assurance, but I hope the Department will seriously consider, not only in

      COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
      As amended, considered; Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
      the interests of Board schools, but of the country generally, whether it would not be wise so to alter the present law as to enable them to sanction the enlargement of Board schools in places where the overwhelming majority of the scholars are the children of nonconformist parents.
      Question put—
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 23.—(Division List No. 163.)

      AYES

      Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

      More, Robert Jasper

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

      Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

      Fletcher, Sir Henry

      Morrell, George Herbert

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

      Gedge, Sydney

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

      Banbury, Frederick George

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward

      Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

      Barton, Dunbar Plunket

      Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

      Nicholson, William Graham

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

      Graham, Henry Robert

      Nicol, Donald Ninian

      Bill, Charles

      Green, W. D. (Shrewsbury)

      Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Greville, Captain

      Pollock, Harry Frederick

      Bond, Edward

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

      Pryce-Jones, Edward

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

      Purvis, Robert

      Bullard, Sir Harry

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Rasch, Major Frederic Came

      Cecil, Lord Hugh

      Henderson, Alexander

      Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

      Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

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

      Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

      Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

      Robinson, Brooke

      Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

      Johnston, William (Belfast)

      Round, James

      Charrington, Spencer

      Kenyon, James

      Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

      Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornw.)

      Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

      Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

      Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

      Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

      Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

      Compton, Lord Alwyne

      Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

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

      Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

      Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

      Warkworth, Lord

      Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

      Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

      Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

      Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

      Daly, James

      Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

      Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

      Bane, Richard M.

      Lowe, Francis William

      Wilson, John (Falkirk)

      Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

      Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

      Macaleese, Daniel

      Wylie, Alexander

      Doogan, P. C.

      Maclure, Sir John William

      Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

      Marks, Henry H.

      Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

      Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

      Monckton, Edward Philip

      NOES

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Hazell, Walter

      Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

      Baker, Sir John

      Lambert, George

      Roberts,. J. H. (Denbighsh.)

      Brigg, John

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

      Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

      Caldwell, James

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Warner, Thomas C. T.

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Lloyd-George, David

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      Colville, John

      Maddison, Fred.

      Duckworth, James

      Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Mr. William Jones and Mr. Nussey.

      Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (IRELAND) BILL.
      Considered in Committee; Committee report progress; to sit again on Tuesday.
      House adjourned at 1.20.