Commons Sitting of 6 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [Lords.].
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
No Standing Orders applicable.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—

BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Ordered that the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.

    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE STIPEN-DIARY JUSTICE BILL.
    WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ST. JAMES'S AND PALL MALL ELECTRIC LIGHT BILL.
By Order, Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to, with an Amendment.
CHURCH STRETTON WATER BILL [Lords].
  LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    ST. NEOT'S WATER BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
BROOKE'S PARK (LONDONDERRY) BILL [Lords].
By Order, read a second time, and committed.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords.]

  Stamp Duties—Resolution reported:
  "That the Board may from time to time enter into agreements with the Com- missioners of Inland Revenue, if the Commissioners in their discretion think proper, for the payment to the Commissioners, by way of composition of Stamp Duty on transfers of any stocks, of such a sum or sums as may from time to time be agreed between the Board and the
  8
  Commissioners, and in consideration of such payment transfers of the stock in respect of which such composition has been paid shall be exempt from Stamp Duty."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Finance) Bill, That they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP M).
  Mr. HARDYreported from the Committee on Group M of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  That they request that this House will be pleased to give leave to Thomas Wallace Russell, Esq., a Member of this House, to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships in the present session of Parliament on the Dublin Corporation Bill.
  Lords Message, respecting the attendance of Mr. T. W. Russell, considered.
  And Mr. T. W. Russell, in his place having consented:—Leave given.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Copy presented,—of Thirty-eighth Annual Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries (England and Wales), for 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Copy presented,—of Thirteenth Annual Report of the Inspectors, for 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2309 to 2311 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    EAST INDIA (MILITARY BULLET).
    Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 8th June—Lord George Hamilton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]
    EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
    Copy presented,—of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on 31st March 1899, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 265.)
    PUBLIC RECORDS (WAR DEPARTMENT).
    Copy presented of Sixth Schedule, containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing, or in ordinary course about to exist, in the Office of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for The War Department, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Command]—tolie upon the Table.

    ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
    Copies presented of—
    Notes on the Niger District and Niger Coast Protectorates, 1882–93;
    Notification, British Protectorate over Niger Districts, 5th June, 1885;
    Royal Charter "National African Company, 10th July, 1886;
    Notification British Protectorate over Niger Districts, "National African Company," now called "Royal Niger Company," 18th October, 1887;
    List of Treaties, National African Company and Royal Niger Company, with Native Chiefs, 1884–92;
    Notification "Oil Rivers Protectorate to be called the Niger Coast Protectorate," 13th May, 1893;
    [by Command]—to lie upon the Table.

    ROYAL NIGER COMPANY (BALANCE-SHEETS).
    Copies presented of Balance-sheets of the Royal Niger Company for each year from 1887 to 1898, inclusive [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    NIGER GOVERNMENT.
    Copies presented of Statements of Revenue and Expenditure of Niger Government from 1887 to 1898, inclusive [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
    Copy presented of Seventeenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1898. Part III. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKSHIPS.

    (CLASS I.)
    Return ordered, "of appointments to Class 1. Clerkships in the Civil Service, from 1886 to 1898, inclusive, in the following form:—

    Department.

    Number of appointments.

    By promotion from Lower or Second Division.

    After Class I. open competition.

    From other sources.

    —(Mr Tritton.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    TRAMORE BOATSLIP.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of erecting a boatslip at Tramore, County Waterford, for the use of the coastguards and naval reserve men drilled at Tramore.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): It is not considered necessary to construct a boatslip at Tramore.

    SOLDIERS AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the object of the circular issued from the War Office, under date 17th November, 1897, calling attention to paragraph 195, Section 206, of the Queen's Regulations, in respect to teaching soldiers a trade, also of the circular issued 15th February, 1898; and whether the Secretary of State for War contemplates allotting annually a sum of money towards the cost of technical instruction to soldiers in the technical schools of the country.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The object of the circular referred to was to encourage the soldier, while serving with the colours, to learn a trade which will be of use to him when he returns to civil life. It is not proposed to allot money to local technical schools. Such schools are precluded, by Section 8 of the Technical Instruction Act of 1889, from teaching the practice of any trade or industry to an unskilled artisan.

    UNDER-AGE RECRUITS.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a boy named John Herbert Cairns, on 16th May last, enlisted at Belfast as a private in the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, and had then to join the depôt of the regiment in Bodmin, Cornwall; whether he is aware that Cairns was under eighteen years of age when he enlisted; will he explain why an application for his release or discharge, enclosing certificate of age, sent by his father to the Commanding Officer at Bodmin, was refused, whereas another older person, enlisted at the same time, was upon application released or discharged; and whether, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the father's application will be reconsidered and granted.
    MR. WYNDHAM: When a soldier, as in the case of Cairns, makes a false statement of age on enlistment and is subsequently shown to be between seventeen and eighteen years of age, it rests with the General Officer commanding the district to decide whether he shall be discharged or held to serve. In this case
    12
    the General, on the recommendation of the officer commanding Cairns' battalion, decided to hold the soldier to his engagement. The other instance referred to cannot be traced without more particulars.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Are the parents of young lads communicated with previous to their enlistment?
    MR. WYNDHAM: A boy under seventeen who is enlisted is discharged as a matter of course, but when the age is between seventeen and eighteen we leave the discretion in the hands of the General Officer commanding, because he is in a better position than we are to ascertain circumstances which might induce him to allow the lad to go back to his home.

    CANTEEN AND MESS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in respect to the contract for the Cork Military District recently given to the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, whether he is aware that the contract was given to this society at prices in excess of those quoted by a local contractor; that 183 articles were quoted by the local firm at prices below those of the Canteen Society, whilst 64 articles were quoted lower in price by the Canteen Society, and of these 64 the consumption is very small; and whether, in the interests of the soldiers, the War Office authorities will order an investigation into the whole matter.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The facts may or may not be as stated in the question of the hon. Member, but the tenders sent in were carefully considered by a board of officers, and the contracts were placed after a thorough examination of the samples submitted for inspection, the quality of the samples being taken into consideration as well as the price. I must repeat that matters relating to these supplies are dealt with by those who are interested in the Canteens, and who are responsible for their proper management, and the Secretary of State is not disposed to interfere with them in the exercise of their discretion.
    MR. FLYNN: If I lay before the hon. Gentleman a list which will substantiate the statements in the question, will he look further into the matter?
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I will fully consider anything the hon. Member may bring forward.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Cork shopkeepers contribute towards the maintenance of the Army?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society pay a dividend of not less than 5 per cent. to its shareholders; if so, can it be so described as a provident society of which officers upon active service may act as directors without transgressing the Queen's regulations.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The Society pays a dividend of not more than 5 per cent. It is registered as a provident society under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. It is not contrary to the Queen's regulations for an officer on full pay to act on the committee of management of such a provident society, their individual interest in which is limited by the Act to £200 capital.

    PUNJAB—OUT RAGES BY PATHANS ON THE FRONTIER.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether at Peshawar, in March of this year, Colonel Le Marchant, of the Hampshire Regiment, was assassinated, and in April three sentries of the Royal Scots Fusiliers cut off by Pathans; whether at Cherat, in May of this year, a sergeant was severely wounded by two Pathans and his rifle stolen, and a drummer of the Hampshire Regiment cut off, while strolling outside the camp, and stabbed; whether in respect of these crimes any reprisals or punishments have been inflicted upon the Pathans; and, what steps the Government are taking to put a stop to the constant attempts of the natives to murder and rob of their arms British soldiers on the Punjab frontier.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Although I have not received
    14
    detailed reports of each of the incidents mentioned in the first and second questions, I have no reason to doubt their accuracy. In the case of the murderers of Colonel Le Marchant and the bandsmen, the punishment of death has been inflicted on the guilty persons. I await information as to the punishments awarded in the other cases. In reply to the last part of the question, I may state that a partial disarmament in the districts of Peshawar, Hazara, and Kohat has been effected as an experimental measure, and if this proves to be ineffectual a total disarmament will be enforced.

    BRITISH CONSULAR SERVICE IN CHINA—CONTRIBUTION BY INDIA.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a sum of £12,500 a year is paid by India to this country for the British Consular Service in China; and, on what grounds, in the case of the Vice-Consulate at Momien, in China, India has been called on to pay half the expenses of that establishment.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The present arrangement under which India pays £12,500 towards the cost of the British Diplomatic and Consular service in China, and which is subject to reconsideration after the 31st March next, was made in 1890. But under Article XIII of the Burma-China Convention of 1894, it became necessary to provide for a new consular officer at Manwyne; and since the appointment was in a great measure made in the interests of India, and especially of Indian trade with Bhamo, the Government of India in 1896 accepted the principle of joint liability, with the express understanding that, if Momien was preferred to Manwyne for the consul's residence, the liability would continue.

    MADRAS—BANKRUPT ZEMINDARS.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the Madras Court of Wards Amendment Act, 1899, passed on the 9th of June by the Madras Legislative Council, by which the Court of Wards is empowered to take charge of the estates of bankrupt Zemindars, manage their estates officially, and eventually, when cleared of debt, hand them back to the original proprietors; and whether, before sanctioning this legis-

    15
    lation, he will make inquiry as to the grounds on which this alteration in the laws relating to bankruptcy is made, and one class of proprietors treated differently in the event of insolvency from the vast mass of Indian proprietors.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I have not yet received a copy of the Act referred to in its final form, and can therefore give no undertaking on the subject. But I may say that, so far as my knowledge goes, I do not admit the accuracy of the description of it contained in the question. I believe that it applies only to the estates of persons who, by reason of age, or sex, or otherwise, are incapable of managing their affairs, and not to the whole class of Zemindars, nor to any estates which are so encumbered by debt as to be incapable of restoration by proper management. I also believe that legislation on the lines of this Act is in accordance with the customs and the wishes of the people.

    THE HYDROGRAPHICAL CONFERENCE.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of the countries represented at the Conference of the North Sea Powers, and the nature of the instructions given to the British representative.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The countries represented at the Hydro-graphical Conference which lately met at Stockholm were: Great Britain, Germany, Russia, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway. It would be premature to present to Parliament correspondence upon the subject, or the instructions given to the Commissioners till the Report of the British delegates is received.

    IMPRISONMENT OF A BRITISH SAILOR AT BILBAO.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the case of Daniel Scott, a British sailor, unable to speak or understand Spanish, who has been in prison for seven months, without trial, at Bilbao, Spain. Whether up till the time of his imprisonment for an alleged assault he held a good character; and whether, as
    16
    he has three children dependent on him for support, the Government will take immediate steps to procure his discharge.
    MR, BRODRICK: The case has received, and is receiving, the careful attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Scott was arrested at Bilbao on January 29th, 1899, on the charge of being drunk and disorderly. He was further charged with having assaulted the police and gaoler of the lock-up. As he had received serious wounds in the scuffle,, he was placed in the first instance in the prison infirmary, whence at the instance of Her Majesty's Consul he was removed for better treatment to the Civil Hospital at Bilbao. He was sent back to the prison as cured on March 2nd. The case was then put down for trial in its proper turn. Repeated representations have been made to the Spanish Government through Her Majesty's Embassy at Madrid with a view to expedite the proceedings. Her Majesty's Government have some time ago authorised the Consul at Bilbao to engage the services of a Spanish lawyer to conduct Scott's defence. A further Report has been telegraphed for.

    THE ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can give any information as to the present serious position of the Armenian Christians in the Provinces of Van, Bitlis,, and Ezeroum; whether any action has been taken by the English and Russian Consuls in the districts referred to to discover the instigators of the recent raids upon Armenian Christians; and whether any steps have been taken by the British representatives at Constantinople to secure a change in the administration of these provinces.
    MR. BRODRICK: We have heard quite recently that Turkish troops were sent to the Mush plain in search of revolutionists. Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Van has just returned there from a journey to Bitlis. According to his account the operations were directed entirely against revolutionists, who were, said to be in hiding, the innocent villagers, being left undisturbed. Her Majesty's Government have no information as to raids on Armenian Christians, other than revolutionists as stated above, but Her

    17
    Majesty's Ambassador will be asked for a further Report.

    THE EGYPTIAN EXILES.
    LIEUTENANT-COLONEL. PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Toulba Pasha was allowed to return from his exile in Ceylon to Egypt on account of enfeebled health; and whether, in view of the age of the remaining four exiles, and the complaints which they have made as to the effects of the climate upon their health, Her Majesty's Government will recommend to Lord Cromer to consent to extend the privilege of a change to some other British colony, if a return to Egypt should be still considered unadvisable, in the case of these four old men.
    MR. BRODRICK: Failing health was the chief plea put forward for the return of Toulba Pasha, but he was regarded as probably the least important of the exiles. If the remaining exiles should petition for a transfer to some other British colony the application would be referred to the Egyptian Government for their consideration. The decision does not rest with Lord Cromer.

    WEST INDIES—FRUIT TRADE—RUM DUTIES.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the arrangements made by his Department for the conveyance of fruit from the West Indies, or any of them, to the United Kingdom or to the United States and Canada; and whether the Returns re the local rates on rum manufacture will be ready for presentation before the House rises.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): A contract has been signed with the Jamaica Fruit arid Produce Association for a direct fruit and passenger service between Jamaica and the United Kingdom, to continence in May, 1900. The contract is for a period of five years, and the steamers will run fortnightly at an average speed of fifteen knots between Kingston and Port Antonio and Southampton. The steamers will be fitted for the conveyance of fruit, and will have storage for at least 20,000 bunches of bananas. They will also possess accommodation for twenty-five
    18
    first-class and twelve second-class passengers. The contractors bind themselves inter alia to employ at least six agents in Jamaica in developing the fruit industry, to improve the wharf accommodation at Kingston and other ports, and to build one or more hotels in the island. The subsidy payable is £10,000 per annum, of which half will be contributed by the Imperial Government, to be increased to £12,000 if more passenger accommodation is required. A contract will, it is hoped, shortly be concluded with the aid of an Imperial subsidy between the Dominion Government and Messrs. Pickford and Black. The contract is for a period of five years, the service is to begin in July 1900, and the contractors will bind themselves to maintain a fortnightly service from Halifax and St. John's alternately to Trinidad and British Guiana at an average rate of ten knots per hour. The steamer will proceed alternately (1) by way of Bermuda, St. Kitts, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, Saint Lucia, Barbados, Saint Vincent, Grenada, Tobago, to Trinidad and (2) by way of Bermuda, Saint Lucia, Barbados, Trinidad, to British Guiana. No arrangements have at present been made for the remaining service recommended by the West India Royal Commission, viz., a special fruit service between Dominica and Saint Vincent and the United States of America or Canada. I fear that there is no probability of the information being received from all the Colonies in time for the Return to be presented during the present Session. I may remind the hon. Member that the Return is not limited to the manufacture of rum, but extends to the production of spirits of every kind.

    LAND ORDINANCES OF CEYLON.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now distribute to Members the Report of the Governor of Ceylon on the working of the Land Ordinances of 1897 in that island.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the papers will be in the hands of Members by the end of next week.

    BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY'S ACCOUNTS.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of

    19
    State for the Colonies whether, as required by Article 17 of its Charter, the British South Africa Company has duly furnished to him accounts of its administrative expenditure and sums received as public revenue for the financial years 1896, 1897, and 1898, and an estimate of such revenue and expenditure for 1899, and whether he will lay them upon the Table; whether, at a recent meeting of the Legislative Council of Rhodesia, the administration stated the administrative expenditure for 1898 had been £783,985, and the public revenue £225,000, or, adding sale of lands, £272,955; what is now the accumulated deficit arising from excess of expenditure over income; and what is the date up to which the last balance sheet of this company was made up and presented by its board of directors to the shareholders.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) I have received the accounts for the financial years ended 31st March, 1896, 31st March, 1897, and 31st March, 1898, and an estimate of expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1899, with a statement of the revenue for that year. I have also received the estimate of expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1900. They will be laid on the Table. (2) I understand that the Administrator has made a statement to this effect with respect to the revenue and expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1899.
    (3) There is no accumulated deficit. All deficits have been met by the company.
    (4) The date of the last balance-sheet presented by the directors to the shareholders is 31st March, 1897.
    MR. D. A. THOMASOn behalf of the hon Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, view of the fact that the expenditure of the British South Africa Company last year exceeded the revenue by £511,000, equal to £51 per head of the estimated white population, and the estimated deficit for the current year is £418,700, Her Majesty's Government contemplate taking any action in reference to the serious condition of the financies of Rhodesia disclosed by these figures.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the white population of Rhodesia was officially estimated on the
    20
    30th of September, 1898, at 13,346, and therefore the deficit for last year would be at the rate of £38, not £51, per head. Her Majesty's Government do not propose to depart from their policy of declining to assume financial responsibility in regard to the affairs of the company.

    THE BLOEMFONTEIN CONFERENCE.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the despatches from Sir A. Milner, giving an account of the conference at Bloemfontein, have been received, and when they will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The despatch has been received, but Sir A. Milner states that the notes of the Conference which he transmits are not finally settled, as he was waiting to receive any comments which the Government of the South African Republic might desire to make on them. On the receipt of any corrections of the notes or on information that they require no correction, the despatch and its enclosures can be laid on the Table if desired, but I imagine that the House will probably think that it is not desirable in the present state of the proceedings.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not a fact that the Dutch version of the proceedings of the conference, which, I understand, was verbatim the same as the English version, was published in Pretoria three weeks ago? Surely the information given at Pretoria three weeks ago ought to be given now in the House of Commons?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware whether that is so or not. At any rate the facts are as I stated. Sir Alfred Milner has informed me that he has submitted his notes for correction to the Government of the South African Republic, and I should not like in any case to take the responsibility of publishing them until the answer has been received from the Government of the South African Republic. And I have further stated that, in the present state of matters, while negotiations are still proceeding, although they are not official negotiations, and until the result of those negotiations is known, I do not myself propose, unless I am pressed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to publish any further Papers.
    MR. DILLON: As I take a very strong view of this subject, I will repeat this question in a week, trusting that the right hon. Gentleman will have received by that time——[Cries of "Order."]
    MR. BARTLEY: On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. Member entitled to give his reasons?
    MR. DILLON: I am not giving reasons.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to do more—and that only by the courtesy of the House—than to give notice that he will repeat his question.
    MR. DILLON: I was not going to give reasons. I was only going to state in a sentence the reason why——[Cries of "Order."]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that it is impossible for hon. Members to go into the reasons which lead them to put down their questions.
    MR. DILLON: Then I will simply say that I shall repeat my question on this day week.

    VENTILATION ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILWAY.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the system of blow-holes, for the better ventilation of the Metropolitan Underground Railways, as recommended by Sir Wolfe Barry and the late Sir John Baker, has proved a failure, will he state whether any steps are being taken to provide fans as a means of improving the atmosphere in the tunnels; and whether any effort is being made to introduce electric traction on these lines.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): No, Sir, fans are not being provided on the Metropolitan Underground Railways; the companies are not prepared to admit that the blow-hole system has proved a failure. On the other hand, experiments are being made between Earl's Court and High Street, Kensington, with the object Of introducing electric traction, and I am informed that such experiments will be actively prosecuted.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Departmental Committee, appointed by himself two or three years ago, distinctly showed that these blow-holes were an utter and absolute failure?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    THE AUSTRAL CYCLE AGENCY.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in reference to the winding-up of the Austral Cycle Agency (Limited), whether he is aware that no annual meetings of the company have ever been held, and no statements of the accounts of the company placed before the shareholders, and no account given by the directors of the way in which the capital of the company (£100,000) has been used; have any steps been taken to compel these returns; and whether he can say if this is one of the companies promoted by Mr. E. T. Hooley.
    MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir, I am unable to give information as to the first and third paragraphs of this question. The Board have no power to compel the company to make such returns, this being, as I have already informed the hon. Member, a voluntary liquidation, and therefore not subject to the supervision of the Board of Trade.
    MR. FLYNN: Has the Board of Trade no power in reference to cases of this kind?
    MR. RITCHIE: Not where the winding-up is voluntary.

    BOATING DISASTER AT PWLLHELI.
    MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Corporation of Pwllheli, in the year 1897, sought Parliamentary powers to enable them to regulate the number of passengers allowed to be carried by pleasure boats in their district; and that the Committee of the House of Lords struck out the clause containing such powers; and whether, if the Corporation promote a Bill containing a similar clause in the ensuing session of Parliament, the Board of Trade will support the measure.
    MR. RITCHIE: There was a clause in the Bill introduced by the Corporation of Pwllheli in 1897, providing for licences

    23
    for pleasure boats which would possibly have enabled the Corporation to regulate the number of passengers to be carried by such boats in their district. It appears that this clause was struck out of the Bill while it was before the House of Commons, but I am not aware of the reasons. Having regard to the provisions of Section 172 of the Public Health Act, 1875, I am not of opinion that any legislative sanction is necessary to enable the Corporation to make bye-laws to regulate the number of passengers to be carried by pleasure boats.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Was it not struck out in the House of Lords?
    MR. RITCHIE: My information is that it was struck out in the Commons.

    THE METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE.
    LORD CHARLES ESFORD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the necessity of providing pensions for old servants, the Meteorological Office is about to cut down its expenses by withdrawing the small payments made at York and other stations; and whether; in view of the important national work done by the Meteorological Office, he can see his way to increase the present Government Grant, which is only £15,300 a year.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I have no reason to suppose that there is any necessity for an increase in the Grant for this purpose, and I have received no application from the Royal Society on the subject. Her Majesty's Government do not interfere with the mode in which the Grant is expended.

    ROYAL NIGER COMPANY'S TREATIES.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any of the 300 treaties, and if so how many, entered into between the Royal Niger Company and kings and chiefs in West African territories, will be included in the promised Papers dealing with the abrogation of the company's charter and the purchase of its interests by Her Majesty's Government.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It is not possible to give full details of the Treaties, of which there are many hundreds. But a
    24
    complete list of the treaties and of the forms in which they are drawn is given in Hertslet's Map of Africa by Treaty, Vol. 1., pages 450–480—which is in the library, and a reprint of this section will be included in the Papers to be presented to Parliament.

    ROTTEN ROW.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to, ask the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that in Rotten Row the mud pits are cleaned out, and carting going on, and the ground scraped and raked during the time when the Row is full, viz., from ten till twelve in the morning, and inconvenience caused thereby; and whether this work could be done in the afternoon, or very early morning, when no one is riding.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give instructions that where excavations do take place the débris shall be removed at once, instead of being left for two or three days?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): In reply to my hon. friend, I have to say that usually, and as far as possible, the gullies in Rotten Row are cleared out in the early morning and late afternoon; but after heavy rain (as on the occasion in question) the work has to proceed all day. I will inquire if any further action can be taken to meet the wishes of the hon. Member. I am informed that the débris is removed daily.

    FAIRFIELD ROAD, BRISTOL, HIGHER GRADE SCHOOL.
    SIR WILLIAM WILLSI beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, if he will explain on what grounds the Science and Art Department has declined to recognise the Fairfield Road (Bristol) Higher Grade School (which was erected with the sanction of the Education Department) as a school of science, although it is equipped and staffed and at present doing the work of a science school.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Science and Art Department has not declined to recognise the

    25
    Fairfield Road (Bristol) Higher Grade School as a school of science. It appears that the maintenance by a school board of a school of science at the expense of the school rate is illegal; and the department are therefore awaiting the result of negotiations between the School Board and County Council of Bristol, which they hope will result in the provision of funds which may legitimately be applied to that purpose.

    LIVERPOOL POST OFFICE CASHIER.
    MR. STOCK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he has received memorials dated 29th July, 1898, and 24th November, 1898, from about 260 members of the postal establishment at Liverpool protesting against the transfer of the position of cashier in the Liverpool Post Office from the postal to the telegraph department; will he explain why no communication whatever on the subject has been made to the staff since the memorial dated July was formally acknowledged by the Secretary to the Department, and that the memorial dated November has not even been acknowledged; and, whether, as the suspension of the Postmaster-General's decision is causing much concern to the staff, who regard the matter as one of great importance, he will give a date when the petitioners may expect a reply.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The memorials of July and November were duly received. It was only in the month of June previous that a full answer was given on the same subject to a memorial dated the 13th May; and the Postmaster-General is not able to add anything to what he then said. Other proposals regarding the Liverpool office are, however, under his consideration, and these may affect the position of the memorialists. It may be added that no vacancy has yet arisen in the post referred to, and that the transfer has therefore had no effect at present upon the postal staff.

    TELEGRAPHISTS' CONFERENCE AT BELFAST.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General,
    26
    with reference to the recent conference by postal telegraph clerks held in Belfast, will he explain why a general permission to delegates to inspect the system of working and the internal arrangements of the telegraph department of the post office in Belfast was declined, and an intimation conveyed that only to such delegates as came fortified with individual letters of introduction would the privilege be accorded, although in places in which the conference was previously held, including Belfast in 1885 and Dublin 1897, this request was granted; and whether he is aware that the conference was composed of delegates, many of whom were men of long service and varied experience, from every important office in the kingdom.
    MR. HANBURY: The authorities in Ireland declined to give a general permission to the conference of telegraphists to visit the instrument room at Belfast, as they were of opinion that it might give rise to inconvenience and that no useful purpose would be served. The Postmaster-General has not considered it necessary to inquire what was the service or experience of the delegates.

    SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the dates of the two competitions to fill the place of assistant in the South Kensington Museum (Art Branch), at which Mr. Herbert Caleb Andrews passed in the obligatory subjects; whether the result of these examinations was gazetted, and, if so, when; why it was that Mr. Andrews did not get a certificate as the result of either of these examinations; and whether any precedent exists for the issue of a Civil Service certificate in the circumstances under which Mr. Andrews obtained it.
    MR. HANBURY: The two competitions were held in February, 1897, and June, 1898, and the results were gazetted on 2nd March, 1897 and 5th July, 1898. Mr. Andrews was not successful at either examination, although he qualified at both, and therefore no certificate was then issued to him. It has been the practice of the Civil Service Commissioners that, if only one candidate enters for an open competition, he should, if qualified, receive the appointment in question: It has also been the practice

    27
    not to re-examine a candidate who has qualified at a previous examination.

    ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the cost of printing the Minutes of Proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Water Supply, and how many copies of such Minutes were printed; why the Kent authorities who appeared before the Commission have been charged the sum of £165 for each of the two copies of such Minutes obtained by them; and whether some means can be provided whereby the proceedings of Royal Commissions can be obtained at a less expense than has been incurred in the present case.
    MR. HANBURY: No official Minutes have as yet been published. The hon. Member probably refers to certain reports which were taken as a private arrangement by parties interested, and for which the Government has, of course, no responsibility whatever. The official Minutes will shortly be issued as an ordinary Blue Book.

    SCOTTISH COUNTY ROLLS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of making arrangements under which his Department may be in possession of the valuation roll for each county in Scotland.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): So far back as 1888 the then Secretary for Scotland endeavoured to arrange for the delivery of the County Rolls of Scotland at the Scottish Office, but, on inquiry, it was found that there were practical difficulties in the way of carrying out such an arrangement, in respect that some of the counties do not print their rolls. As a matter of fact it has not been found necessary to have them in the Scottish Office, as a copy of any particular county roll can, if required, always be obtained.

    RATE COLLECTION IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what system is adopted for securing the payment of rates in the Island of Lewis and Lochbroom, on the western mainland of Ross-shire,
    28
    and in what respect it differs from the system adopted in other parts of the County of Ross and Cromarty where the rates are successfully collected; and if he will state how many of the 2,688 persons disfranchised in the county for failure to pay rates before the 20th June, 1898, paid their rates four months subsequent to that date.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The system of collecting rates is locally arranged, and is not under the control of any department of Government; I have, therefore, no definite information on the subject. I have communicated with the Local Government Board, but there is no information in that Department which would enable me to reply to the question.

    SCHOOL INSPECTIONS IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the practice of inspectors of schools in Scotland to visit each school in their respective districts on at least two separate occasions during the year; and whether care will be taken that the schools in Wester Ross are inspected on two separate occasions during the current year.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Every effort will be made to have two visits of inspection to each school in the course of the year, and at times even more than two visits may be desirable; but it is obviously impossible to give a pledge that this will be the universal practice in all schools.

    VACCINATION FINES AT CHESTER-FIELD.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the decision of the magistrates at the Chesterfield Borough Police Court on Thursday, 22nd June last, whereby three men were each fined 5s. for neglecting to have their children vaccinated, besides having to pay 7s. costs and 20s. for the vaccination officer, amounting in all to the sum of £1 12s. each; whether this is in accordance with an instruction from the Local Government Board; and whether the course adopted by the magistrates is a legal one.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,):

    29
    The total amount of fines and costs which the defendants were ordered to pay was in one case 32s., in another 24s. 6d., and in the third 22s. 6d. The Local Government Board did not, and could not, give any instructions in such a matter to the magistrates. I see nothing illegal in the manner these cases were dealt with.

    FRUIT PRESERVING TRADE—WOMEN OVERTIME.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances he has made his order extending the special exception for the employment of women overtime to the washing of bottles for use in the preserving of fruit; and by what evidence it has been proved to his satisfaction that such employment will not injure the health of the women employed.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The process in question having been regarded as outside the Factory Acts, there has hitherto been no restriction on overtime employment. Recently I was advised that the Factory Acts applied to this process, and gave directions that they should be enforced; but, as I was satisfied that there is unavoidably a severe press of work at certain seasons, I have granted the limited overtime which is enjoyed by other season trades—an hour and a half on thirty days in the year. The Chief Inspector reports that there is nothing in the nature of the employment which could render this small amount of overtime injurious to the women employed. It is a very slight concession as against the restriction of hours now for the first time insisted on.

    APPEAL UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT.
    MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of an appeal in which Her Majesty's Inspector of Factories, Miss Paterson, was the appellant, and the Donegal Fishing Company were the respondents, in the Appeal Court, Dublin, on the ground that notice of appeal, with a copy of the case, had not been lodged with the respondents three days after the case was received; what was the reason for the non-fulfilment of this statutory requirement; and what was the amount of the costs.
    30
    *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have received a report from the Lord-Lieutenant with regard to the failure of the appeal mentioned in the question. It appears to have been due to the failure of the Sessional Crown Solicitor to serve the necessary notice Oil the respondents' solicitor before filing the case at court. The Attorney-General has called upon the solicitor for an explanation. The costs have not yet been ascertained, but will probably not exceed £10.
    MR. TENNANT: I will put a further question on this.

    POLICE COURT PERJURY.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statements made by the Stipendiary Magistrate at the Southwark Police Court, at the conclusion of a case tried before him on Monday last, that it was perfectly clear that some of the witnesses had come to the court to commit wilful downright absolute perjury, and that there was no doubt that perjury of this kind went on every day at every police court; and whether Her Majesty's Government will introduce legislation for the more summary punishment of the perjury which is alleged by the magistrate to be prevalent in English police courts.
    SIR M. WHITERIDLEY: I have seen a report of the magistrate's remarks. I do not see my way to promote legislation to make convictions for perjury easier, the difficulty now experienced in securing such convictions being the difficulty of obtaining sufficient evidence.

    LEAD POISONING.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hanley I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to state the results of the monthly examinations of women and young persons employed in processes of pottery where lead compounds are used for the six months of the current year, compared with the like period of 1898 before the examinations were instituted; and will he also say what has been the experience during the same comparative periods of other trades.

    31
    subject to plumbism where no such periodical examinations of the workers are required as those provided for by the Home Office Rules of last year.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Comparing the first six months of 1898 with the first six months of 1899 it appears that the number of reported cases of lead poisoning in the china and earthenware industry has diminished from 223 to 160, while as regards notification of lead poisoning generally there has been some increase in the number of reported cases. The diminution in the china and earthenware industry is probably due, in part at any rate, to the monthly medical examination.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Do not the figures vary much from month to month, so as to render any comparison fallacious?
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Undoubtedly there is a great variation, but I think on the whole there is a satisfactory decrease in regard to the earthenware industry.
    MR. TENNANT: Is it not the fact that the monthly examination produced such poor results that new rules had to be issued last year?
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The figures which I have given refer rather to the pottery than to the white lead industry.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hanley, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to give an analysis of the official statistics of lead poisoning, distinguishing the cases of a serious, slight, or doubtful character.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Of the 160 cases of lead poisoning reported in the china and earthenware industry 77 are classed as slight, 72 as moderate or severe, and in 11 cases the degree of severity is not stated. Out of the 160 cases 22 may be regarded as doubtful, on the ground that the certifying surgeon did not consider that there were unmistakable symptoms of lead poisoning. It must be remembered that the occupier sometimes reports cases in which a medical man has not been consulted.

    WEST HAM WARD DIVISIONS.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home
    32
    Department if he has received a request from the Town Council of West Ham asking that action on the proposed division of wards might be indefinitely postponed, on the ground that the Council, by 25 votes to 11, takes a different view from that entertained by their predecessors; and what course he proposes to take.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, I have received such a request this morning, but see no reason for departing from the decision which has been arrived at after careful consideration.

    OMAGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Town Commissioners of Omagh addressed to the Local Government Board a petition to have their town constituted an urban sanitary authority, and in reply were informed that the opinion of the Tyrone County Council should be elicited as to the proposal; is he aware that the Tyrone County Council, by unanimous voice, gave its endorsement to the petition of the Omagh Town Commissioners; and will he state the cause of delay on the part of the Local Government Board in granting to a town of 5,000 inhabitants the sanitary powers necessary to its welfare.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of this question. It was always the practice of the Local Government Board before constituting towns as road authorities under the Public Health Act, to afford grand juries an opportunity of expressing their views upon such proposal, which, if carried into effect, deprived them of their jurisdiction over the urban areas. For the same reason the Board think it right to give the county councils an opportunity of appearing at the inquiries and expressing their opinions upon any application made by the towns under Section 42 of the Local Government Act. I believe the Tyrone Council is in favour of the proposal, and if this is so they probably will not think it necessary to be represented at the inquiry. The delay in holding the inquiry is caused by the fact that a large number of similar applications have to be dealt with, and these must be taken in turn.

    TYPHUS FEVER IN COUNTY GALWAY.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the several cases of fever, said to be typhus, in the neighbourhood of Spiddal, County Galway; whether any steps have been taken by the sanitary authorities as to the sanitary condition of the houses and the purity of the water supply; and whether he will state the number of deaths from fever in the said district for the last twelve months.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have been informed by the medical officer of the district that there have been eight cases of typhus fever in the district during the past nine months, which is the period for which he has been in charge, and that one death from fever has occurred during the same period. There are no cases of typhus fever, however, at present in the district. On the 16th June the Board received from their medical inspector a report on the condition of the district, and they have communicated with the sanitary authorities on the subject urging them to remedy forthwith all sanitary defects in the district.

    IRISH LOAN FUNDS—CHARITABLE LOANS BILL.
    MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a letter from Mr. Young, late inspector of loan funds in Ireland; and whether, taking into account the fact that so many of the poorer and industrial classes in Ireland, both debenture holders in and borrowers from the loan funds, have been ruined by the gross mismanagement of the local offices, and as the letter referred to now discloses, by the neglect of the Central Board in Dublin appointed by Government, he will endeavour to bring in the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill, or some other Bill, by which the loan fund victims may recover some of their loss.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The abuses in the working of the Loan Fund Societies were disclosed, not by the reports of the late inspector, but by the report of the committee appointed to
    34
    inquire into the system. The object of the Charitable Loans Bill is to provide means for the more effectual recovery of outstanding debts in connection with these societies; but if the Bill is opposed there is little hope, I am afraid, that the Government will be able to pass it through Parliament during the present session.

    QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST).
    MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government has received a claim from any representative body in Ulster in favour of limiting the appointment of President of Queen's College, Belfast, to Presbyterians or Presbyterian divines; and whether that claim has been conceded, or is the appointment open to Catholics.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware that a claim, such as is referred to in the first paragraph, has been received at any time by the Irish Government; certainly no such claim has been received by the present Government. The appointment is open to Roman Catholics.

    CASHEL PRINTING CONTRACT.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the printing for the urban council of the City of Cashel, County Tipperary, is now being done at a distance of twelve miles, whereas it could be more promptly and economically done in the office of the local newspaper, the Cashel Sentinel; and whether the proprietor of that journal, as a member of the urban council, is legally entitled to insert the council's advertisements in his paper, but debarred from doing any general printing for the council.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not in a position to express any opinion as to whether the printing for the Cashel Urban District Council could be more promptly and more economically done at the office of the newspaper mentioned than by the printing firm now engaged upon the work. The provisions of Article 12 (4) and (5) of the Application of Enactments Order appear to be correctly interpreted in the second paragraph of the question.

    RENTS IN COUNTY TYRONE.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

    35
    of Ireland whether he has observed that, in the case of Patrick MacNeill, Pink Schedule dated 16th February, 1899, 15 per cent. is added to the rent for proximity to Moy, County Tyrone; and in the case of A. M'Kenzie, Pink Schedule dated 19th July, 1898, no percentage is added for proximity to Moy, although both farms are equi-distant from the town of Moy, which has less than 1,000 inhabitants; and whether he can explain this difference of procedure in fixing fair rents.
    MR G. W. BALFOUR: A reference to the Chairman of the Sub-Commission is necessary in order to obtain a report as to the facts of the two cases mentioned, and I would ask the hon. Member to repeat the question this day week.

    LORD DILLON'S ESTATE.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the gross and net rental of Lord Dillon's estate purchased by the Congested Districts Board, and the purpose for which the mansion house in County Roscommon is being rebuilt.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The gross rental of this estate in the year 1898 was £20,295. The net rental in the same year was £16,639, and the deductions by which this amount is arrived at include an annual charge of £1,000 which will expire in November next. The house was in course of completion, and was nearly finished, at the date of the agreement to purchase. It will be finished at Lord Dillon's expense. The Board have not yet considered the question of its disposal.

    MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to grant a Return setting forth the number of county council seats contested in the County of Monaghan at the recent elections, setting forth the names of the candidates, together with their politics, if ascertainable, and the number of votes received by each candidate.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Printed notices containing the names of the candidates, and the number of votes recorded for each, have been placarded in every
    36
    electoral division of the county. It is not proposed to lay a copy of these notices on the Table of the House. I have no official knowledge of the politics of the candidates.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT SURCHARGES IN IRELAND.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what right of appeal exists in Ireland against surcharges made by the auditors appointed by the Local Government Board; and have the people of Ireland the same right of appeal against such surcharges as is possessed by the people of Great Britain where surcharges are made by auditors appointed by the Local Government Board.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Under Section 63 of the Local Government Act, 1898, persons aggrieved by the decisions of auditors in Ireland have practically the same right of appeal as exists in England; that is to say, they may appeal against surcharges either to the Local Government Board or to the Court of Queen's Bench.

    IRISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state how soon he intends to ask the House to make provision for the increased funds, which he declared at the beginning of the present session it was the intention of the Government to propose should be added to the present revenues of the Congested Districts Board.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Bill dealing with this subject is nearly ready, and I propose to introduce it shortly. In addition to making provision for increased funds there will be included in the Bill some Amendments of the provisions of the Land Act of 1896, so far as these affect the Congested Districts Board; but it is not proposed that the Bill shall contain anything of a contentious nature.

    IRISH TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Treasury Memorandum on the Irish Tithe Rent-charge Bill will be circulated.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Memorandum is not yet quite ready. Perhaps the

    37
    hon. Member will repeat the question on Monday next.

    THE TRANSVAAL AND ARBITRATION.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in view of the recent recommendation of Professor Westlake to leave the questions at issue between this country and the Transvaal to jurists chosen by the parties and an umpire named by those jurists, the Government would, in the event of failure of the present negotiations, propose this form of arbitration before proceeding to extremities.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The question of the hon. Member refers to a case which has not yet arisen, and I do not think this is an appropriate time to make a statement of policy on such a hypothetical case.

    NEW CHANCERY JUDGE.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the name of the gentleman whom it is in contemplation to appoint as an additional Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court will be communicated to the House of Commons before the House is invited to vote public funds for the establishment of this additional judgeship.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; to do so would be contrary to all precedent.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not the course I suggest followed in the case of the appointment of Judge O'Hagan?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That appointment of a Judge in the High Court of Ireland was of an exceptional character, and certainly does not carry with it the general principle which the hon. Member assumes.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Pigott Commissioners——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. COGHILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the Bar Committee, which points out a great waste of judicial time?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I answered a question as to that on Tuesday. I do not
    38
    think it has any relation to the question on the Paper.

    IRISH SUPPLY.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how soon he will be able to give time for the discussion of the remaining Irish Votes, including the Votes for the Land Commission, the Chief Secretary's salary, the Constabulary, National Education, and the Industrial Schools.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it will be possible in the remaining time at our disposal to add to the three days already given to Irish Supply. At least I do not see my way to do it at present.
    MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Votes for the Chief Secretary's salary, the Land Commission, and the Constabulary without discussion?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is aware that three days have been devoted to Irish Supply, and in those days the Irish Members have settled the order in which the Votes should come on and the time devoted to the discussion of them.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As the Irish Constabulary Vote has not been discussed for some time, and as considerable feeling exists among the men on some points, the right hon. Gentleman might see that, at any rate as regards that Vote, further time is given.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give a promise on the subject, though, of course, I desire that all the important Votes should be discussed, if possible. But I will bear in mind what the hon. and learned Member has said.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the fact that the Constabulary Vote has not been discussed for three years?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite accept the statement of the hon. Member; but if the Vote has not been discussed it is not the fault of the Government.

    EARL GREY AND PRESIDENT KRUGER.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered by Earl Grey, when

    39
    presiding at a meeting of the South African Association, held at Newcastle on Monday evening, in which Earl Grey referred thus to the President of the South African Republic: "On no occasion had President Kruger ever shown himself amenable to moral persuasion; experience taught them that he yielded to no argument but force"; whether he is aware that Earl Grey is, under the charter of the South African Chartered Company, a life director of that company and is also Administrator of Rhodesia; and whether any steps will be taken to bring to justice Earl Grey and other persons engaged in this country in attacking the President of the South African Republic, and disturbing the friendship between this country and the South African Republic. In putting the question, may I state that in the alterations which have been made in the form of the question to bring it into order, its statements have been made historically inaccurate. I said that Earl Grey had been the Administrator of Rhodesia; I was not such a fool as to say that he was so now.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is nothing in Lord Grey's words which seems to call for intervention, either on the part of the Government or on the part of a court of law.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the Home Office Vote be the first Vote taken to-morrow? Also, what Supply will be taken tomorrow week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am reluctant to say what class of Supply will be taken to-morrow week, but if the right hon. Gentleman will ask me a question on Monday, I will endeavour to answer it. As regards to-morrow, we must get the English Votes in Class III. I am very anxious to bring on the Home Office Vote at a reasonable time. I think arrangements may be made with those most interested in these Votes by which it may be brought on at a time which would ensure its discussion.
MR. WEIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Scotch Votes in Class III. to-morrow?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION—(MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN)—TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS—ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I ask the leave of the House to explain some answers which I gave yesterday, and which seem to have been the subject of some misapprehension. In answer to the hon. Baronet, the Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire, I said that the High Commissioner was in communication with the Cape Ministers, and then to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham, who asked me a supplementary question, which I am afraid I rather incautiously answered without notice, I said that we had not received any representations from the Cape Government I intended by the two answers to convey that, while the High Commissioner was in communication with the Cape Government, and, therefore, of course, aware of their views, no formal representations had been received by Her Majesty's Government. I have heard to-day from Sir Alfred Milner that Mr. Schreiner, the Prime Minister of the Cape, wishes it to be known that the Cape Ministry have made several representations through the High Commissioner, and have only abstained from addressing formal minutes for communication to Her Majesty's Government because they were convinced that independently of formal communications their views were known to Her Majesty's Government. I have also to ask leave to make a personal statement on quite a different matter. I observe from the newspapers to-day that I am stated to be one of the largest shareholders of the Royal Niger Company, and one or more of these newspapers states that I am thus in the position of a vendor and a vendee. I doubt very much whether any cause is served by insinuations on the honour of public men; but in any case I desire to state exactly what my position in the matter is. When the National African Company, which was the parent of the Royal Niger Company, was formed seventeen years ago, I applied for shares, and a certain allotment was made to me. As it was less than the application I made, I subsequently increased my holding to 1,500 shares. There seems to be a misapprehension as to the value of this investment, because there are two classes of shares in the company—one of £10, fully paid up, and the other £2 only paid up. My allotment

41
was the £2 shares, and my total investment was of the smaller amount—£3,000. I may say, in passing, that it would be difficult for any hon. Member of this House to invest in anything which might not at some time or other be the subject of discussion in this House. But when the question of the possible revocation of the charter came before the Government I took the opportunity to inform the Prime Minister and my colleagues of the fact that I had some interest in the company; and I begged, therefore, to be excused from offering any opinion on the transaction, and from taking any part whatever in any negotiations which might subsequently take place. Accordingly these negotiations have been entirely in the hands of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I did not know of the result until the matter was substantially settled. In the House of Commons the other night I voted on the Resolution in Committee under the belief that that was merely a formal proceeding intended to introduce the matter to the consideration of the House. I believe it has been ruled by you, Sir, and by your predecessors, that holding as a shareholder in any liability company does not disable an hon. Member from taking part in discussions which may subsequently arise in which the company in which he is interested may be concerned. But for myself I have always intended that in the future stages of this proceeding I would not take any part whatever, either in discussion or in the matter of vote. I have only to say, in conclusion, that if I were free to vote according to my own personal interest I should vote against the transaction, because I believe the shareholders will find it more to their advantage to be allowed to continue to carry out the operations in which they are engaged. I thought it right to make that explanation to the House.

TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, ETC.) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 266.)
Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. No. (266.)
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 263.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (No. 2) BILL
    Without Amendment.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BELL.

  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BELL.
  With Amendments.
  Amendments to—

INVERNESS HARBOUR BELL [Lords].
With an Amendment.
MANCHESTER CANONRIES BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 262.)

METROPOLITAN POLICE (SALARIES) BILL.
SIR M. W. RIDLEY: I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the salaries and allow-

43
ances of the Commissioner, Receiver, and Assistant-Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. I may state shortly that at present the Commissioner and Receiver and two Assistant-Commissioners have fixed salaries, limited by Act of Parliament and payable on the Votes, while the salary of one of the Assistant-Commissioners is paid out of the Police Fund. In addition these officers receive certain allowances paid partly out of the Votes and partly out of the Police Fund. The object of the Bill is to abolish these allowances, with the exception of an allowance for horse keep. It is proposed to charge the whole of the salaries of the Commissioner and Receiver on the Vote, and the salary of the Assistant- Commissioners partly on the Votes and partly on the Police Fund. I may add that the total charge of these salaries, as well as the proportion between the sums chargeable on the Votes and on the Police Fund, will not be materially changed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (SALARIES).
Bill to amend the Law with respect to the Salaries and Allowances of the Commissioner, Receiver, and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, ordered to be brought in by Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Jesse Collings.
METROPOLITAN POLICE (SALARIES) BILL.
"To amend the Law with respect to the Salaries and Allowances of the Commissioner, Receiver, and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 264.)

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered.
Lords' Amendment, in page 1, line 19, to leave out from "councillors," to the end of the sub-section, and insert "provided that no woman shall be eligible for any such office" the first Amendment, read a second time.
MR. COURTNEY: I have first to apologise to the House that the Amendment which I propose to submit does not appear on the Paper. I had intended that it should be circulated this morning, and it is entirely through a mis-
44
understanding that it has miscarried. Still it is so very simple that I trust no one will be inconvenienced. The Lords by the Amendment which they have inserted in the Bill have disabled women from filling the office of aldermen or councillors. That is in reality cutting them off from a privilege they now enjoy. I propose to consent to the Lords' Amendment as far as it relates to the office of alderman, and to insist on maintaining the view of the House in respect of the office of elected councillors. At this moment women are eligible to sit, and do sit, as members of the London vestries—the very bodies which are to he transformed under this Bill into the London municipal corporations—and if the Amendment which I intend to propose is accepted, the result will simply be to maintain women in the position they now occupy, and to enable them to continue to discharge the functions which they now discharge, and to perform the duties they now perform. Perhaps I may be permitted to make a short survey of the situation when this Bill left the House. We had voted on the question of the eligibility of women to fill these offices, and the result in Committee was such a state of confusion that it was determined the issue should be decided on the Report stage. Accordingly, on that stage I submitted to the House a proposition that neither sex nor marriage should disable women from being aldermen or councillors. It is sometimes said that the vote taken on that proposition was hastily taken and that it was a snatch vote. I hope that any hon. Members who echo that statement will examine for a moment the facts as they stand. It is quite true the vote was actually taken two or three hours before it was thought probable at the beginning of the sitting.. But it was taken about seven o'clock in a very full House which was well acquainted with the fact that the issue was coming on. The records, of course, show at what hour the vote was taken, and as to the question whether or not the House was a full one, the number who voted was 357. Is not that a reasonably full House? How many Members voted on the proposal that the Bill be read a second time? Remember the Second Reading was challenged by the Opposition; there was a two days' Debate; party Whips were issued on both sides; and in all 363 voted. Can it then be said that the

45
number who voted on the question of the eligibility of women was an inadequate number? The highest number of Members who voted on the Bill has been 385, or 28 more than on my Amendment, and if those 28 had been added to the minority the other night, the vote would still have been declared in favour of women. In fact neither side was benefited or injured by taking the vote two hours earlier than had been anticipated, and there certainly was nothing of a snatch or chance character about the division. I believe if the judgment of the House could to-day be taken in the same unbiassed manner we should have the same result. But unfortunately we shall not be able to put that to the test. The Lords have refused to assent to the proposition we inserted in the Bill, and they have done so by a considerable majority. The decision of the Lords has not unnaturally influenced the Government in relation to the matter, and any division now taken will be taken under
entirely different circumstances. I do not wish to underrate the action taken by the House of Lords, and neither do I want to say much about the character of the vote given. I am prepared to deal with it in a spirit of sweet reasonableness. But everyone who has studied the conduct of business in the House of Lords knows that there is a great reserve of voting power which does not usually find any issue in divisions in that House; but now and then, at longish intervals, some question is raised exciting great feeling, and a number of Members come and vote who very rarely take part in their proceedings. Now I cannot say that an expression of opinion so given is entitled at once to absolute deference. Members who come in in that fashion to record their votes—at rare intervals, under impulse, and without listening to or attending very much to the business of the House at ordinary times—cannot complain if the House of Commons is disposed to ask them to reconsider the verdict at which they have arrived. Members of the House of Peers, again, or a large number of them, act under no sense of responsibility as we do here. I ought not to say under no sense of responsibility—for of course they are all public men—but under no such sense of responsibility as Members do here. There is no one to whom they have to give any account; there is no penalty to be enforced, no
46
disqualification can be brought to bear, And when a large number of them turn up unexpectedly, it may be truly said they have not the same touch of public life, they are not in such keen and active, relation to the currents of political thought as Members of this House must be who habitually and daily give up their minds to the study and conduct of political questions. Here, again, it cannot be said that we are acting in offensive manner to the House of Lords if we ask that House to reconsider, with further knowledge, the question on which they have already pronounced a first opinion. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of the House of Lords as a whole, or of Members of it in particular, but it may be said of them as of Members of this House, and, as I fully admit of myself, that this is a question which is concerned with a mass of facts, with a large accumulation of phenomena, of circumstances connected with our town life, with which few or none of us are completely acquainted. If this were a question of the eligibility of women to be Poor Law guardians nobody would venture to contest the issue. Their fitness for the functions of Poor Law guardians has been too amply demonstrated to be questioned; yet when it was first proposed to make them so eligible, the very men who now say they would not for a moment remove them from that position were in not a few cases opposed to their admission on those boards. There was difficulty in getting women made eligible for boards of guardians. The invincible logic of facts has proved their ability, their fitness, their worth, and their public service. I believe if anyone will examine the facts of London life they will find in the records of the last four years the same powerful series of arguments in favour of the eligibility of women to be members of vestries and of these municipal corporations. What they have done in the last four years, if fully known, would make many Members who now oppose the eligibility of women to be members of those corporations change their minds, as they have changed their minds in relation to women on boards of guardians. It is difficult for any of us to, appreciate adequately the conditions under which many of our fellow-citizens in this mighty London live. How many Members can conceive of the conditions under which families live who inhabit

47
one room, and one room only, in a tenement house in the East-end? Even in the richest districts there are places where the same conditions prevail—where cleanliness is impossible, where decency and morality are difficult. It was to deal with these facts that women twenty years ago ventured into London life to do the work they now do. Miss Octavia Hill and the band of women who work with her were occupied with life under those conditions before men were concerned with it; and when the Local Government Act of 1894 was passed, there was found already trained a service of women fit to serve in the vestries in fulfilment of the duties they had voluntarily undertaken, and in discharge of functions which the men themselves, if left alone, would have been unable to discharge. It is pathetic to hear, as I have done, men who are concerned with vestries in the south and east of London and in mid-London, say that the work they have to do cannot be done by men. It has been done with the help of women. And now it is proposed, in pure ignorance, to take away from women the opportunity of continuing the work they have done so well and so much to the public advantage. The mere supervision of tenement houses, the treatment of outbreaks of disease, all these things require the use of women. To superintend, supervise, and instruct women officers in the conduct of affairs, women have been necessary on the vestries, and have been found of such assistance that they have been appointed on committee after committee for dealing with matters concerning tenement houses and the treatment of the sick. Suppose an infectious disease breaks out in a house in every room of which there is living a family of moderate size; it is the intervention of women that has enabled parish officers to treat such cases properly, to organise a service to relieve others from infection, and to set up reception houses to which infected persons are taken while the process of disinfection goes on, and whence they can only be taken by persuasion. It is the agency of women who have been acting as part of the parish vestries which has enabled all this to be done. It is said that the work of boards of guardians is important, and that it could not be done without the assistance of women. But sanitation is at least as important as the work of boards of guardians. It is said, with some
48
force, that sanitation is a matter of prevention, whereas the work of boards of guardians has to do with the cure of the evils which arise from the defects of sanitation. You are going to the origin of things when you deal with these wretched houses of these poor inhabitants. When you try to regulate and civilise them, to raise their standard of existence, you anticipate the conduct of the lives of persons who, if left alone, would in the end fill your workhouses and become the objects of the attention of guardians. It was proposed a year ago that a certain lady who has done good work on a vestry on the south side of London should stand for the board of guardians, but she felt that she could not discharge the duties of both offices. Thereupon a meeting of working men was held, and it was decided that the work of the vestry was more important than that of the guardians, and they could not allow this lady to give up her place on the vestry. Those who confess that women are so important in regard to boards of guardians must see some force in this opinion of the working men themselves as to the desirability of women serving on vestries. The new municipalities will take over the work of the vestries, and all the good work which the women have done will have to be done under the new bodies in some sort of way. It could not have been done in the past but for their co-operation, and if you take away the possibility of women co-operators in the municipalities of the future that work will be done very badly. There will also be some additional functions, such as the housing of the poor. Who have as much knowledge and capacity for dealing with questions arising from the housing of the poor as the women to whom I have referred, who have been engaged in considering this problem in the most practical way for the last four years, who have trained up women specially acquainted with the facts, and specially acquainted with the dangers to be avoided, and specially informed as to the needs to be met and the benefits to be secured? There may also have to be added the question of common lodging houses. Without the assistance of women you really will never be able to regulate common lodging houses as they ought to be regulated. The Secretary for the Colonies, who is a great authority on municipal matters, said on one occasion that municipal action

49
goes home to the lives of the masses; it concerns their health, their comfort, and their recreation. I accept every word of that statement. I go further, and say that the more intimate the action of the muncipalities is in relation to domestic life the more important is the co-operation of women in making that action intelligent and effective. We are very often told that this Bill is intended to create interest in municipal life. Here you have a hand of women who have exhibited the very interest you desire to excite, and it is actually proposed to turn them off from taking that share of the duties which they have hitherto discharged. You want to elevate the tone of municipal life. Women have done it. They have bettered the manners and improved the tone of and elevated the conduct of those concerned in the work of vestries. You want to sweeten the conduct of affairs. They are the people who have done it and will continue to do it. You want also to have engaged in the conduct of your municipalities persons who are above suspicion of being personally interested. The great defect of vestries in the past has been the intrusion of men who came there to do some little job or to promote some interest of their own. The women who have been engaged on vestries have never been suspected of the least taint of personal interest in their action. The motion I make is simply to keep women in the discharge of the duties they have performed so well for the last five years, and the most powerful argument in its favour is the work which they have done. The facts, if realised, would be all-powerful. I merely ask that this question may be sent to the House of Lords for reconsideration. What reason is there why it should not be submitted once more to their judgment? If they insist upon their view we could at last only be beaten and acquiesce in their decision. There is no risk to the Bill or the conduct of public business involved in inserting the Amendment which I propose. Surely it might be urged in the House of Lords above all assemblies that they should not take away from any person or persons the privileges and rights which they at present enjoy. I hope the Government will yet allow this matter to be au open question. I will not appeal to the Leader of the House; I know his heart and brain are with us in this matter; he strongly supports the proposition which is sub-
50
mitted, although he may have to urge the propriety of deferring to the House of Lords in the judgment which they have pronounced. But there is no necessity so to defer at this stage. There is no reason why you should not give the Lords an opportunity of reconsidering the vote which they have given, and that is all that I ask may be done. There is no political reason, and certainly no Party reason, why that should not be done. The question is confined simply to whether or not we should allow women to go on filling the posts they have been chosen to fill in the past, and which they have filled with so much acceptance to the inhabitants of this overcrowded metropolis. I trust the House will reaffirm the eligibility of women for this office, and for that purpose I move my Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To the words inserted by the Lords, at the end, to add the words 'except that of councillor.'"—(Mr. Courtney.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My right hon. friend, as he was perfectly justified in doing, has made a survey of the whole question with which this House has been more than once interested in connection with the Bill which has recently been dealt with in another place. I do not propose to follow his example, or to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of having women on the new municipalities, or the more general question of the work women are capable of doing on public bodies, with which he has dealt with the earnest conviction which we all know he possesses, and with great fulness and completeness of argument. I will only say that I recognise, and I believe those who do not agree with me on this question also recognise, the value of the work women have done on boards of guardians and other public bodies, and in connection with the life of the poor in our crowded cities, and the amelioration which may be introduced into their lot. It may be possible—though this is not an occasion for contemplating or discussing such a provision—that, even without running counter to the views of that great body of public

51
opinion which, I think, unfortunately, is intent on resisting the equality of women and men in connection with these municipal bodies—it may be possible to devise, by a general Bill, arrangements by which they may serve on committees specially connected with such interests as my right hon. friend has dealt with. That may meet with the acceptance of Members on both sides of the House, and I only throw it out as a suggestion. Having thrown out that suggestion I pass on to say that I do not propose to discuss with my right hon. friend the best form in which, in his opinion or in the opinion of this House, the Bill might be passed. We have to-day a different task—to consider whether it is in the interests of the Bill which we are desirous of passing through the House that we should enter into a contest with the Upper House on this question. The Government are unanimously of opinion that it is not in the interests of the Bill. My right hon. friend has pointed out that the final Division on the question during the Report stage of the Bill was taken in a House which could not be described as an empty House, and he maintained that it fairly represented the general opinion of the House and the balance of parties in the House on this particular question. I do not know whether my right hon. friend was right or wrong, but, at all events, he will be in agreement with me when I say that the utterances of this House have been, to a certain extent, doubtful and vacillating on this subject, while the utterances of the House of Peers—whatever may be said of them—have been neither doubtful nor vacillating. I cannot believe that any majority which, under any circumstances, could still be obtained in this House in favour of allowing women to have seats on the new municipal bodies, would be sufficient to induce the House of Lords to yield upon a point on which they have expressed so clear and strong a conviction by such an overwhelming majority. Under these circumstances it would be merely provoking a useless contest, possibly endangering the Bill, if we attempted to restore the Bill to the original shape in which it left this House, or adopt the modification my right hon. friend proposes. If the modification were of a character which would conciliate the opposition of the House of Lords something might be said for it. But any one who followed
52
the course of the Debate in the House of Lords or the trend of opinion there would see that the objection to allowing women to be councillors would not in any sense be mitigated by not allowing them to be aldermen or mayors. That being so, I do not think my right hon. friend has proposed what may be properly called a compromise. I do not think his suggestion, if carried by this House, would lead to an agreement between the two Houses. That being so, in the interests of the measure which I have been responsible for carrying through this House, on the part of the Government I am obliged to say that we propose to resist the Amendment of my right hon. friend.
MR. DILLON: This question is one of very great importance, and I trust that it is not going to be divided upon without some further discussion besides that which it has already received. I must say, in the first place, that I cannot agree with the policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, who has proposed the compromise which is embodied in his Amendment, and for this reason—that I do not believe that he will secure one single vote more by this compromise, as compared with a motion to reject the Lords Amendment in this House. I fancy that he himself will be doubtful as to the wisdom of his policy, after hearing the speech which has come from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and which, I assume, means that the Government Whips are to tell in the Division in support of the Amendment of the House of Lords. The whole course of the discussion of this question in the House of Commons has been one of the most singular which I have ever observed in my own experience. When the question was first submitted to the House, the Government left it an absolutely open question, and the Leader of the House rather indicated that his sympathies went with the eligibility of women sitting upon these bodies, and in the lobby afterwards we had the advantage of the support of the First Lord of the Treasury, of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and some other Members of the Government. I notice this extraordinary fact—and I think it is right that the public should know it—that while the First Lord of the Treasury declared that this was an open question in which the Government

53
would take no part, the Government Whips were active in working against the eligibility of women sitting on the new municipalities, just as if it were a Government matter. In all the Divisions there is no doubt that the Government Whips worked against the proposal to allow women to be eligible for these bodies, with the greatest possible activity, and I have no doubt that that had a great effect in influencing the Members who voted. I do not think it is fair play to approach this question in that way, and I think the Government ought to have had the courage to take up the question. Certainly, after having announced through the Leader of the House that this was to be left an open question, I do think that the Government Whips ought not to have operated to influence the result either one way or the other. I listened with great interest and with some sympathy and compassion to the somewhat pathetic speech of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, in which he still clings to the delusion that you can discover in the House of Lords any sympathy with human suffering. He devoted a considerable time to explaining—I suppose for the benefit of the large section of the House of Lords who are listening to this Debate—the enormous benefits which women have brought by their public work on these public bodies to the suffering poor in this great city. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that would recommend his cause to the Members of the House of Lords sitting in another place he is greatly mistaken, for in the Upper House when the ordinary work of the nation is transacted very few members attend. But on certain occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman truly said, they are seen assembling there in great numbers, and their faces are so unfamiliar that the doorkeepers at the House of Lords have often attempted to prevent some of them going in. When it comes to a question of women discharging duties which they are better fitted to discharge than men, then Members of the House of Lords are brought down, who have not sat in that chamber for years, to give a vote, just as they did on another historic occasion, when I saw brought into the House of Lords to vote the lame, and the blind, and even a Member was brought down in a perambulator to give his vote in order that the poor suffering tenants of Ireland might be kept out of their homes. I hope this
54
lesson will not be lost on the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will be, at last, weaned from the idea that the House of Peers is an essential part of the constitution of this country. But whether essential or not it has always distinguished itself by blocking and obstructing throughout this century every proposal for the benefit of the people, and intended for the relief of human suffering. I desire now to turn to the speech made by the Leader of the House. He is a distinguished advocate of the rights of women, and he goes somewhat further than I have ever gone in that direction; but I would ask his followers and the Members on this side of the House—and there are many men equally opposed to this question on this side of the House—have they fully considered what effect such a speech will have? I must say that I think the action taken by the Leader of the House to-day in. the face of the facts is cowardly. I have never voted myself for the Parliamentary suffrage of women, for I have always seen great difficulties in the way, although I have never voted against it. One of the arguments which I have always found the greatest difficulty in getting over is that women have said, and said with great force, "Until we have the suffrage we shall never get fair play or justice in the House of Commons." To-day that argument will have great additional strength, because if ever there was a case in which the women have all the justice on their side in favour of the claim which they are making, that case is the one in which the House of Commons is called upon to judge to-day. If the women of this country possessed votes, would the action of the Leader of the House have been what it is to-day? Does any man suppose that, if we had to consider the votes of the women in our constituencies, the House of Commons would do otherwise than grant this concession and throw out the Amendment of the House of Lords? We know how different the result of the Division would be if women had votes. In view of that fact I say that if you decide to-day to deny to women their right to be elected on these bodies, where they are certainly qualified to sit and to do the business better than men, you are giving an enormous impetus to the cause of the Parliamentary suffrage being extended to women. I hope the women of Great Britain will note the action of the

55
Government and will scan the Division List very carefully. On what ground are women being excluded? I have listened to all the Debates that have taken place on this question, and I have listened in vain for one single argument except one, to which I will allude in a moment, why we should neglect this claim. We have had ridicule—we are accustomed to that—and we have had sneers at women in the usual style, but no Member has stood up in a serious spirit and has endeavoured to meet the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, and to explain on what grounds of public policy they seek to deny to the poor of this city the enormous advantage they now obtain by women serving on these boards. I have only heard one argument—that used by the noble Lord opposite—viz., that women should not be exposed to the rough and tumble and to the unpleasant scenes at contested elections. Certainly in England, though not yet in Ireland, women of both political parties have taken quite as active a part as men in elections. The ladies of the Primrose League and the Women's Liberal Association do not appear to be much afraid of the rough and tumble of elections. In every contested election where a man is sufficiently happy to be the possessor of a wife he always arrives on the scene accompanied by her. Really I cannot see much force in that argument. If there were any
force in it—I do not attach any weight to it—we could provide in this Bill machinery which would enable women to avoid the rough and tumble of elections. I object to the proposed compromise now before the House. If women are eligible to be councillors, a fortiori they are eligible to be aldermen. If there is any force in the argument that it is not desirable to expose women to the rough and tumble of contested elections, then they ought to be admitted as aldermen to these councils should the councils desire it. I will only say in conclusion, for the benefit of those who oppose this claim because of their prejudice against the claim of women to the Parliamentary franchise, that I do not believe this proposal would advance that claim. On the contrary, I believe, and I sincerely believe, that the cowardly refusal of this House to grant this reasonable request will give a very considerable impetus to the agitation
56
for conferring the Parliamentary franchise on women.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: As I propose to vote against my Party on this occasion, I do not wish to give a silent vote. In the previous Debates which have taken place on this question I have followed my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, because he was fully authorised to represent the views of those interested in this question. I think, perhaps, at an earlier stage some slight error of judgment was made, in the sense that too much was asked for, and possibly owing to that the present difficulty has arisen. But, however that may be, I cannot agree with those who say that what is now proposed is not essentially in the nature of a compromise. What had been asked was that the functions which women are now discharging should be extended. What is now proposed is that those functions should be in the new bodies exactly as they were in the old bodies, and I have the high authority of Lord Salisbury for stating that to all intents and purposes the new bodies will be the same as the bodies they are superseding. We are face to face with a somewhat difficult situation, but I have no hesitation whatever in taking the course I propose to take, and that is to go into the lobby with my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin. I do not propose to argue the subject from the point of view of the merit of the services already rendered by women in the government of London. I recognise this as an important Bill which the Government cannot afford to have defeated, but I really do not think there is any risk of defeat if this very reasonable proposal be sent up to the Lords for reconsideration. What have we to contend with? The Lords are essentially accustomed to compromise, they exist practically to compromise, if it is shown to them that this House has made up its mind absolutely on any question. There is great force in the remark of the hon. Member opposite that although ostensibly the Government left Members free to vote in any way they pleased on this question, yet the Government whips did influence Members and to that extent influenced the result. I think, therefore, it is exceedingly unfortunate that we should be asked by the Government to throw up the sponge at

57
the present moment. My right hon. friend threw out a suggestion which was referred to in the speech of the Leader of the House. I am not quite sure whether I understood him to suggest that an enabling Bill might be brought in at a later stage to enable women to serve on a species of committee on these new bodies. Are we to understand that such a pledge is to be given?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: Then, I do not see anything in the suggestion calculated to let down easily those who feel very strongly on this question. Even if such an enabling Bill were passed, I am not at all sure it would meet the case. It would be saying to the women: "There are certain questions regarding which you may be of use, and on these questions come into council with us, but as regards other questions we will not permit you to interfere. You shall continue to pay rates, but you shall not have any say as to how these rates are spent." We have not, I maintain, been treated in a reasonable way by the Government, in view of the earlier stages of this discussion, and I shall certainly vote with my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin.
MR. BIRRELL: I confess I see in the somewhat discreditable position in which the House of Commons finds itself at the present moment, in its contest with the other House, the judgment of Heaven upon us for having sent up to that truth-loving assembly a measure so dressed up with tinselled phrases and fraudulent pretences as to induce those innocently-minded persons to believe, notwithstanding the assurances of the Prime Minister to the contrary, that the Bill was really one of first-class importance. I remember—I am sure I am the only person in the House who does remember—that I described this Bill during the discussion in Committee as a Bill to call an old thing by a new name. Nobody took any notice of the observation, which, none the less, or, perhaps, all the more, I treasured near my heart. Judge, therefore, my delight when, happening to cross over to another place, I heard Lord Salisbury, who, after all, is Prime Minister and the head of the Government, and by common consent the ablest and not the
58
least straightforward Member of it, make the very same observation—of course, in chaster language. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to what the noble Lord said, but I heard the noble Lord distinctly say that the object of this Bill was simply to give vestries new names, and that it added, save in one respect the housing of the poor, nothing to their authority. It has not been alleged for a single moment, even in another place, with the plentiful experience we now have of the mode and manner in which women conduct such public duties as they are allowed to perform, that they have not shown good judgment and great capacity. On school boards, boards of guardians, and wherever they have been permitted to serve they have shown remarkable competency in discharging those duties. I wily not enter into any vulgar comparisons with the work discharged by male members of these bodies. We have had large experience all over the country on boards of every kind and description, and we find that wherever women have had an opportunity of exercising public functions they have shown they possess very considerable qualifications for that purpose. It is, therefore, not because women are incapable that the House of Lords proceeded to take the step it has taken. I confess, when we are told that nobody complains of women sitting on boards of guardians, I am ashamed of the chivalry of man. If there is a place where it is hard for an educated arid refined and pious woman to sit, it is on a board of guardians, cheek by jowl with greasy publicans and small shopkeepers, smiling uneasily at the clumsy pleasantries of her associates, and very often blushing scarlet at their unseemly jokes. To that martyrdom for the love of God and the service of the poor, you are willing that they should submit themselves. We allow them to sit in unreformed vestries, through scenes when Bloggins the ironmonger pulls the nose of Scroggins the greengrocer. That does not interfere with the purity of their characters; but the moment you reform these vestries, and make them more popular and more suitable to persons of refinement and education, you select that very moment to turn round on women and say, "You are no longer fit to sit here; these are not the places for you; out you go" This is the message the House of Commons sends to the women of England, and I say it is a message of insult. Everybody knows that the reason that

59
the House of Lords made this Amendment is not that they have in any way a rooted objection, or care a snap of their august fingers whether half a dozen women take their seats fitfully in the dingy chambers where these new sprawling municipalities will hold their meetings. Nobody cares a straw on the subject. We are thinking of this "house beautiful." We are thinking that, some day or other, if women are allowed the opportunity of showing their competence all over the country, on this board and that board, and on these municipal councils—if nothing can be said against the mode in which they have discharged their duties, if they have won admiration and disarmed opposition—then, on some day or another, in far-off summers we shall never see, women may come and say, "We have made out our claim to admission within these portals." That is not the question we are considering now. Nothing that we can do will bind the hands of our posterity. When called to fight that question, they will fight it with their own arguments, without any regard to what we say this afternoon. For my own part, I contemplate that possibility with the equanimity of one who, in the first place, is assured that he will be dead at the time; and, in the second place, remembers how this House has survived every kind of change and every sort of Member. Since this House has existed we have seen prize-fighters, jockeys, bullies, cowards, and drunkards, all taking their seats in it. You may go into the library and take down the three bloated volumes of "Russell on Crime"; you may search that gloomy catalogue and not find a single crime, however hideous; a single felony, however shameful; a single misdemeanour, however disgusting and discreditable, which has not at one time or another been committed by a Member of this House. Not only have they at divers times committed these offences but they have been found out, and have suffered all the diverse penalties of the law and every period of penal servitude. Notwithstanding all these things, notwithstanding the appearance from time to time of persons of that sort in this House, we still consider ourselves the pride of the country and the envy of surrounding nations. Even were that the question, this House would be found strong enough to survive it. But it is not the question. The question is, whether
60
women should be deprived of a right which they at present enjoy, whether women, judged by their conduct in the past, have disqualified themselves for discharging the public duties which they have, by common consent, hitherto admirably discharged. Are we to go back on something we have already done? Are we to take away the right which women now enjoy—not because we are frightened at the manner in which they will exercise this particular privilege—if privilege it be—but because of something in the far-off future which we dare not contemplate? I cannot assume that anything we do to-day will interfere or call in question how posterity will vote on this question when it arises. But, if we do not reject the Lords' Amendment, we may accelerate that period that some of us pretend to deplore, because after the Vote which will be taken this afternoon, you will be able to write over the portals of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons, "Here dwell a race of men who are afraid of women."
MR. LOUGH: I cannot hope to compete with the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, but I would like to make a brief protest against the course which the right hon. the Leader of the House has elected to follow. Not a single reason has been given to us why we should not agree to the Amendment. Within the last fortnight, on two important London questions connected with measures which passed in this House, the Lords have corrected mistakes we made in this House. We owe them a debt of gratitude for that. I think this afternoon we should give them an opportunity of correcting the mistake they have made in regard to this Bill. I only desire to make one point on this subject. If the First Lord of the Treasury will not consent to reconsider this matter, the Government will be guilty of a total breach of faith with the House and with London. The first promise the First Lord made was that there should be no interference with any of the franchises which London enjoyed at present as compared with the provincial municipalities. Now, one of the most valuable franchises we have got is that which gives the right to women to sit on these boards, where they have done most useful work. But it is a franchise of the voters also, because they can select

61
women to sit on these hoards. In that respect we ought to remember the voters as well as the women. There are duties which women can discharge better than men, and why should the right hon. Gentleman, in the face of his promises, deprive the people of London of the right to return women to look after baths and washhouses and the other women's work which they have done so well in the past?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to charge me with breach of faith.
MR. LOUGH: With great respect, I may say I think I have made good my point, but I will not repeat it.
HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
MR. LOUGH: I do not feel hound to withdraw, for I think I have made my point fairly. Another promise made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Government would leave hon. Members on both sides of the House free to vote as they pleased. I do not think he is keeping his promise in that matter. The Government is now interfering, and Gentlemen on the other side of the House will not be able to vote as they think right, because their allegiance to party compels them to vote with the right hon. Gentlemen. The promise was made that we should be left free to vote on this matter, and now we are not to be allowed a free vote. I do not think a single reason has been given why we should not give the Lords an opportunity of reconsidering this matter. It will not endanger the Bill, for there will be other points to be debated and sent up to the Lords for reconsideration. I say that if the Government press on this decision they will court an adverse judgment from the country, and it will soon be given, when, I am sure, the policy pursued by the Government during the last few years will be reversed.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I intend to vote not with the Government or the Leader of the House, or against the Leader of the Opposition; I am just going to vote with the Lords, and therefore I wish to explain my position. This question is not in any sense a Liberal, Democratic, or Conservative question. It is simply a question of sentiment on which gentlemen on this
62
side may have one view, and gentlemen on the other side may have another view, and some on both sides may take opposite views. Thirty years ago the most ardent democrat in the country did not dream of giving women a vote or a seat in these councils.
MR. COURTNEY: I did.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon Gentleman says he did thirty years ago. Well, I will say that if any person fifty years ago, or since the commencement of the world, had proposed that women were to be given the same political rights as men he would have been looked upon as a lunatic. Take Tiberius Gracchus, the Roman democrat. What would have been thought of him by his fellow-countrymen if he had proposed that women should sit in the Roman Senate? We know very well that there have been democrats in this country for many centuries, and you may search the motions made in this House for the last five hundred years in vain till the year 1865 or 1866, when the first motion was made in regard to giving votes to women, and then it was defeated. Let us be fair and honest in this matter of giving votes to women. What I object to is that hon. Gentlemen who think that women ought to have the same political rights as men do not bring in a Bill of their own; but they lay their eggs—female eggs—in a Bill of other people. This Bill, when it was brought in, had absolutely nothing to do with this question of women; but up got my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, and seized the opportunity to propose a clause that women should be given votes by this Bill. My right hon. friend is a man for whom I have a special admiration, because there is no humbug about my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend is a thoroughly honest man. He does not come down here, as some people do, and say: "Oh, we would not give women the suffrage; we would give a few, perhaps, the suffrage, but not many; but we would not allow them to sit in this House." My right hon. friend thoroughly believes that women ought to have in every way the same political rights as men, and he knows perfectly well that he cannot establish that change at one blow; he will carry the day if by degrees he can sap the fortress in

63
which men are entrenched. That is why I admire the right hon. Gentleman. But this special proposal is the most absurd of any of the proposals in regard to women that I have yet heard discussed in this House. You do not give married women votes, and yet you absolutely say that you are to allow women to sit on these august municipalities. Surely, that is putting the cart before the horse.
MR. COURTNEY: They have votes.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Married women?
MR. COURTNEY: Yes.
MR. LABOUCHERE: That is the case with regard to married women who have property of their own; hut, as my right hon. friend knows perfectly well, his proposal is to allow women to sit on these municipalities whether they have property or not. Then my right hon. friend understands tactics; he first proposes to get half his case. He says, "I won't ask the House to disagree with that part of the proposal which forbids women to be aldermen, but let them be only common councillors." Can he adduce one single reason why a woman should be a common councillor and not an alderman? If my right hon. friend is able to slip in as a common councillor, what will be the effect? My right hon. friend will come down another time and say, "Is it not monstrous that when you allow women to be councillors, you won't allow them to be aldermen?" Then we shall make them aldermen. And then, having elected them aldermen, he will say, "It is perfectly preposterous that while women can be aldermen and councillors in London they are not to be aldermen and councillors in municipalities in the country." And then, having again carried his point, my right hon. friend will propose that they should sit in this House.
MR. MADDISON: Why not?
MR. LABOUCHERE: My hon. friend says, "Why not?" My hon. friend is an honest man; he knows this will be the result. It was on this very ground that I voted against the proposal. A horrible vision appears before me. I seem to see
64
ladies sitting on these benches. I see the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government, Scotch ladies, very likely. I see that one of the able Whips of the Government has just come in. We know what the duties of Whips are, and as those duties are to get votes the most fascinating ladies will, of course, be selected for these posts; and what will happen? I tremble to think. Even your chair, Sir, would not be sacred. It appears to me that the attitude of the Lords is a most becoming one in this matter. It is precisely what I have always wanted the Lords to do. I went into. another place when a nobleman was discussing the matter, and what did that nobleman say? He said he understood that the Division in this House had been a scratch Division, and he went on to say, "We don't want to interfere with the House of Commons, but we want to know what the House of Commons really wishes. If the House of Commons is really in favour of this clause, then we will not stand to our views; but we really think it right to send back the clause to the House of Commons, and to ask the House of Commons to inform us what their wishes are, which we are ready to accept." ("No.") Yes, and it seems to me to be a very proper attitude on the part of the House of Lords. Well, there was a scratch Division. Even my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin tried to prove that it was not a scratch Division because it happened at seven o'clock. What did happen on that day? The Finance Bill had been under discussion. It was not intended to take a Division on the Finance Bill, and a great many Members went home, preferring to read the speeches than to hear them in the House of Commons. For some reason the discussion on the Finance Bill broke down, and the next Bill on the Order Paper went off unexpectedly. Suddenly this Division came on. At the commencement of the evening, when I asked some of my friends who are in favour of everything connected with woman: "Is that woman question coming on?" they said, I have no doubt quite honestly, "No." Well, I did not care to stop for the Finance Bill, and I was on the point of going home when somebody came on the Terrace and said, "That woman question has come on." I naturally remained to vote against it, but there were a great many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, as well as on

65
the other side, opposed to the proposal who were not there at the time. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury says that he stands entirely to his views, although I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to vote. But we can now vote on this Amendment with a full and perfect knowledge of the question before us.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: We have been told that this question is not to be decided upon its merits, but is to be decided for us by a more august tribunal. I hope, however, that the question will be decided, not with respect to what has been done elsewhere, but upon the merits of the question. We ought to consider whether in excluding women from these councils we shall be doing a kind or unkind thing to the poor of the country. Shall we be depriving them of assistance they ought to have? I think the arguments of the right hon. Member for Bodmin deserve a little more attention than they have received. The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to hon. Members to consider what is the nature of the work which women are doing on these municipal bodies, and I hope the House will look at the matter in that practical way. I do not think that the poor of the country are so well off that this House should deprive them of the assistance which any human being could give them. Is it pretended or alleged that women have not done admirable work on the vestries? No one can pretend that for a moment; and how, then, can anyone say that there is not similar work for them to do on the new bodies? Women are better able to serve the interests of the poor than anybody else, but because of the exigencies of our Parliamentary system this House is to refuse to allow women to do this work. That is not a position which can be fairly or honestly defended. I wish hon. Members opposite, who, I believe, care as much for the condition of the poor as hon. Members on this side, would take their courage in both hands and decide this question on its merits. This is not a matter which should be treated as one of form simply. We ought to consider what will be the practical result of admitting women to these bodies. If the matter is looked at in that light I do not believe that the House would hesitate for a moment in
66
asking the Lords to reconsider their judgment. It is a much more important matter than might be supposed from the course of the Debate. The whole tendency of municipal government in this country is to bring that government into closer contact with the life of the poor and to take up one subject after another which goes home to their daily life. It would not be right to reject now the assistance which women have in this respect been able to give hitherto upon the vestries. I think, therefore, that we should do well to give the Lords an opportunity for repentance.
MR. CHANNING: I had really not intended to speak in this Debate; but I desire to express my surprise that no honourable or right hon. Gentleman from the Front Opposition Bench has got up to defend what I maintain to be a contribution of the Liberal Government to the local government of the country of the greatest importance—I mean the Amendment which was adopted in the Act of 1894 when passing through this House of Commons. In that Bill the right was assured to women to sit upon the vestries of London, and to exercise duties upon the vestries of London which they have shown themselves capable of exercising with efficiency and with benefit to the public. I consider it an honour to the liberal Ministry which introduced that in an Act of Parliament, and I wish to express my regret that no one on the Front Opposition Bench has pit up to defend the rights of women on this question. I myself have sat with women on local bodies, and I know the excellent work they have done. The First Lord of the Treasury is going to sacrifice the opinions which a large majority of the Members of the House have repeatedly expressed to women who were interested in questions in their own constituencies. Members on the Government side of the House and the Opposition side have repeatedly given their pledges to the women that they would defend their rights on this question, and at the present moment the Government are cowardly enough not to face the House of Lords in the matter. I wish to enter an emphatic protest against the contemptible action of the House of Commons on this occasion, and the lack of courage in not standing up for the opinions to which Members of the House had repeatedly

67
pledged themselves both in the House and in the country. It is absolutely unreasonable to contend that the rights which had been given to women by the Act of 1894 by the deliberate action of the House of Commons are to be recklessly abolished at the dictation of the other House. The result would be, as many hon. Members on the Government side of the House who are now abandoning their pledges will find out, that there are many women who will exercise their electoral power—their moral and social power—to vindicate their rights, and they will act rightly in doing so. This question has come before the House just after there had been perhaps the most distinguished and remarkable gathering of women from every quarter of the world to discuss important questions of social and administrative reforms, and many of those questions which had been entrusted to them on the local bodies. Any man who has followed the discussions in connection with the International Congress of Women will know that the discussions of that Congress had left on the minds of all sensible men a very favourable impression of the capacity of women and their moral right to share in these questions of local government. I wish to enter my most emphatic protest against the conduct of Her Majesty's Government and the refusal of hon. Members to keep their pledges.
MR. ALBERT SPICER: I do not often intervene in Debate, especially when the House is nearing a Division; but I cannot help feeling this afternoon that the House is going to weaken the good influence of this London Government Bill by the vote it is going to give against this Amendment; and, as a resident in London practically all my life, I venture to say a word before we come to a Division. There is one aspect of the case which I do not think has received fair attention. If the
Bill is to be a real success, which all of us who reside in London are anxious should be the case, it will be because we shall call forth the best energies of our local life. We hope that those who will seek for seats upon these new municipalities will represent all the different classes in the district. We hope there will be those who represent business houses, and who are principals of houses where they carry on their business apart from their residences. We hope, also, there will be those who represent the business men of the district; and we hope there will be a good contingent of the working classes. But, having had fifteen years' experience on a suburban local board, I say there is danger that you will only have in the great majority of cases on your municipalities those who are able to attend during evening meetings, and you will have very few who are able to attend committee meetings during the day. If we can have a fair share of women on these municipalities, you would have those who can give you their work during the day, when so many of the male representatives are bound to be in other parts of London—the working men at their work, and business men at their business. You will have, of course, a few men, I take it, of leisure; but if you deprive the municipalities of being able to choose some of the most capable women in the district, you will not only deprive them of a great source of power for good, but you will deprive the municipalities of the aid of many who can do a great deal of the detail work, and prepare for the general meetings of the municipalities, and you will in this way place your work far more in the hands of the officials than I believe is good for any municipality. For these reasons I trust the House will not resist this Amendment.
The House divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 246. (Division List No. 223.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Bethell, Commander

Burt, Thomas

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

Bill, Charles

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Allison, Robert Andrew

Billson, Alfred

Caldwell, James

Ambrose, Robert

Birrell, Augustine

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Blake, Edward

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bousfield, William Robert

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hen.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Austin, M.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

Bainbridge, Emerson

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Causton, Richard Knight

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Burns, John

Cawley, Frederick

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

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Clough, Walter Owen

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S W)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Price, Robert John

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H

Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt Hn Sir U

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Crombie, John William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Curran, Thos. B, (Donegal)

Kemp, George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Kitson, Sir James

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lambert, George

Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Langley, Batty

Robertson, Edm. (Dundee)

Davitt, Michael

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Robson, William Snowdon

Denny, Colonel

Leng, Sir John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

Dewar, Arthur

Lewis. John Herbert

Schwann, Charles E.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Dillon, John

Logan, John William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Doogan, P. C.

Lough, Thomas

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lowles, John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Dunn, Sir William

Lubbock. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Edwards, Owen Morgan

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Souttar, Robinson

Ellis, John Edward

Macaleese, Daniel

Spicer, Albert

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Steadman, William Chares

Fenwick, Charles

M'Arthur, William(Cornwall)

Stephens, Henry Charles

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Ghee, Richard

Strachey, Edward

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Kenna, Reginald

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Killop, James

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

M'Leod, John

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Uni.)

Galloway, Wm. Johnson

Maddison, Fred.

Tennant, Harold John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

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

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Monckton, Edward Philip

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Graham, Henry Robert

Montagu, Hn. J. S. (Hants)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Morgan, W P. (Merthyr)

Wallace, Robert

Gull, Sir Cameron

Morrell, George Herbert

Walton, J. Lawson, (Leeds, S.)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Morrison, Walter

Wedderburn, Sir William

Harwood, George

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Weir, James Galloway

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hazell, Walter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Healy, Timothy, M.(N.Louth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Williams, John C. (Notts.)

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Wills, Sir William Henry

Hobhouse, Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Hogan, James Francis

Oldroyd, Mark

Wilson, John (Govan)

Holden, Sir Angus

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hudd'sf'd)

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.)

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Woods, Samuel

Horniman, Frederick John

Paulton, James Mellor

Young, S. (Cavan, East)

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Yoxall, James Henry

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Perks, Robert William

Mr. Faithfull Begg and Mr. Monk.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pickard, Benjamin

NOES.

Aird, John

Beckett, Ernest William

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Biddulph, Michael

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

Arnold, Alfred

Blakiston-Houston, John

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Arrol, Sir William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Charrington, Spencer

Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chelsea, Viscount

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Boulnois, Edmund

Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

Balcarres, Lord

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

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

Baldwin, Alfred

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

Coddington, Sir William

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

Brassey, Albert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W.(Leeds)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Banbury, Frederick George

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Brown, Alexander H.

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Bartley, George C. T.

Butcher, John George

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Carew, James Laurence

Cranborne, Viscount

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Carlile, William Walter

Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

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

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Curzon, Viscount

70

71

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Dickson-Poynder, Sir, John P.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Joicey, Sir James

Quilter Sir Cuthbert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Rasch, Major, Frederic Carne

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Kenyon, James

Reckitt, Harold James

Doughty, George

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Rentoul, James Alexander

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Richardson, Sir T. Hartlep'l)

Doxford, William Theodore

Knowles, Lees

Rickett, J. Compton

Drage, Geoffrey

Labouchere, Henry

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lafone, Alfred

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Robertson, Herbert, (Hackney

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Robinson, Brooke

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J(Manc'r)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Finch, George H.

Leighton, Stanley

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Finlay, Sir Robert B.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn(Swansea

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Long, Col C. W. (Evesham)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lorne, Marquess of

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lowe. Francis William

Seely, Charles Hilton

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Garfit, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Gedge, Sydney

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sidebottom, T Harrop) Stalybr.

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Macdona, John Cumming

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Gibbs, Hon.Vicary(St Albans)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Maclure, Sir John William

Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Malcolm, Ian

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J.(StGeo.'s)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Marks, Henry Hananel

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Green, W. D. (Wednesbnry)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Stock, James Henry

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hon W F

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Gretton, John

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Strauss, Arthur

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Gunter, Colonel

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Tollemache, Henry James

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Milton, Viscount

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Usborne, Thomas

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Valentia, Viscount

Hamilton Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

More, Robt. Jasper, Shropshire)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'ths.)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Mount, William George

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

Hardy, Laurence

Muntz, Philp A.

Warner Thos. Courtenay T.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

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

Helder, Augustus

Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Henderson, Alexander

Murray. Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Myers, William Henry

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Newark, Viscount

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Parkes. Ebenezer

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

Wyndham, George

Howard, Joseph

Pender, sir James

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Howell, William Tudor

Penn, John

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Philphotts, Captain Arthur

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

Hutton, John (Yorks N.R.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided:—Ayes, 243; Noes, 174. (Division List No. 224.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bagot, Capt JoscelineFitzRoy

Banbury, Frederick George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Arnold, Alfred

Baldwin, Alfred

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Arrol, Sir William

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

Bartley, George C. T.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Milton, Viscount

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Garfit, William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Gedge, Sydney

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans)

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

Beckett, Ernest William

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Mount, William George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Muntz, Philip A.

Biddulph, Michael

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

Blakiston-Houston, John

Goschen, Rt Hn G J (StGeorge's)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

Bonsor, H. Cosmo Orme

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Myers, William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Newark, Viscount

Boulnois, Edmund

Gretton, John

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Gunter, Colonel

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Brassey, Albert

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Parkes Ebenezer

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Pender, Sir James

Brown, Alexander H.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Penn, John

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Percy, Earl

Butcher, John George

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Carew, James Laurence

Hardy, Laurence

Pierpoint, Robert

Carlile, William Walton

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pilkington, R. (Lancs,Newton)

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

Helder, Augustus

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Cayzer, Sir C. William

Henderson, Alexander

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm.)

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Rasch, Major F. Carne

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, Joseph

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Chelsea, Viscount

Howell, William Tudor

Rickett, J. Compton

Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth))

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

Coddington, Sir William

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jackson, Rt. Hn. W. Lawies

Robinson, Brooke

Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Ch'lten'm)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cooke,C. W Radcliffe(Heref'd)

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Kenyon, James

Samuel, H. S. (Limehonse)

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cranborne, Viscount

Keswick, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Knowles, Lees

Savory, Sir Joseph

Cross Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

Labouchere, Henry

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Seely, Charles Hilton

Curzon, Viscount

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Seton Karr, Henry

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Lawrence. W. F. (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Digby, John K D. Wingfield-

Leighton, Stanley

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Doughty, George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Lord(Lancs.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Lorne, Marquess of

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

Doxford, William Theodore

Lowe, Francis William

Stock, James Henry

Drage, Geoffrey

Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Strauss, Arthur

Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Elliot, Hon. A. Ra1ph Douglas

Macdona John Cumming

Tollemache, Henry James

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fardell, Sir T. George

Maclure, Sir John William

Fellowes, Hon AilwynEdward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

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

Macolm, Ian

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Manners, Lord EdwardWm.J.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Finch, George H.

Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Marks, Henry Hananel

Warner. Thos. Courtenay T.

Fisher, William Hayes

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

FitzWygram, General S F.

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. Jno. Lloyd

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

74

75

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wyndham, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Allison, Robert Andrew

Graham, Henry Robert

Oldroyd, Mark

Ambrose, Robert

Gull, Sir Cameron

O'Malley, William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Palmer, Sir Charles M(Durham)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Harwood, George

Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Paulton, James Mellor

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Austin, M.

Hazen, Walter

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

Perks, Robert William

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Pickard, Benjamin

Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

Hobhouse, Henry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bethell, Commander

Hogan, James Francis

Pilkington, Sir GA(Lancs S W)

Billson, Alfred

Holden, Sir Angus

Price, Robert John

Birrell, Augustine

Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Blake, Edward

Horniman, Frederick John

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Bousfield, William Robert

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Burns, John

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Robson, William Snowdon

Burt, Thomas

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Schwann, Charles E.

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt Hn Sir U

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kemp, George

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Carvill. P. George Hamilton

Kitson, Sir James

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cawley, Frederick

Langley, Batty

Souttar, Robinson

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

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Steadman, William Charles

Clough, Walter Owen

Leng, Sir John

Stephens, Henry Charles

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Edward

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Lloyd-George, David

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Logan, John William

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Crombie, John William

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Lowles, John

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Un.)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Davitt, Michael

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thornton, Percy M.

Denny, Colonel

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dewar, Arthur

M'Ghee, Richard

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Killop, James

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds S.)

Dillon, John

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Wedderburn, Sir William

Doogan, P. C.

M'Leod, John

Weir, James Galloway

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Maddison, Fred

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Dunn, Sir William

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

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Edwards, Owen Morgan

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ellis. John Edward

Monckton, Edward Philip

Williams, John Carvell(Notts.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Monk, Charles James

Wills, Sir William Henry

Fenwick, Charles

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morrell, George Herbert

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Woods, Samuel

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Yovall, James Henry

Galloway, William Johnson

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Tennant and Mr. Spicer.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Lords' Amendment—
"In page 6, line 25, after 'council' insert:
3. Every borough council shall from time to time appoint a finance committee for regulating and controlling the finance of the council; and no order for payment of any sum, whether on account of capital or income, shall be made by
76
a borough council except in pursuance of a resolution of the council passed on the recommendation of the finance committee; and any costs, debt, or liability exceeding fifty pounds shall not be incurred except upon a resolution of the council passed on an estimate submitted by the finance committee. The notice of the meeting at which any resolution for the pay-

77
ment of any sum by the borough council (otherwise than for ordinary periodical payments) or any resolution for incurring any costs, debt, or liability exceeding fifty pounds will be proposed, shall state the amount of the said slum, costs, debt. or liability, and the purpose for which they are to be paid or incurred. Provided that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to payments made in pursuance of a precept from another authority.'"
the next Amendment, read a second time.
SIR ALBERT BOLLIT: This is an Amendment of a very stringent character, and so far as municipal corporations are concerned it is an entirely novel provision. The clause enables one of the committees—the statutory finance committee—of the councils practically to have the whole control of the financial operations of the new corporations. I venture to think the provisions of the Bill were quite adequate for the purpose of maintaining the proper management of the finances of the corporations. By Clause 13 an audit is to take place, and if there has been any improper expenditure a surcharge can be made, and the responsibility falls upon the individuals who concurred in making the payments. The Lords by a small majority, and against the Government, carried the addition of this clause, which lessens the comparatively small freedom which is given to these new corporations. The proposal is objectionable from a business point of view, as the delay and inconvenience caused by the provision will be great, and to carry through some proposals may involve very considerable time. I know of no similar provision in the Municipal Corporations Act, which has been generally cited as based upon long experience and as the best mode of indicating how the new councils should conduct their business. In that Act the greatest freedom is given to the corporation to appoint any committees it thinks fit for any purposes which, in the opinion of the council, will be better conducted by means of a committee than by the whole council. That is the businesslike way of dealing with the matter, as local views and local circumstances differ. I quite admit that as the councils will be composed of business men they probably will, as the municipal corporations do, appoint a finance committee, but they will do it much better by having regard to their own particular circumstances than by having a stereotyped statutory
78
limitation imposed upon them, which they may feel from experience to be inconvenient, but which cannot possibly be avoided without an amending statute. The best way to form these councils is to trust them as business-like bodies to conduct their business in a proper way, and if they find it necessary to have financial control we may depend upon it that that financial control will be found. In my own constituency the greatest difficulty is apprehended from this restrictive system, and the feeling of the vestries is very strongly opposed to the proposal. It may be said that this provision has been made in the case of county councils, but the closer analogy by far is the borough councils of which the new corporation is to form a unit. There is a great distinction between the county councils and the borough councils in this matter. The former have very lunch larger areas of administration, their proceedings are comparatively slower, and they have time for going through all these formalities and conforming to the provisions of the Act of 1888. But in boroughs generally, and in London especially, these are matters which have to be very frequently conducted with some speed. It is very difficult to get the three member together to sign the cheques; they may be distributed throughout London during the day. I think, under the circumstances I have set forth, this is not an Amendment which this House ought to sanction, and I hope it will not be agreed to.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that this Amendment is of very great importance, but on the whole I should advise the House to accept the Amendment of the Lords. It is quite true that these boroughs are intended to follow the general lines of the municipal corporations, and it is also true that in the Municipal Corporation Act there is no statutory obligation to form committees for carrying out the financial operations of the council, but as a matter of fact all those boroughs which have financial matters to deal with do appoint these committees, and in all our recent legislation such committees have been made obligatory. Not merely in the rural county councils, but in the London County Council there must be a separate committee to deal with financial matters, and no inconvenience has been found to follow

79
such a proceeding. We have therefore to guide us the experience of the twelve years which have elapsed since the establishment of county councils, and that would be enough to show conclusively whether or not there was any practical inconvenience attaching to the scheme which has been thought by Parliament to be advisable as a check upon wasteful expenditure or vast financial undertakings. That being so, I think it would be desirable to accept this Amendment of the Lords. We may do so without having any fear as to the inconvenience to the vestries which it is anticipated will ensue. I took some trouble to inquire upon that point among the local authorities existing in London, and it was only to-day I received one suggestion in the direction indicated by my right hon. friend. All the other vestries were clear that the provision at the worst would be inoperative, while most of them anticipated that some advantage would follow from it.
MR. STUART: I merely wish to corroborate the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this system has worked exceedingly well on the London County Council. There is no doubt it acts as a salutary check, and the result has been that in all the Debates in this House there has never any fault been found with the finance of the London County Council. It has been of immense advantage to the London County Council to have such a check, and I cannot recall anything but advantage which has resulted to that body from this system.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page after Clause 8, insert Clause A—
'(A.)—(1) All payment to and by the borough council shall be made to and by the borough treasurer, and all payments by the council shall, unless made in pursuance of the specific requirement of an Act of Parliament or of an order of a competent court, be made in pursuance of an order of the council signed by three members of the finance committee present at the meeting of the council, and countersigned by the town clerk, and the same order may include several payments. Moreover, all cheques for payment of moneys issued in pursuance of any such order, shall be countersigned by the town clerk, or by a deputy approved by the council.
'(2) Any such order may be removed into the High Court of Justice by writ of certiorari, and may be wholly or partially disallowed or
80
confirmed on motion and hearing with or without costs, according to the judgment and discretion of the court,'"
the next Amendment, read a second time.
MR. LOUGH: I am rather inclined to agree with the argument used by the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to the Amendment just decided, but I think in this case the principle is carried a little too far. There are further conditions to the payment of money by these bodies. Some of those provisions are of a very salutary character, but at the end of the clause are these words: "Moreover, all cheques for payment of moneys issued in pursuance of any such order shall be countersigned by the town clerk." The Amendment I move is to leave out the word "counter," and simply say they should be signed by the town clerk. Every necessity of good finance is secured in the early part of the clause, and it is also provided that the town clerk should sign every order. The bank cannot pay these orders unless it has already received instructions signed by three members of the committee, and my suggestion is that it would be sufficient then if the cheque was signed by the town clerk, and not countersigned. Think what will be involved. There are 500 cheques to be signed every fortnight in the Islington Vestry, some for very small amounts. If these four names have to be attached, 2,000 signatures will have to he made, and no good end will be secured, because the bank will have already got a list signed by three members of the committee, and will have no power to pay anything not on that list. The clause, as it stands, will involve a great deal of financial difficulty, red tape, and unnecessary restriction, and therefore I move this Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"In line 9, to leave out the word 'countersigned,' and insert the word 'signed,'—(Mr. Lough)-instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the word 'countersigned' stand part of the Lords, Amendment."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): I hope the House will not accept the proposal to

81
omit the word "counter." Under the Local Government Act all such cheques have to be countersigned by the clerk of the council or his deputy, and I think it is only right that after a cheque has been signed in the usual way it should be further verified by the signature of the town clerk being affixed to it.
MR. LOUGH: In view of that expression of opinion I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Other Lords' Amendments agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 10, line 37, to leave out from 'that' to end of the sub-section, and insert:
'(a) If the Commissioners under this Act make a special Report to Parliament that by reason of anything done under any of the adoptive Acts, or for any other exceptional reason, it is impracticable to deal with a detached part of a parish in manner required by the foregoing provisions of this section, those provisions shall not apply; and further provided that:
'(b) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the hamlet of Knightsbridge,'"
the next Lords' Amendment, read a second time.
MR. BOUSFIELD: I do not think it was the intention of the Lords in introducing this Amendment to make any change in sub-Section 2; but as it refers to "the foregoing provisions" that sub-section would be affected. I would suggest that some words should be inserted to make that clear.
SIR R. B. FINLAY: No words are needed at all, as it is only in the case of a parish in London which is wholly detached that the provision is operative. The second sub-section deals with another matter.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, with a consequential Amendment to the Bill.

MILITARY WORKS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I was speaking the other night when the discussion came to a close of the practice which had grown up and increased so much of late of discharging a large part of the financial liabilities for Army purposes not out of voted money but out of borrowed money. Since the present Government came into office they have spent out of borrowed money, mainly for naval and military purposes, no less than ten and a quarter millions. They have still an unexhausted amount of borrowing power under the Military Works Act to the extent of something like £4,000,000, and now there are the present proposals for £4,000,000 more. Let us look at the history of this Bill. It was promised in the statement of the Secretary of State for War in February last, when it was described as an integral part of the military programme of the year, and we were assured the Bill would be very shortly issued. In March, when the Estimates came before the House, we were again told that the Bill would very shortly be brought forward, and it was stated in general tennis what were the purposes for which the money was to be borrowed. It appears to me that as this Barracks Loan Bill was "an integral part" of the military proposals of the year, it ought to have been introduced at the same time as the Military Estimates, so that we might have had the whole military programme of the Government before us. Everyone will acknowledge that when this Bill was introduced the Under Secretary of State for War made what was practically a Military Estimates speech. Such a course is entirely contrary to the constitutional practice of this House. We ought to have one statement it of our military expenditure and military necessities for the year, and it should be made at the beginning of the year, so that we should know the whole of our liabilities. Not only is this proposal an integral part of the military programme, but it is, or ought to be, an integral part of the

  83
  financial programme of the year, and yet from beginning to end of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech this proposal to borrow money was not even mentioned. In the course of the Debate on the Army Estimates the Under Secretary of State for War said he could not give any further particulars as to the purposes for which this money would be required, but that the amount would be more than £5,000,000. How are we to account for that statement when this Bill only asks for power to borrow £4,000,000? We have had two schedules laid in our hands. Schedule B has really nothing directly to do with the works which are to be completed out of the £4,000,000 here asked for, but the total amount in that schedule is £6,900,000. I ventured to say the other night that the Government were endeavouring to commit their successors to the carrying out of a policy which they themselves hesitated to lay in full before this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer demurred to that statement, but it certainly comes to this, that if their successors do not carry out all the works they will be blamed, but the reply will at once be, "Why did you not ask for the money? "The form of a Bill of this sort is a very important matter. This Bill consists of one single clause, which incorporates two sections of the Military Works Act, 1897. We are told there will be an honourable understanding that a statement of estimated expenditure from year to year should be laid before the House, but why should it not be put in the statute itself, as is done in the Naval Works Act? There is an honourable understanding existing already as regards the Military Works Act, 1897, and although such a statement was promised as long ago as last March we have not yet received it. On the other hand, the statement enjoined by statute under the Naval Works Act was presented and laid on the Table of the House at the time the Naval Estimates were introduced. The most important defect in the form of the Bill is that there is no detailed schedule of the works to be constructed out of this money. We are told that the precedent of the Military Works Bill of 1897 is being followed, and that upon that occasion no complaint was made of the absence of detailed schedules. But the hon. Member's memory must have failed him, because an Amendment was moved on the Second Reading,
  84
  and largely supported, demurring to voting the money until we had fuller details as to the works upon which the money was to be expended. It is not merely a matter of form, but there are practical inconveniences caused by the absence of detailed schedules. For instance, when the noble Lord the Member for York stated he intended to bring up the specific subject of the money spent on Wei-hai-wei, it was pointed out that owing to the absence of a detailed schedule attached to the Bill, the point could only be raised on an Amendment directed against the total sum of £4,000,000. That is a very awkward method of raising such an important question of public and military policy as the occupation of Wei-hai-wei. But there are other objections. The House will notice the very general and ambiguous terms in which the official schedule to the Bill is couched. It is copied from the schedule to the Military Works Act, 1897. In that schedule one head is "Ranges, including accommodation for manœuvring and mobilisation." I do not think anyone will imagine that under that general head could have been included the purchase of all those properties at Salisbury Plain, amounting to a sum of £350,000. The possibility of the Government being able to hide from the sight of the House a purchase of such magnitude under such a term as "Ranges, &c.," is really an abuse of the forms of the House, and deprives the House of Commons of a legitimate opportunity of criticising large and questionable expenditure of money. Upon the question of ambiguity, let us see the effect of such general terms upon the financial control of the House over the expenditure of public money. One of the sub-sections of the Act of 1897, which is included in this Bill, is that by which any diversion of money from one head of the schedule to another can only be carried out with the consent of the Treasury. As the Bill is drawn, that power on the part of the Treasury will only apply to the schedule attached to the Bill, comprising the four large heads, so that it will be possible for the War Office. under the item, say, of £2,750,000 for barracks, to divert money, without the consent of the Treasury, from expenditure at Aldershot to Gibraltar, or from Malta to the Curragh, or from a large work to a small work, or from any one work to another. That is a power which

  85
  ought not to be entrusted to any public Department, and the Bill, if for no other reason than that, ought to be furnished with a complete detailed schedule. I cannot see what fair and legitimate argument can be brought forward in support of presenting a Bill of this character without such a schedule. It is given every year with the Naval Works Act, and we hear no complaints as to the Admiralty being hampered in the expenditure of the money. It is a legitimate and necessary control which this House and the country ought to exercise over large spending Departments like the Admiralty and the War Office, that they should not be able to divert expenditure for a specified purpose to one which was not contemplated or sanctioned. I hope still that the Government may see their way in Committee to insert in the Bill the substance of this White Paper with the details of the expenditure.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My hon. friend has called attention to die financial character of this Bill. I think everybody who has looked into the matter will admit that there is something extremely formidable in the rapid growth of the public expenditure of this country. Year after year large sums have been added to the annual expenditure of the country, until it has reached the enormous figure at which it now stands. But there is something even more formidable than the increase in the expenditure, and that is the laxity of the practice of the Administration as regards the financial measures which have brought about this expenditure. There was nothing more valuable to the country than the careful watch which what I may call our fathers bestowed upon public expenditure. If expenditure were really needed, the House of Commons was always ready to vote it; but ever since the days of Mr. Hume there have been fixed Parliamentary rules for the control of public expenditure, which have been of inestimable value to the finances of this country. Now, these rules controlling public expenditure are broken every day, and I regard that laxity of control as one of the greatest financial dangers that can befall the country. I protested most strongly against the system introduced by the Naval Defence Act of the penultimate Administration. I had knowledge and experience of the mischief
  86
  it produced on the public accounts. Therefore, when the last Liberal Government were in office, and when we introduced a Naval Works Bill, the first thing we laid down was that the work to be done should be specified, and what is more important still, that it should be annually brought before Parliament, so that Parliament should have control over those works and be able to call the spending departments to account. We established in that way the financial principles of the country. I think our action was not disadvantageous to the Navy, because we had most useful Debates in this House. But what do we see now? The Government takes hold of four, five, or ten millions, and scatters them about utterly regardless of the old checks on public expenditure which formerly existed. That, I say, is an extremely dangerous and mischievous course of procedure. My hon. friend who spoke last has pointed out that it has always been the rule in this House that in the early part of the year, before the introduction of the Budget, the House should be placed in possession id the intentions of the Government with regard to the finances of the country. But instead of that, the Estimates introduced before the end of the financial year bear no relation whatever to the expenditure of the Government, or even to the intentions of the Government. We see year after year Supplementary Estimates of a magnitude that were never known before—not generally arising out of unforeseen incidents, but part of the financial schemes of the Government, which they had in view, or ought to have had in view, before the finance of the year was settled. But the greatest outrage against our system of financial checks is committed by this very Bill. In the Budget we had a scheme for diminishing by two millions the minimal provision for the reduction of the Debt; and that was laid before us without our having the means of knowing that this Bill was to be introduced for increasing our indebtedness by four millions. Was there ever such an example of burning the candle at both ends? I say that when the proposal to diminish the annual provision for the reduction of the Debt was laid before the House we ought to have been told of the present proposal to increase the Debt. This is most lax and dangerous finance. The House of Commons ought to have been in a position to discuss on the pro-

  87
  posal to diminish the provision for the Debt by two millions the figures and objects of the measure now before us. Apart from the merits of the proposal before us I venture to add my protest to that of my hon. friend against this most dangerous laxity in the financial policy of the Government, a laxity which is increasing year by year. I cannot understand why in the Military Works Bill we cannot follow the principle which I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer approved of with regard to the Naval Works Bill. There is not to be an annual Bill because the Government are not spending the money in one year. You are following in that respect the Government of Lord Palmerston with reference to fortifications thirty or forty years ago. I think it is a sound rule that the House of Commons should be able to examine and criticise the proposals in this Bill. I say that this Bill has not been placed before the House of Commons in the shape and in the manner and with the securities which the House has always demanded in the case of financial proposals, and which are absolutely necessary in order that the House may exercise control over the expenditure of the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): Unfortunately I was not in my place when the right hon. Gentleman rose, as I had no idea that this question, affecting such large matters, would be raised. But I gather that the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is this—that at the time I introduced the Budget, which contained a provision for diminishing the amount annually applied to the reduction of the permanent Debt of the country, the House was not in possession of the other proposals which Her Majesty's Government intended to make this year by which the temporary Debt would be increased. But a circumstance occurred long before the date of the Budget which, I consider, exonerates the Government from any blame whatever in this matter. That was the circulation of the Memorandum of the Secretary for War upon the Army Estimates, before the introduction of these Estimates, in which it was stated that a scheme was being prepared for the provision of new barracks for the additional troops about to be raised, for the improvement of the existing barrack accommodation, and for other military works, and that the money
  88
  for the purpose would be obtained by loan repayable by terminable annuities rather than by estimate.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There was no statement of amount.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Yes. When introducing the Army Estimates my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War, answering a question interjected in the course of his speech, stated that the sum for the works would probably amount to five millions. I think, therefore, that the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman that the House had no information about this Bill until after the introduction of the Budget is a little absurd.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is not a question of information; it is a question of control.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: What the right hon. Gentleman complained of was the absence of information. If he had noticed the note in the Memorandum he might have taken advantage of it to call attention to the point which he has now formulated—namely, that while we are reducing the sum to pay off the permanent Debt we are adding to the temporary Debt, raised by terminable annuities, by the amount required for the purposes of this Bill. I understand that is the complaint, and I venture to maintain that so far as possible without the actual introduction of the Bill the House of Commons and the country were informed in detail long before the introduction of the Budget what was to be done. Further complaint is made that the Bill is not in accordance with the Naval Works Act, and no doubt that is true; but it is also true that in 1897, when the last Military Works Act was introduced, we adopted a different form for the very good reason that we were dealing with matters the cost and progress of which is much more easily anticipated than that of many of the works included in the Naval Works Act; you are much more confident of the extent of work and the amount required for construction of buildings of this kind than if you are dealing with docks or works under water. But that was not all. The Naval Works Act of 1895, which, if I remember rightly, was introduced by the late Government and not

  89
  passed until long after the Budget, was framed in a manner which may have been simple enough at the time, but which, I am afraid, in later Bills of the same sort has become extremely complicated by the number of accounts and columns showing amounts and totals of estimated expenditure on various works and of actual expenditure in each year, and in former years. Such a formidable array of figures is presented as makes it extremely difficult for anyone not acquainted with the minutiæ of the system to ascertain what it all means. This, at all events, is a simple, intelligible form. So many millions are to be expended, and it is stated in the schedule laid on the table of the House, and by which the Government are as much bound as if it were in the Bill, what works will be undertaken. I can assure the House that the schedule in 1897 was found in practice quite as binding upon the Government as if it had been in the Act. We examined matters before introducing this Bill. We found we had ample means authorised by the Act of 1897, not only for continuing the works already sanctioned by Parliament, but also for initiating works proposed in the Bill now before the House; but when we came to consider the matter we felt it would not be right to divert any of the money Parliament had voted on the strength of the schedule we had laid on the Table, specifying certain works, to new works altogether. Therefore I think the House will see that the form of the Bill binds the Government in the matter of expenditure quite as much as if the schedule were in the Bill, as in the Naval Works Acts. I was not aware the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise these questions, but I think I have answered his principal points.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth has reiterated a complaint as to the omission of the schedule from this Bill. The defence of the Government, as stated by the Under Secretary for War, appears to be that in practice the House has as much information and control under the system they propose as under the system of the Naval Works Act. So far as information is concerned, we have only to compare the printed paper circulated by the Government with the Bill and the schedule to the Naval Works Act of 1897. There is
  90
  the greatest possible difference between the two. This schedule gives no information at all as to defences, but the Bill simply takes power to spend a million on defensive works. As to barracks, certain details are specified, but nothing like the amount of information is given with reference to past expenditure, the total estimated expenditure, the estimated expenditure for next year, and other particulars which were given in the Naval Works Act Schedule, and which enabled the House to follow the proceedings of the Government from year to year in the carrying out of great works. It seemed to me most valuable that we had this schedule in the Naval Works Act, because it enabled us and the Auditor-General to test the progress of the Government with regard to works which they were authorised and directed to carry out. Part of the defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it contained too much information.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I did not say it contained too much information, but I did say that the number of columns complicated the matter so much that it was almost unintelligible.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It could not be unintelligible if you had in the Bill of 1897 the same arrangement as was in the Act of 1895. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may call it complication to give detailed information year after year, but I call it enlightenment.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): As these are all new services we have no information with regard to last year, but next year I hope to give the kind of information to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will the hon. Gentleman do what was done in the Naval Works Act of 1895? If he does, then the criticism of my right hon. friend on that point will be met. Now I come to the question of control. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of what was said on the question of Parliamentary control by the Under Secretary for War. The Under Secretary startled me by the boldness of his assertion as to the amount of Parliamentary control given under this scheme.

  91
  He said we could have as much control under the schedule as if it were part of the Act. Just consider the position. Here is a Bill and here is a schedule, and our demand is that the schedule should be made part of the Bill, and we make that demand on the specific ground that it will enable the House in Committee to have control over every item of the proposed expenditure, and that we may be in a position to reject one item, to reduce another, or to add an item not originally proposed by the Government. All that we could do if the schedule were part of the Bill. Can we do it as the Bill stands? I understood the Under Secretary to state that any hon. Gentleman could move to strike out the item for Wei-hai-wei altogether by moving a reduction of the total sum by the amount put down for it. Suppose I do that. The question on which I am beaten is that £4,000,000 stand part of the clause. Someone else comes along who has no objection to Wei-hai-wei, but wants to raise another question. Suppose, for instance, the hon. Member for King's Lynn wants to raise a question about Halifax. Can he raise it? The £4,000,000 stands part of the Bill, and how is a reduction with regard to Halifax to be moved? That shows that under this Bill we have not the same control as we had in the Naval Works Bill. It is the same with the schedule. I can only move the reduction of the items mentioned in it. I move to reduce the Barracks Vote by a certain sum and I am beaten, and the original sum stands, and accordingly every Member of the House is precluded from discussing any other item, because I have been beaten. Is it not absurd to say, therefore, that the House has the same control over the details of this proposed expenditure as it would have if this schedule were part of the Bill? The House would then have complete control over each particular item. I welcome the expectation held out by the hon. Gentleman as to the change in the form of the schedule in future years. I would press him to go a little further, and to accede to the motion that will be made to put the schedule in the Bill, so that the House will have complete control over every item of expenditure.
  COL. BLUNDELL: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has spoken in favour of permanent works at
  92
  the mouth of rivers like the Clyde and the Mersey. In Lord Nelson's memorandum on the defence of the Thames he said:
  "Stationary floating batteries are not from any apparent advantage to be moved, for the tide may prevent their resuming the very important stations assigned them."
  And Captain Mahan remarks:
  "Nelson was evidently alive to the advantage of permanent works which puts it out of the power of panic to stampede them."
  I touch upon that because a very great question bears upon it; that is, you cannot rely upon ships that are stationed at the mouth of rivers being where they are wanted at the right time. Many influential Members of the House, notably the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth and the noble Lord the Member for York, think that this country can rely on its navy alone for its defence. I wish to traverse that statement in the strongest possible manner. I ask anyone who differs from that view to read the history of this country. We were first invaded by William the Conqueror, and at that time the ships did nothing. We were invaded by the Prince of Orange. At that time our fleet was at Harwich, but the Prince of Orange, with four or five hundred ships, passed the Straits of Dover, and he landed at Torbay with 14,000 men. Our fleet did nothing whatever. I know I may be met by the statement that now we have telegraphs and steam, and these things could not occur again. But we all remember that Nelson was decoyed half round the world, and the people of England were glad to see him home again. I strongly urge that this country cannot solely rely on the Navy for its defence. We must have a military force able to meet the enemy when he arrives. I believe our Navy was never in a better condition than at the present time. It is an admirable force, but you cannot rely that it will not be decoyed away at the critical moment just when wanted.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: There are one or two matters connected with this Bill to which I think the Under Secretary of State for War might have given a little attention. I was not fortunate enough to hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman in introducing the measure, but there are a cer-

  93
  tain number of points as to which the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, furnish us with some information. In the first place, a proposition has been made both outside and inside the House for the provision of cubicles in the soldiers' sleeping rooms in the barracks. As far as I have been able to gauge the situation, I take it that the provision of a sufficient number of recruits of a better class is a matter that is engaging the attention of thinking people. It is pretty manifest that we want to lose no chance of tapping any source of supply of recruits, when rival countries are spreading their nets as wide as they can in order to get as many recruits as they possibly can for the service. It seems to me that there is one source of supply which has been somewhat lost sight of, and which it would be worth the while of the authorities to devote particular attention to. I refer to the better educated and more refined class of men who hitherto have not, in a very large degree, entered the ranks in this country. Nothing would be a greater inducement for this class to join the Army than the knowledge that they would have, in their own personal life, as much privacy and decency and similarity to civil life as can possibly be allowed. If this application were to be made for the Army alone, I should, of course, be exposed to the charge of seeking to provide a luxury. But what do I see? I see that in all I, other walks of life this very provision is being made. In the police barracks there are now in some cases private cubicles, and in the great lodging houses which are now being erected in London, the experiment of introducing the cubicle is being largely tried, and I believe, as far as experience can speak, it has been found to be very largely successful. I want, therefore, to suggest to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that it would be a pity to put on one side this idea because certain soldiers do not think the cubicle is necessary. I cannot foresee anything that would be of greater advantage to the Army than to attract into its ranks that large floating population of good fighting material who are not absolutely driven into the Army by sheer necessity, but would he attracted to it by ambition and a real desire to see a little fighting in foreign service. These are the men to whom I think this arrangement would be a considerable advantage. They are men accustomed to a certain amount
  94
  of decency and privacy, and they would set a certain value upon this provision which cannot possibly be found when the beds are arranged in one large room. Might it not be possible to take some tentative steps in this direction, and to equip some portion of the new barracks which are to be built, or some portion of the old barracks which are to be repaired, with sonic arrangement for cubicles? Might it not also be possible to arrange that the possession of these cubicles should be a certain reward for good behaviour in the barrack room? I do not myself attach much value to the arguments urged against it. I have been told that it would be less possible to maintain order and discipline in the barrack room if there were cubicles than if there were not. To that argument I attach no value whatever. I believe order and discipline would be just as well maintained in the barrack room under the system of cubicles as under the open system now in vogue. I have been told that the sanitary arrangements, ventilation, etc., would suffer from the cubicle system. I do not think that that objection could hold water if the matter were thoroughly investigated. Stress has been laid upon these points by many who have more authority to speak on this subject than I have, and articles have been written and evidence of all sorts produced. For instance, I notice, in a valuable article recently in the Nineteenth Century, a writer of great authority says that the great want of the private soldier is some privacy, however restricted that may be. We cannot afford in these days to treat our soldiers as if they were different from their brothers outside the ranks If there is the longing for a little privacy in other walks of life, the same holds good in the army as well. I should be the last person to advocate the introduction of cubicles if it could be shown that it was likely to break down discipline in any degree, or to interfere with the authority of the non-commissioned officers. I am inclined to think, however, that there would be no infringement of authority, and that there would be no other result than the provision of an increased attraction to a better class of men to join the Army. I would therefore urge upon my hon. friend and those who are associated with him to give this matter his serious and, if possible, favourable consideration. Another point that I desire to draw attention to is the provision

  95
  of rooms for the special use of the members of the Army Temperance Association. Facts and figures in relation to this matter are very significant. In India, where our Army may, perhaps, be said to exist under circumstances in which its health and condition and discipline are even more vitally important than at home, out of 78,000 men, 24,000, or about a third of the Indian Army, are members of the Army Temperance Association. We are therefore obliged to be practical in dealing with this question. We cannot afford to be run away with by sentiment, however attractive that sentiment may be. But what seem to be the hard facts in connection with the work of this Association? Yon may judge it, if you like, by courts martial——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not see the connection between the Army Works Bill and the temperance question.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: The Military Works Bill has to do with the provision of barracks, and my point leads me to the provision of Army temperance rooms as part of the new barracks proposed by the Bill. This temperance association depends for its vitality and usefulness on the provision of these rooms, and if it cannot have these rooms the association will languish and decay. If, on the other hand, we have these rooms, the association will flourish and be full of vigour. It is an advantage to the Army that this temperance association should exist, and if that is the case, is it not worth the while of the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to consider the advisability of attaching these rooms to the new barracks which, under this Bill, he proposes to erect? If these rooms produce the result which the figures seem to show, I think it is obvious that the moment the money is to be spent on the creation of the new barracks is the time that that provision should be taken into consideration. I hope, also, if the hon. Gentleman takes the same view as others do of the great advantages resulting from the Army Temperance Association, he will possibly see his way to deal with it more generously in the form of finance than it has been dealt with hitherto. The only other point to which I wish to draw attention is the need of proper hospital accommodation for the garrison in London. I think it
  96
  has been brought within the personal knowledge of my hon. friend—at all events it was within his power to acquire the information very easily—that the military hospital in London is hardly sufficient for the needs of the London garrison, and it too often happens that cases have to be hurried away before they are really in a proper condition to leave the hospital. Those are the three points I wish to emphasise, and I hope in due time the hon. Gentleman will give them his consideration.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: It is from no want of sympathy that I disagree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; but I rise for the specific purpose of moving an Amendment. I move it, not out of any hostility to all the Expenditure Bill, but because I believe there is a serious danger of reaction against wise, deliberate and judicious expenditure of public money unless there is that consideration given to these matters which they undoubtedly deserve. I do not believe that there can be that control over these matters which there should he unless this House insists upon full details being laid before it. The Amendment which I propose to move would have the effect of incorporating in the Bill the full details which are given in the Schedule which has been made out since the Bill was introduced, and therefore giving to the Schedule the effect of a legal enactment. The rule adopted of raising this money by a loan is a considerable improvement upon the old procedure of Votes of Credit under which large sums were received and expended without proper control being exercised. It has always been considered, since the system of loans was adopted, that for permanent works it is the legitimate method of raising money, but hitherto there have been two characteristics of this system. No one can deny but what there has been considerable extravagance, and that unnecessary outlays have been the result of this system of loans; and no one can doubt but what these things have been carefully limited for some time by the schedules attached to the Bills. In 1886–7 or 1887–8 the preparedness of the country according to the standard then held was so efficient that the then First Lord of the Admiralty, now the Secretary of State for India, was able to come to

  97
  the House with a reduced expenditure. We are now enjoying a period of un-exampled prosperity, and there is no doubt the naval and military expenditure will not be much felt; but in the lean years which must follow these fat years we shall see that a large expenditure has been incurred, which we shall then have to pay, and there will be a violent reaction, which was the chief evil at the time that this expenditure was provided for by Votes of Credit. Everyone knows, who is conversant with naval and military expenditure, that in no branch has there been more useless expenditure than the outlay on buildings and barracks. It must be remembered that we are at present in an uncertain position. The paper addition of men to the Army is 25,000, the real addition has not been one-fourth of that number, and without some radical change in the system of recruiting, it is doubtful whether we shall be able to complete the establishment at the number at which the Government has fixed it. Every effort has been made by the recruiting authorities to meet the excessive call that has been made upon it to raise troops, and the efforts have not been successful, and when you are in a difficulty of that kind, and are not sure of your ground, it is unwise to erect these great buildings and large camps all over the country. Then look abroad. The colonies, like ourselves, are realising their responsibility for their own defence, and we shall have a greater claim to call upon them to take their share in Imperial defence as time goes on; and that being so, why should we embark in this expenditure? We look forward to the time when the garrisons of South Africa will be much smaller than they are at present. At the present time in that country we have an abnormal number of troops. Can there be anything more calculated to check and repress the feeling of responsibility on the part of the colonies than to make useless provision for large permanent garrisons in such a country? My objections to the Bill are that in the first place it does too much, because if the second part of the schedule does anything, it lays the responsibility upon the Government whether they like it or not. It has been laid down over and over again that any money proposals which the Government bring forward should be complete in every detail, and that principle has been directly
  98
  infringed in the present Bill. A complete scheme is not dealt with by the Bill, and it puts upon the Government a responsibility which they have not been; able to consider. Therefore the Bill does too much in one direction, and it does too little in another, and that is shown when you compare tins schedule with the Act of 1862, the Fortifications Act as it was called. In that case the Bill would have been lost if the schedule had not been included, and if that schedule is looked at it will be found to be complete in every detail and that it is actually attached to the Bill, so that it has the force of an enactment. It gives details which the Government is not willing to give us. The Under Secretary divided the expenditure into two parts, home expenditure——
  MR. WYNDHAM: The distinction we have drawn is that we give details as to barracks, but not as to defence.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Let us take home defence first. Home defence is not less important than the defence of our colonies, and I think the Government are drawing an unjustifiable distinction between the two. Take Wei-hai-wei the Army Estimates. Every man is provided for: the surveyors, the dredgers, and the Chinese soldiers of the Queen are given in the Estimates in a most minute form, and such information is now withheld. Such a procedure will have the inevitable drawback of the loss of control over these advances. I notice in Schedule A of this Bill £55,000 for barracks at Colchester, and in the Estimates another item of £165,000 for the same purpose. Upon what principle is the Government acting? It cannot but be productive of evil. Ministers on the Treasury Bench apparently wish to exert full control and to prevent expenditure rightly put into the Estimates being transferred to loans. But the only means by which these things can he effectively controlled is by this House, and there will be a serious loss of control if the practice I suggest is riot followed. I urge the Government to be a little more frank to the House. There is another consideration. There are large sums to be expended by the Government under former loans. There is £155,000 under the barracks loan after allowing for the expenditure of this year, and I question whether the Government will be able to

  99
  expend that sum in the time. I think the House will agree that the information as to this expenditure ought to be embodied in the Bill itself, and that being so I beg to he allowed to move: "That this House declines to allow this Vote, unless full details are given as to the expenditure."
  MR. WEIR: I rise to second the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfar. I really think the Under Secretary should be prepared to furnish this information. We are told that the amounts expended will be in the Votes next year, but we want to consider the proposed expenditure before the money is spent and not after it has disappeared. I have not had an opportunity of going over the barracks in England to ascertain whether the same practice prevails as at Fort George, but I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give his serious attention to the state of the barracks to which I have alluded. It is very remarkable that hon. Members have to go through such a large number of documents and accounts in order to see how much money is to be spent upon any one particular barrack. The system in regard to Scotland is very bad indeed in this respect. In England we have £4,250,000 expended on barracks and other works; in Ireland the total is £750,000, but in Scotland it is only £65,000. Now I do not think that this is quite fair to Scotland, for we have to find our quota of soldiers and sailors, and we possess the finest Naval Reserve station in the kingdom. Yet we cannot get from the War Office a sufficient sum of money to provide decent accommodation at Dingwall for the staff of one of our finest Highland regiments.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the question under consideration.
  MR. WEIR: I hope the hon. Member will go to a division against this system of conducting business at the War Office, which is not upon a sound principle. If he does I for one will go into the Lobby with him. We shall be beaten by the battalions behind the hon. Member opposite, but we shall at least have the satisfaction of recording our protest against this secret system of conducting business at the War Office.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House declines to proceed further with a Bill authorising the expenditure of public money upon military works unless full details of the purposes for which this outlay is to be made are contained therein.'"—(Captain Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. COLOMB: I think when it is remembered that this is the last Bill of a whole series for military loans it is somewhat surprising that there does not appear to be any very great attention being given to the matter by the majority of the Members of this House. Looking at the improved condition of the working classes, and looking to all the circumstances of the time, if you are going to keep an efficient army at all I think you will have to pay a much higher rate to your soldiers than you are paying now. Therefore, you must of necessity face the certainty of a very large increase of the soldiers' pay, and that means a large increase in the annual Estimates. It is, therefore, more than ever necessary to consider this question seriously, and we are bound to examine and carefully scrutinise any proposals connected with military expenditure. Now, this Bill is for £4,000,000, and £3,000,000 of that total will go for barracks, and £1,000,000 for what is called defence works. As the latter question involves so many considerations I do not wish to say much about barracks, but I do feel that, in view of what has been said about the expenditure of public money and the extra cost we shall have to bear for extra pay for soldiers, it is my duty to call attention to the barrack policy as a whole. We all agree that it is necessary to do everything that is reasonable and possible for the comfort and convenience of soldiers living in barracks both at home and abroad. The proposal in this Bill is only another step in the barrack policy which was commenced in 1872, for in that year there was a loan of £3,500,000 for the construction of barracks, and it took over twenty-four years to carry that policy out, for the Auditor-General in 1896 reported that the work was not completed. In 1888 the House, through a Parliamentary

  101
  Committee upstairs, called the Randolph Churchill Committee, had practical evidence from the Inspector-General of Fortifications as to barracks. On the 8th of June, 1888, this is what he said:
  "I should like the House of Commons to know that the probability is that to place the whole of the barrack establishments throughout the Empire upon a proper footing, and to make everything thoroughly efficient, would cost between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. That is my opinion."
  That was in 1888, and there you have a specific statement from the Inspector-General of Fortifications. Since then we have spent £10,439,000 on barracks, or more than double the amount which the Royal Engineer, who in this matter was the spokesman of the War Office, said in 1888 we should have to incur. Now the Bill tells us that £3,000,000 is wanted immediately, and the schedule of the resolution tells us that £2,594,000 must follow at once. If we leave out the £1,600,000 which is to be expended for Salisbury Plain, and is, therefore, a new item, which it is not fair to bring into this calculation, we find that £11,384,000 is the amount required to do what the Royal Engineers told us eleven years ago would probably cost between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. Therefore, when the scheme contemplated by the schedule of this Bill is complete, you will have spent on barracks, between 1872 and the completion of the scheme, £16,533,000. What does that mean? You may take the equivalent of barrack expenditure at £100 per man, and that means that between 1872 and the completion of this scheme you will have built barracks representing accommodation for 165,330 men. Hon. Members know that we have not done this. Looking at this barrack policy in connection with what I have said, I think that anybody who studies the subject must be convinced of two things—that the War Office has had no continuous policy as to the distribution of troops, and by constantly changing its policy it has created the necessity for erecting barracks on different sites; and the other thing is that this proves clearly the false system of the War Office in putting into the hands of the Royal Engineers these gigantic building works, because the Royal Engineers are for sapping and mining, going up in balloons, laying telegraphs on land, and putting explosives under water; therefore I
  102
  am not surprised that you have this enormous bill and so very little to show for it. Passing from this point the real novelty exhibited by the schedule is not the expenditure for Salisbury Plain, which I think everyone will approve of, but the expenditure of £130,000 for permanent barracks at Wei-hai-wei. As far as tins Bill is concerned this is all we know of the amount of money going to be spent at Wei-hai-wei. I should like to know, however, how much of the blank cheque of £1,000,000 for defence works is going to be spent at Wei-hai-wei, for we have no information on this point, which I think is one deserving attention. As a loyal supporter of the Government I regard the withholding of information, which has always been given, as to the general purposes to which this money is to be applied, as a very great mistake. Nobody asks for detailed information. The Act of 1860 gave full information; the next step which extended the principle was that taken in 1884, when papers were circulated by the Treasury under the head of "Garrisons and Coaling Stations Abroad," which proposed a large expenditure on ports abroad, and in which was set forth the details, not only of the amount of money to be spent at each place for defence works, but also of the amount to be spent on armaments and the nature of those armaments. In 1888 the precedent of 1860 and 1884 was followed. There you had the schedule and the statement, and you had it also put explicitly in the memorandum of the War Minister that so much was for each place and so much was for armaments. Now the Government withhold from us any information at all.
  MR. WYNDHAM: But there are no armaments on this Vote.
  SIR J. COLOMB: May I ask my hon. friend if I am to understand that the whole of tins £1,000,000 is for defence works without any guns at all?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Then this £1,000,000 is to provide for works without any guns at all. That statement, I am afraid, will compel me to vote for the Amendment unless a much more explicit declaration, as to where the works are to be, is

  103
  forthcoming. No reason has been given for silence as to the application of this loan. Only an excuse has been given, and my hon. friend says:—
  "There is a great deal of value to be gained by leaving the exact location of defence shrouded in a little mystery."
  I am bound to say that we are not asking for mysterious details, but I do claim to know where the money is to be spent, and how much of it is for works and how much for armaments. We know now that £1,000,000 is to be spent on works without any guns, and if I misunderstood my hon. friend it is not my fault, but the fault of the War Office in departing from all precedents in this matter. The next point is, what have we got to shroud in mystery? With our system of "open doors" and open ports how are you going to conceal bow and where the money has been spent? Every foreign officer will see it with his own eyes, and he will report to his own Government, and the Foreign Governments all over the world will know it. The only people you are shrouding in mystery are the supporters of the Government: how are they to defend a policy which you will not explain? I think more evil will come at home from shrouding public expenditure in mystery than anything you are likely to gain abroad by the delusion that you can conceal what you are doing from foreign Governments. If you are going to spend £1,000,000 in China why not say so? The people of this country will give you their confidence if you give them yours; but if you are only going on the lines of 1860, 1884 and 1888, why are you departing front the precedents of those Bills? Is it a fact that most of this £1,000,000 is going to Wei-hai-wei?
  MR. WYNDHAM: In two different speeches I have mentioned five different classes of expenditure under this Bill in the order of their importance, and the hon. Member knows perfectly well that Wei-hai-wei is only intended as a secondary naval base.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Then, all I have to say is that there is no such term as "secondary naval base" in the Estimates, or anywhere else that I know of, which determines expenditure. When you
  104
  talk about a secondary naval base what do you mean? Is it to be a naval base to Hong Kong, or to ports in the United Kingdom? I am compelled, in view of this mystery as to where this money is going, to deal more fully with this question, and I will, as briefly as I possibly can, look at this subject from the general aspect of the defence of the Empire. We won our empire not by sitting down and waiting for attack, but because we possessed two things—a free Fleet and a free Army, ready to apply everywhere and anywhere when required. That was the principle of our British defence down to the year 1860. That policy proved completely successful in the Napoleonic War. Then, in 1860 in a public panic we were frightened by France and Cherbourg, and in a hurry we voted a Military Works loan, and great works were established, and the evil results of those works is stamped upon our policy to-day. In 1872, frightened by Germany and Paris, we enormously extended that policy, and in 1888 we deliberately further extended it, and practically applied it all over the world, whereas before we had only applied it to the United Kingdom. Since 1888 you have had two great object-lessons, which I think should be well borne in mind. You have had a war between China and Japan, and you have had a war between the United States and Spain. Both these wars show the folly of the principle which this House gave way to in 1860. Both these wars simply illustrate and repeat on a small scale the teaching of our own history, and the two great lessons are these—that the Power having mastery of the sea and a free army at its command, can go anywhere and do anything; while an inferior sea Power can go nowhere and do nothing, but has to wait for attack, no matter how numerous its army may be. Great fortresses and purely garrison armies for the purposes of defence are the rôle of the weak naval Power, and not of the strong. Here is policy which I think has put our military machinery out of gear. Under modern conditions of steam, no sea supremacy can, however, secure immunity from insignificant raids upon ports. Therefore, the superior sea Power cannot altogether dispense with moderate local defences at its naval bases; hence the British policy must produce three things—a naval force to secure the mastery of the sea, a mobile army to strike,

  105
  and moderate local defences for the naval bases and naval depôts. But the policy of 1860 and its subsequent expansion and development down to the present time, finds us in this position—on the water we have recovered, since 1889, our old position, and we are quite ready, at a moment's notice, to assert that sea supremacy. But on the land and at our ports we are, except in India, endeavouring to fulfil at enormous cost, the military rôle of an inferior naval Power. The two things are incompatible, and simply spell military waste and weakness, and we are drifting on with an ever-increasing military expenditure on garrisons, and an ever-decreasing army available for field service. My opinion is that had the Admiralty to provide for local defences of naval ports and depôts, or to recoup the Army Estimates for the outlay on so-called naval requirements, I myself am absolutely certain that the Admiralty would at once declare the elaborate fortification and huge garrisons at most of these places were quite a superfluity of military naughtiness on the part of a Power dominant at sea. The House, I hope, will forgive me if I occupy their time at so great a length, but this matter is very serious as regards Wei-hai-wei. If you take the trouble to note the effect of the policy which was commenced in 1860 upon the constitution of our army you will find something like this: by a gradual and unobserved process you have absolutely changed the constitution of the British Army, which in 1860 was one constituted almost entirely for field service, and now you have got a military force the larger proportion of which is devoted to garrison service and garrison service only. Our old motto of ancient days was "Fleet, not works," and now it is "Fleet, and works," and plenty of them. The truth is that the military policy of the country has really originated out of proposals of the Royal Engineers, whose real duty is to devise fortifications. I calculate that nearly £3,000,000 of the military expenditure is to meet so-called naval requirements, and the cost of the personnel of the array applied to exaggerated requirements at naval bases. I exclude Malta from that calculation, as it is a military place d'armes, and I find that if you compare last year's estimate with this year's estimate, the cost of these garrisons at naval bases has increased in one year by £76,000 a year, and I got from my hon. friend the
  106
  Financial Secretary to the War Office an answer yesterday which shows that Wei-hai-wei alone is going to put £67,000 a year extra on the Army Estimates. Therefore I say that this £1,000,000 for defence works, without any guns, Whether at Wei-hai-wei or anywhere else, must mean the locking up of more of your troops in garrisons. That is what I strongly object to. I desire to say one word about the selection of a naval base. Observing that a naval base should, if possible, be on an island, and not on the mainland, where you have to defend a land frontier; I will now pass at once to China. Hong Kong is not an island from a strategic point of view, for it has become necessary to acquire a considerable amount of territory in the neighbourhood, and you have now got a land frontier there. Therefore that fact alone will necessitate the employment of a larger military force than you ever had there before. That is also an element to be considered in the general question with regard to Wei-hai-wei. At Wei-hai-wei you have got a frontier which you know nothing at all about, because the First Lord of the Treasury has told us that the area is unknown because the land frontier has not yet been delimited. Put those two things together, and look how your mobile army is going to be eaten into by Hong Kong, which at must protect, and Wei-hai-wei. Only fourteen years ago what did you do in North China? Why, you suddenly seized Port Hamilton. On the 8th of April, 1885, nothing was known at the Foreign Office as to the proposed hoisting of the British flag at Port Hamilton. Before that week was out the Secretary to the Admiralty wired to the admiral on the China station:
  "Occupy Port Hamilton and report proceedings."
  The Admiral on the China station wrote back and protested that Port Hamilton was by no means a desirable place to hold, and that it world be a constant source of weakness to this country, yet the Foreign Office continued to offer to pay £5,000 a year for Port Hamilton in the face of repeated reports from the Admirals that the place was no use to us. A year afterwards the Lords of the Admiralty felt the danger of the whole position. Now the grounds of the

  107
  Admirals' objection are important in view of the acquirement of Wei-hai-wei. The first Admiral also said that it would be:
  "More convenient in case of operations for all necessary colliers and store ships to accompany the squadron."
  Then we get another Admiral sent to China, who is ordered to investigate and report whether or not in time of war an occupation of Port Hamilton would be a source of strength or weakness to the power of our squadron, and the Admiral replies:
  "Considering that military defence is a work of time, it cannot be expected that Port Hamilton can become, as Sir Cooper Key considered necessary, a first-class fortress for many years. Until it is properly fortified I look at its occupation as a source of weakness in war time."
  He also says:
  "I quite concur with my predecessor as to our true base for naval work being a steam flotilla, which can always be obtained here, to accompany the fleet with all necessary coal, provisions, stores, etc."
  Then another Admiral says:
  "It is supposed that in war a coaling station in the northern part of our command is necessary. I am not of that opinion. Steam colliers properly fitted must be filled with Welsh coal at Hong Kong and follow our ships. If it is intended to make Port Hamilton a regular colonial possession and fortify it like Gibraltar and Malta there can be no naval objection."
  So you see that the whole of the Admirals at that time did not regard a naval base in North China as necessary. What has happened since that time, only fourteen years ago? The speed of our ships has enormously increased, and the staying power of our ships has also been increased and, strategically speaking, Hong Kong is nearer now to the Gulf of Pechili than it was then. The broad lesson from that is this, that we have a happy-go-lucky way of dealing with great problems of imperial defence. The Parliamentary history of Wei-hai-wei shows that we have not mended our ways to any great extent in this respect. It is briefly this—that Wei-hai-wei was first heard of in this House in April, 1888. By questions in this House it transpired that there was no actual survey at the port of Wei-hai-wei Until July last year, and that it was not fully completed till the end of September, therefore the report of the naval survey could not be in the hands of the Admiralty much before Christmas. Now that fact is very important, for in the mean-
  108
  time, and early in the year, the Government sent out a Royal Engineer and other officers to prepare a military survey for the defence of a port not navally surveyed.. Down to the end of last year the Government could not possibly have had full detailed information at all about Wei-hai-wei. I object strongly to treating these great problems, with only a small army to rely upon, in a precipitate manner. The only point I will venture to touch upon in this respect is this. It may be said—you forget that since Port Hamilton was abandoned Russia has gone to Port Arthur. I may be told to look at Port Arthur, and look at nothing else, and to look at Russia and nothing else. But that is the thing which I most object to. I say that you cannot look at a particular sea, or a particular point, and deal with it as an abstract question, but you must look at it with a full knowledge and a full review of the whole of your naval and military position all over the world, If you go to war with Russia you will not carry on your operations at Port Arthur only, but you will also carry them on in the Baltic, Central Asia, perhaps in the Persian Gulf, perhaps in the Black Sea, and other places. Therefore, I decline to look at this question from a limited point of view. What are you going to gain by the acquisition of Wei-hai-wei? I do not think you are going to gain anything except a great outlay upon fortifications. I shall be told that the Admirals say on that station that we ought to have Wei-hai-wei, but how was this question put to them? If you said to them, "Would you like this place as a fortified port and naval base with an army there to defend it?" of course they would say "Yes." But if you asked them, "Is it so desirable a place for a naval base that naval money should be spent on it?" they would say "No." As to the probable amount of the expenditure which you will have to incur nobody can forecast the consequences. If in Northern China you are pursuing this policy of acquiring one port because some other country takes another are you going to do the same thing because of Cuba and other places? You will say probably "No," because the Americans are our kith and kin. I cannot forget, however, that the bloodiest and most costly war of this century was a war waged on the Continent of America, and you cannot ignore the possibility of war with the United States. And what about Japan? In

  109
  either of these contingencies, or combination of the two, will Wei-hai-wei be anything but a source of danger and weakness to you unless you make it a Gibraltar? I say it will he it danger, and, consequently, I ask for information. I ask for a clear statement and not for mysteries. It may seem very easy to criticise and to find fault, especially by one who has not the information possessed by the Government, but the alternative to embarking on this gigantic military expenditure is that you should exhaustively survey that little group of islands, the Mia-Tan, in the Gulf of Pechili before you embark upon this expenditure at Wei-hai-wei. If the Government are in earnest in considering the whole position I do not think they would be rushing into this permanent expenditure until they were quite sure that they could see the end of it if Russia were now to acquire those islands. If any foreign country could establish a torpedo depôt and a torpedo flotilla at those islands your position might not he a very comfortable one, especially if the islands were acquired by Russia. I desire to say distinctly and clearly that the Government were perfectly right in acquiring Wei-hai-wei for the reason that it gave us diplomatic strength at Pekin. But my point is not the acquirement of Wei-hai-wei, but that the Government ought not, without adequate inquiry and examination, to rush precipitately into a permanent expenditure a few months after acquirement without being able to see the end of it. I contend that we should not begin these permanent works at Wei-hai-wei until we know more about the place. It will be quite sufficient to do what we should have done 100 years ago, and that is to scull 100 marines there with a flagstaff and a flag and leave them there. I may be told that this is all very fine, but if the fleet is away the place will be captured. But what of that? If a Russian fleet goes in there and captures the marines it will have to evacuate the place immediately or else be caught in a trap: therefore, I say send 100 marines and a flag and do not embark upon this great policy without further inquiry. The advantage to be gained will he this: We have got that port, and having got it no power can take it in time of peace, and therefore the flagstaff, the flag, and the marines are sufficient; in time of war we should be able to use and hold it as long as we keep
  110
  the supremacy of the sea. I for one deeply regret that the Government should embark on a policy of asking this House to provide blindfold £1,000,000 for creating defence works mainly, perhaps, at Wei-hai-wei. I regret it, and I feel strongly upon this point; and if we do not get some more satisfactory explanation I shall certainly vote for the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. WARNER: I do not wish to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth into all the details he has gone into, but there are one or two points I should like to criticise. In the first place I do not think that Wei-hai-wei is even worth the flagstaff, let alone sending the marines. Ever since we have acquired this station the different authorities have been attaching less and less value to it. At first we were told that it was a most valuable strategical base, and now we are told that it is to be a base of secondary importance. I hope the Government will consider seriously whether this money is not being thrown away, as it was in the case of Port Hamilton. I do not wish to find fault with the courtesy of the Under Secretary of State for War in regard to the manner in which he has conducted this Debate. I am afraid he has got a very weak case, and it is a sample of the rotten policy of this Government in two ways This Bill is objectionable because the money is going to be voted without telling us what the money is going to be spent upon. We do not want a detailed statement Which foreign countries will be able to interpret, and find out how many guns we are going to put there, but what we want to know is where these great works, which are to cost £1,000,000, are going to be put. I do not think these defences will be of much value, for they will be no defence to our Empire at all. But, besides this, there is the very grave objection that a good deal of this money is to be borrowed in a year when we have already borrowed an enormous sum of money, and it is being borrowed in a great measure for unnecessary purposes. We are not told where the defence works are to be. I see that there is to be a depôt erected at Caterham, but I should like to know why extra accommodation for the men is required, because the number of men put forward by the War Office only exists on paper. Wei-hai-wei, I am sure,

  111
  will be a great cost to this country, and will also be a source of weakness, and I would also ask this House to take into its serious consideration the desirability of stopping this tremendous waste of money upon erecting barracks in places where they are not wanted. This money should be spent increasing the strength of the mobile army, which can be sent out to any place where it is wanted. This would be really strengthening the defences of the nation, instead of wasting money employing engineers in work which they are not accustomed to do, building huge barracks at places where they are not wanted, and spending large sums of money upon defences which will be obsolete in ten years. This Bill is an instance of the War Office wasting money which ought to be spent on increasing the efficiency of the Army and the comforts of the soldiers, so that we may have the Army up to the numbers on paper. I hope the Amendment will be carried, if it is only to teach the Government a lesson in economy.
  COLONEL WELBY: I must say from a military point of view that I cannot understand the reticence of the War Office with regard to defensive works. We all know that in such works there must be constructive masonry. If the War Office by waving a wand or by giving, the word of command could at once set up these works there might be some reason for this reticence. It seems to me that the only persons whom the reticence of the War Office will affect will be the Members of this House. Wherever this policy is put into action, and where works are being constructed, it stands to reason that men will be collected there, and that fact will be known not only in this country, but also in every country in the world that wants to know. What is the reason for this silence? Why should we not know where this money is to be expended? My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth has drawn attention to the money spent at Wei-hai-wei and to the principle the War Office has adopted—a principle which requires great consideration in this House—of playing into the hands of the Admiralty, and taking on itself expenditure which really ought to be borne by the Admiralty. The Admiralty is unquestionably the more popular service, and why should it not take on it-
  112
  self all the money it requires. It seems to me that the War Office in taking these Naval bases, whether primary or secondary, are assuming responsibility which is not theirs. I myself cannot see what possible military advantage there is at Wei-hai-wei. If it is of any advantage to the empire it is solely on account of the Navy, and the Army is absolutely uninterested in it. If we were to invade China we would not land a great force at Wei-hai-wei. When we invaded China before we did not land troops there, and the conditions have not changed since. Wei-hai-wei is simply and solely an advantage to sailors. There is great complaint that the money for the Army is constantly increasing, and I believe the country does not get full value for it, but I most earnestly protest against the policy by which the War Office takes on itself expense which really ought to be borne by the Admiralty. I can see the advantage of Gibraltar and Malta, but I cannot see the advantage, from a military point of view, of Wei-hai-wei and many other naval bases throughout the world. Why should they not be paid for and garrisoned by the Admiralty? The argument used is that the marines—the corps d'elite—are only available, and that if you increase their number you reduce their fitness. It would be far better for the Admiralty to increase the number of marines and garrison these naval bases than let the War Office face the difficulty. Short service soldiers put away at Wei-hai-wei for a year or two are not half as valuable as soldiers trained in this country or in India. The whole system of modern warfare requires that men and officers should be thoroughly trained, and they cannot be trained in these places. If we cannot meet the difficulty in any other way, it would be better to return to the old system of garrison battalions. Why should we not have battalions specially reserved for this purpose? My own impression is that one of the difficulties of recruiting is that men are put away in these out-of-the-way places. If, however, we have garrison battalions men would enlist for this special purpose, and there would be no idea of deceiving them. We should also be able to properly train the other battalions and fit them to meet the soldiers of Continental countries. I regret to say that the policy of the War Office with regard to the construction of barracks is very unsatisfactory. A very large sum of

  113
  money is going to be spent on new barracks on Salisbury Plain, and the result will be that there will be three large camps—Salisbury Plain, Aldershot, and Shorncliffe—all south of the Thames. If ever the time comes—and I am one of those who believe it will come—when Great Britain will have to be divided into army corps districts, you shall have three important camps in one district in the south. It would be better instead of spending this money on Salisbury Plain, which is now an exceedingly good exercise ground, that a camp should be formed in the northern part of England or in Scotland, which would form the central point of the northern army corps. I am very much in favour of the policy of placing cubicles in barracks, and I would urge it on the War Office experimentally, and that a certain number of the best men in every battalion should be drafted into them, and of course if they are misused the men can be replaced. At the present moment the barrack rooms are most unhome-like. I venture to say that in many barrack rooms a soldier who ventures to kneel down Morning and evening is likely to have words, and perhaps things harder than words, thrown at him for doing what he believes to be his duty. I know there will he bad characters in every regiment, but we should try and get good men, and one of the ways to do that is to adapt the accommodation in the barracks to the requirements of modern life. I had the good fortune to see some of the barrack rooms in Russia, where men are compelled to serve, but yet that country is far in advance of us as regards barrack accommodation. I saw the beds in each barrack room placed a certain distance from the wall, and the space between the bed and the wall was partitioned off and made into a little room where a rung could sit undisturbed and read, write, or kneel down. Is it any wonder we do not get troops? It is the old story. The influence of bad characters is a far greater power in the barrack room than the influence of good men, and the result is that when a young man joins the Army he is exposed to infinite temptation. These are some of the difficulties in the way of recruiting. I would urge on the War Office, if they want an efficient and cheap Army, to throw on the Admiralty all responsibility for these
  114
  naval bases, and, instead of spending money unnecessarily on barracks, to adopt the cubicle or other system which would make the soldier's life more acceptable. By that means they would put from us the urgent necessity, which is coming upon us day by day, of compulsory service, and would enable us to continue to trust to the voluntary system alone.
  MAJOR RASCH: I do not propose to vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I think the Government have done much for which they should be praised. Far be it from me to criticise their proposals, but I do hope that in constructing the barracks they will not put the matter into the hands of the Royal Engineers. I think my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth was perfectly right in saying that the Engineers, being sappers and miners, were good men in laying submarine mines and building wooden bridges, but that they left much to be desired as architects. A good many years ago the Royal Engineers put up colossal barracks at Aldershot at considerable expense, and then forgot to put in the staircases. Then there is the story about plans being prepared for barracks at Hong Kong and Belfast, and the result was that the barrack intended for Hong Kong, with the verandahs included, was erected in Belfast, where it rains five days out of six, and the barrack intended for Belfast was erected in Hong Kong. I desire to support what the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire said with reference to the comfort and convenience of the private soldier. The time is past when men should be stuck in barracks the whole of their natural lives. I have often been told by decent fellows who joined the Army that the thing which repelled them most was the condition of the troop room. I do not see why the War Office should not take into consideration the question of supplying cubicles in these new barracks. I should like to say word about the temperance men. A great many of them now join the Army, and about one-third of the British Army in India aft the present moment consists of men who have sworn off drink. When a young fellow joins a battalion he has no choice between the recreation room and the canteen, and there is no reason why a temperance room should not be added. It seems to me there is also no reason

  115
  why soldiers should not be allowed a room to have their meals in apart from the barrack room. In workhouses you don't make paupers have their dinners in the wards, and, whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think, the British soldier deserves to be treated at least as well as a pauper. With reference to the sum put down for rifle ranges, I am bound to say that £40,000 is absolutely inadequate. You could not get a rifle range sufficient for the Army at that price even in Essex. It is all very well to say wait. But you must remember land has a tendency to go up in price, and if you do not purchase the land now you may have to pay more for it later. The War Office say they cannot afford to buy the new magazine rifle, but, if that is the case, what is the use of running the British Army at a cost of £21,000,000 a year? If the barracks are made more comfortable and decent the War Office will get better men and save money in the end. Where are they going to get men otherwise? 1 do not know, and I think they do not know themselves. It would be better to induce men to take the shilling than to have recourse to conscription. The authorities of the War Office ought to know that more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I notice with considerable suspicion that in the schedule the item of £40,000 put down for rifle ranges also includes accommodation for manœuvres and mobilisation. I am afraid that that will absorb a very large portion of this sum, which is already totally inadequate. It is especially on behalf of the Volunteer forces that I make these remarks. Since the introduction of the new rifle a large number of the old ranges have become useless. A Volunteer who is not able to shoot cannot be described as efficient, but unless he has some means of practising it is impossible that he can become even an average shot. While this large sum has been voted for military works I think the attention of my hon. friend should be specially directed to what I know to be a serious drawback to the efficiency of the Volunteer forces, and I would venture to suggest to him that if he cannot see his way to build new ranges for the Volunteers the very least he should do would be to make them generous travelling allowances to enable them to reach the existing ranges.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There has been a most interesting discussion for the last hour or two on questions relating mainly to the comfort of the soldier, and a desire has been expressed by all who have taken part in this Debate on this large expenditure that there should be full consideration for what can be done to increase the comfort of the soldier. I can conceive no more essential object than that. We are apt to forget that the years roll on, and that we are now in a different position altogether from that which we occupied ten or twenty years ago. We have a different class of men to deal with in the Army. The standard of life outside the Army has improved very much, to the benefit of the whole nation, and therefore the sort of life which was thought suitable for the soldier a very few years ago would be, if not absolutely deterrent, at all events very little attractive, to the class of men whom we wish to enlist in the army now. I refer to all that has been said as to the provision of cubicles, dining-rooms, and so forth. I understood from the Under Secretary in introducing this Bill, that he promised that this side of the question would be kept very closely in view. Dining-halls especially I think the hon. Gentleman undertook should be provided. One other point has been referred to which has a great deal of force, and that is the question of temperance rooms. There is hardly an institution I know—and I include in the word "institution" everything from the Secretary of State or a field-marshal down, whether it be a man, a thing, or an organisation—no institution has done so much good to the army as the Army Temperance Association, and yet I understand that it has sometimes occurred that when a battalion in which there is a flourishing branch of that organisation, and to which the large proportion of the men belong has to move to another barrack, there is no place in which the meetings can be held, and that the whole organisation goes to pieces, and the battalion sinks back into the condition in which it originally was. If that is so, or even if there is any danger of its being partially realised, one sees what a tremendous claim, not on the generosity but on the patriotism of the Secretary of State for War, this society and the whole organisation it has established has. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth gave us a long account of

  117
  his views on the interesting and apparently never-ending subject of Wei-hai-wei, and I heard with sympathy all he said up to a certain point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman argued that Wei-hai-wei was useless. He denounced small naval bases as nothing but nuisances to a naval Power, and he pointed out the impolicy of spending money on fortifications at Wei-hai-wei. Up to that point I was with the hon. and gallant Member, and thought what an interesting and effective speech he was making. But then it turned out that he had his eve upon two or three islands in the Gulf of Pechili which he thought would be much better than Wei-hai-wei, and that we ought to send two or three marines with a flagstaff to take possession of them. There I part company with the hon and gallant Gentleman. But the difficulty with regard to Wei-hai-wei is even greater than the hon. and gallant Member pointed out. Speaking under correction, and with every possible diffidence, I believe it is considered by the predominant naval opinion that it is undesirable to have a small naval base in that position for the purpose of assisting the operations of the Fleet. Besides that we must not forget that naval power is no longer the commanding power in the north of China. We have changed that. We have, by admitting Russia to the full possession of Manchuria, brought her and her army within striking distance of the capital of China, and therefore we are no longer the same formidable Power with our Fleet that we were a year or even a month or two ago. It alters the situation entirely. But Wei-hai-wei was acquired, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, apparently for two purposes. The first was to give strength and confidence to the Chinese Government—one does not see how it is to be done, and certainly that object has not yet been accomplished—and the other is that it should be a place d'armes in which We could train and drill the Chinese army for our own purposes. For any of these purposes I fail to see the particular utility of Wei-hai-wei. I certainly regret the money that is being expended or that it is contemplated to expend upon it. But, Sir, the main purpose for which I rose was to support the Amendment now before the House, of the existence of which probably nine-tenths of the Members who listen to me are totally
  118
  unaware. The Amendment is to the effect that we ought not to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill without a more definite statement in the Bill of the purposes to which this large sum of money is to be applied. Now this is a point on which I made a few observations the last time the Bill was before the House. What we want is, to put it plainly and simply, that the White Paper—the Paper which professes to give us the details of the expenditure—should be made the schedule of the Bill. In the earlier part of the discussion my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire argued in favour of more information being given and a better control afforded to the House of Commons over the expenditure; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected that in the Naval Works Act the schedule was found to be a little too complete—that there were too many details and columns, which were confusing to the uninstructed and ingenuous mind. Supposing that that was so, I myself made a more modest request of the Government—not that they should give the details of what was spent last year and of what was going to be spent next year, although I should like to have that, but that they should at least have a schedule in the Bill which would explain to the House of Commons where and for what purposes this money is to be expended. I should like not only the general heads of purposes all over the world to which it is to be devoted, hut the particular places and the particular services for which it is to be used. Then we would be not only thoroughly informed, but also better able to control the policy involved in this measure. Sir, I am bound to say it requires some control, because these loans come fast and furious upon the House and the country. The present loan proposed for military works comes after the Military Works Act of 1897. Now, as I make out, at the end of the financial year there would still remain unexpended under the previous Act two and three-quarter millions, and yet we are now asked by the same Government which brought in the Military Works Act of 1897 for four millions more. I have often said that I am not one to refuse money when the responsible Government comes forward with the declaration that the money is necessary. The circumstances would be very exceptional which

  119
  would induce me to do so. At the same time it argues something wrong, some want of purpose, or some indecision or confusion of mind, that we should have a loan of over five minions in 1897, and that, while at the end of this year there will still be unexpended of that loan two and three-quarter millions, we should be asked for another loan of four millions. Moreover, all this time, as one of my hon. friends pointed out, expenditure is going on under the Estimates for the very same purposes, thus creating a state of confusion which no one, I think, is capable of penetrating or rearranging. Take the case of such places as Malta or Gibraltar, quoted by one of my hon. friends. There is also the case of Colchester, where large sums are to be expended under this loan on the building of barracks, although large sums are voted every year for the very same purpose. Who knows which is loan and which is Estimate, and how are the very gentlemen who control these matters and are responsible for them able thoroughly to keep the whole proceeding in check when these different operations are going on at the same time? A loan is, of course, a necessity on many occasions, and in most cases a convenience, because it enables continuous service to be carried on without interruption from the whims of Parliament or the vicissitudes that occur in the voting of money in this House. But a loan running concurrently with Estimates for the very same purposes and dovetailing into them must inevitably lead, I will not say to maladministration, but certainly to lack of proper control in the administration. These are the considerations which, I think, should make us extremely careful when dealing with these loans. What is easier than to have a large Loan Act? It is pleasing to our feelings that we are spending four millions in strengthening the position of the country. The least the Government should do is to let the House know what is included in this expenditure, and to let us know it by putting it into the schedule of the Bill, so that we may have that control over it to which, as the guardians of the taxpayers, we are entitled.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In the early part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to topics which have been ably handled by many hon. and gallant gentlemen—topics which touch the comfort of
  120
  our soldiers and our efforts to raise the standard of their condition. I have already undertaken that dining halls for the men will form part of the plans for the new barracks to be constructed on Salisbury Plain. The question of the provision of cubicles in the barracks has been earnestly considered by the military advisers of the War Office, but it is a question upon which two opinions exist, and no Government would be justified in making so important a change of policy as that involved in the provision of cubicles unless they were able to say that they were acting on the recommendation of their chief military experts of the day. That the Government are not able to say with regard to cubicles; but we do say that we wish we could give the cubicles, and we engage that the provision of better barrack accommodation shall not proceed upon lines which will preclude the introduction of cubicles should it be decided upon hereafter. Then there is the question of special rooms for the members of the Army Temperance Association. In that case also it is not quite plaint sailing. Hon. and gallant Members are aware that in every barrack, apart from the canteen, there is a recreation establishment, containing a games room, a concert room, a reading-room with books and papers, a coffee bar and supper room, but in which no alcoholic liquor is sold. Now, there are two schools of opinion in regard to recreation rooms. There are some who hope to inculcate habits of temperance by getting the men to take a moderate amount of alcoholic drink. They urge that beer should be allowed in supper rooms. On the other hand, it is urged by others that there should be attached to the recreation room a temperance club to which none but teetotalers would be admitted. If such a chub were allowed, it would introduce cliqueism into the Army, and therefore the War Office has opposed it. The War Office, in fact, takes up a middle course between the two suggestions—we allow no beer in the supper room, and they allow no separate club. The sum of £40,000 does not represent all that is being done to provide rifle ranges. Under the Military Works Act of 1897, half a million was taken for that purpose, and it has not all been expended. Sites have been and are to be purchased. The £40,000 will be devoted to providing ranges for the Volunteers on the principle I have previously explained—that if

  121
  several corps join and guarantee, say, three-fourths of the cost of a range, the War Office will find the remaining fourth. By this means we may perhaps be able, with the £40,000, to provide from eight to a dozen ranges. As to the policy of the form in winch the War Department puts forward its proposals, £1,000,000 is claimed for a defence scheme without giving particulars, because the nature of the services for which it is required have been explained, and the Government have given the House the high authority on which their Estimates are based. Those responsible locally in different parts of the world have submitted their requirements to a joint Naval and Military Committee at home. That Committee has been assisted by the Colonial Defence Committee, and has reported to the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. The latter has referred the whole question to a small conference of experts. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth said that instead of concentrating our attention on Wei-hai-wei, we ought to look at the naval and military position all over the earth. That is precisely what these Committees have been doing for years, and they have decided that at certain places, from naval considerations, a certain number of guns of a given size and earthen platforms on Which they can stand are needed.
  SIR JOAN COLOMB: I was told this Vote was not for armaments, but only for works.
  MR. WYNDHAMThe number of guns required determines the extent of the earthworks on which they are to stand. The guns have been placed on the Estimates, and the works are to be provided for by loan. Now as to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that we are building at the same place on Loan and on Estimates. On loan it has been thought right to build new barracks and add wings to old barracks in which any increase of the army is to be housed, but the War Department do not under a loan provide for annual repairs. When we are housing additions to the Army—and that is the point of departure for this loan—it might well be that they build a new barrack for a new battalion and add a wing to an old barrack, and that in the Estimates for the year they also improve the water supply and drainage at the same station.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is an item of £30,000 to build new barracks at Colchester for Infantry. It is no question of repairs.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes; it is an unfortunate case of cross-bookkeeping between the Army and the Navy. The Leader of the Opposition may take it from me that we do scrupulously observe the division I have laid down—that is to say, new barracks are under loan, repairs and so forth are under Estimates. I do not think I need answer in detail the rather wide-flung accusations against this policy of defence. I cannot accept either the history or the statistics which have been given of the barrack policy of the last sixty years. The hon. Member for Yarmouth told us that we took £3,500,000 under the Act of 1872. So we did, but that was for the sole purpose of building depôts for the new territorial regiments which had been linked together. It does not touch any question of finding house accommodation for the Army. Then, when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire said that we used to find money for barracks under Estimates, I have to remind the House that the fact is that barracks were practically not built between the Crimea and the reawakening of the Government to their responsibilities in the eighties. That is why we have had to come to Parliament for these big loans. By the divisions in the circulated Schedule we have shown the whole policy of the Government. If hon. Members disapprove of that policy, they have the remedy their hands. If they approve of it, I think I may appeal to the House to sanction a measure which, I notice, commends itself even to the Leader of the Opposition.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Although the speech of the hon. Gentleman was extremely able and interesting, it has not dealt, in a single particular, with the Amendment before the House. What is the Amendment? It is that this White Paper should be made part of the Bill; and the reason is that this House should have control, not only over the scheme en bloc, but over every detail, over every individual item of the scheme. When the hon. Gentleman first put this scheme before the House he declared that the House would have the same power of control that it would have if the schedule was in the Bill. I challenged him on that point, and I proved to demonstration that you could not have the same control

  123
  over every item of expenditure. You may challenge on one item, but, having done so, you must accept every other in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has chosen to discuss every other point raised in the Debate, but says not a word on the most important of all. To the demand made that the House should have control, not only of the scheme as a whole, but of every item of it, the last word of the Government is "silence."
  SIR JAMES FEROUSSON: I confess to a feeling of great disappointment with the answer given by my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War. He has given us a non possumus to two or three important matters of barrack reform which have been brought to the notice of the Government. My hon. friend, to whose great ability I wish to bear my humble testimony, has said that the military authorities are not at one in the matter of those reforms, which some of us think of great importance in regard to the character of the Army, especially in the matter of comfortable rooms, in which soldiers who are abstainers may meet. Well, the Quartermaster-General of the Army, who was Commander-in-Chief in India, within the last month has made a very strong statement on this point. He said:
  "I believe myself immensely in having separate accommodation for total abstainers."
  He knew the enormous advantage that accrued to India from temperance. When I was there myself I found as many as 500 in some battalions who were total abstainers. A third of the whole European forces in India are temperance soldiers, but the number is smaller in England. The reason for the increase in India is that the authorities there encourage temperance and provide a comfortable room for temperance soldiers. I consider we should be promoting temperance in the Army and the well-being of the soldiers by providing separate accommodation for those who are total abstainers. I am afraid the Under Secretary of State for War has not expressed his own conviction, but has spoken for the War Office. We ought to encourage decent men to join the Army and endeavour to raise the character of those who belong to it, for it is in this way that it can be made most efficient and satisfactory.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I entirely agree with what has fallen from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but although temperance is a most important subject in the Army and elsewhere, it is not precisely the question at present before the House. We have a definite and substantial Amendment moved by my hon. friend the Member for Forfar. The Amendment simply means that we want to know how money is to be spent before we vote it. Everybody must admit that the Army expenditure has gone up by leaps and bounds in the Budget, but in addition to that we must remember the vast amounts that have been borrowed during the last two or three years. I do not think the Under Secretary of State for War answered in any sort of way the observations made by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. friend asked why the details of the White Paper were not included in the Bill. I listened with great attention, but I could not gather from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he made any answer. No details have been given as to how the million is going to be spent. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill has been prepared on a philosophical and argumentative basis. When we get into the philosophical question that is entirely beyond me, but when the hon. Gentleman says it is argumentative I quite agree with him. It is most argumentative, and that is what led me to rise and to argue the matter with the hon. Gentleman. How is this money to he spent? The hon. Gentleman said it was to be spent in all parts of the world upon earth platforms. Does he really suppose that he is going to spend one million sterling in different parts of the world on earth platforms without Foreign Governments being perfectly aware that expenditure is being made? We know perfectly well that Foreign Governments have spies everywhere. The object of one Government is to find out what another Government is doing, and you cannot spend one million sterling on earth platforms without every other Government knowing it. The only secret there is is, that we, the House of Commons, should not be allowed to know it. We give a blank cheque in a free-and-easy way to the hon. Gentleman, and he says, "I am going to spend it on earth platforms in certain parts of the world." We

  125
  are not asking the hon. Gentleman to give us the details of some particular fortification; we only want to know where the money is going to he spent. It could do no possible harm for the House of Commons to be told in what part of the world this money is to be spent. We are building a barracks at Wei-hai-wei, but why we are doing it I do not know. We have Chinese soldiers there, but those Chinese soldiers are not British subjects. We are going to house these Chinese subjects and give them guns to defend Wei-hai-wei, but against whom they are to defend it I have not the remotest idea. But when we have spent this money on earth platforms we shall be told that we must have a species of fortifications, or these valuable properties will be taken by anybody who comes along. We have heard a great deal about expenditure in the Transvaal. We know perfectly well that there are troops going to the Transvaal. Is any of this money to be spent in Natal or the Cape Colony? The result of the Oldham election which we have just learned in this House shows that the Government is apparently not being supported by the country in this policy or in anything else. In the result of this election the House has a distinct reply to the Government policy; they are defeated hip and thigh. I hope the result will supply an argument to the hon. Gentleman to give up this miserable policy of secrecy—of putting his hand into our pockets without telling us how he is going to spend the money.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This Amendment, I think, goes a little too far, because it rejects the proposals the Government have made on their own responsibility. Undoubtedly it is a strange thing that this House should be asked to raise this money by loan with so little information with reference to it. With regard to the proposed expenditure on barracks the remedy lies entirely in the hands of hon. Members opposite. All they have to do is to move in Committee that the contents of the White Paper be scheduled to the Bill. As regards the first item, however, no details are given, and the consequence will be that the House will be deprived of control over this expenditure. The plea of secrecy
  126
  is quite absurd. I appeal to the Government to schedule the White Paper to the Bill, and to give the House a detailed statement with regard to the first item.
  DR. CLARK: I venture to suggest that one reason why we have not the information is because of the bad faith of the Government. During the Debate on the Estimates attention was called to the fact that Piershill, Edinburgh, in consequence of its bad sanitary condition was visited with typhoid fever, disease, and premature death. The Financial Secretary told us that £100,000 would be granted in this Bill for carrying out the necessary rebuilding. So far as I can see, however, only £25,000 is to be devoted to Edinburgh under this Bill.
  MR. DILLON: The policy of secrecy in regard to this Bill is, I think, one of the most monstrous acts that was ever attempted by the House of Commons. To tell the House of Commons that it is essential, from motives of policy, to withhold information as to where this money is to be spent is to turn the House of Commons into ridicule, and all other proceedings in connection with this Bill into a farce. No Government, not even the Government of Russia, could conceal from the general public such information. Let us compare for a moment the conduct of the Government in reference to these alleged earthworks and their conduct in reference to the new warships which are being built. In the Naval Estimates of the year the House is informed not only of the names of the ships, but is put in possession of every possible detail with regard to them. But while this is done with reference to the new warships, where secrecy might be attempted, and, to a great extent, successfully carried out, what can we say of the Government which deliberately asks for a million of money without giving any information beyond the fact that a million is to be spent on alleged earthworks? I suspect that a

  127
  portion of this money is intended for other purposes altogether, and that the Government desire to have a sum of money to draw upon for operations in the Transvaal or other parts of the world as they may think necessary——
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that the Question be now put.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL(sitting and, with his hat on): I beg to sub-
  mit as a point of order that the Question was put after twelve o'clock.
  MR. SPEAKER: I rose as nearly as possible at twelve o'clock. By the Standing order the closure may be moved at the interruption of business, and the interruption of business takes place when I rise and say "Order, order!"
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes 64. (Division List, No. 225.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Arrol, Sir William

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds)

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M H (Bristol)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bethell, Commander

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bigwood, James

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bill, Charles

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Garfit, William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bonsor, H. Cosmo Orme

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Milton, Viscount

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Brassey, Albert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

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

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bullard. sir Harry

  Green, W. D. (Wedneshury)

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

  Carlile, William Walter

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Chaloner. Captain R. G. W.

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J, (Birm.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Myers, William Henry

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hansen, Sir Reginald

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Houston, R. P.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Howell, William Tudor

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cox, Irwin Edward B.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Robinson, Brooke

  Curzon, Viscount

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Round, James

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

  Kemp, George

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon, James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Doughty, George

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Stirling, Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  NOES.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S E.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thomas Ryburn

  Hayne, Rt. Hon.Charles Seale-

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Shaw. Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarsh.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Holland, W. H. (York, W R.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burns, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cald well, James

  Jones, William (Carmarvons.)

  Strachey, Edward

  Campbell-Bannnerman, Sir H.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert. George

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'I'd)

  Thomas, David Alfd.(Merthyr)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Logan, John William

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

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Clough, Walter Owen

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Warner, T. Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maddison, Fred

  Wedderburn, Sir John

  Davitt, Michael

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dewar, Arthur

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Dillon, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Oldroyd, Mark

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Price, Robert John

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 64. (Division List, No. 226.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Finch, George H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Charrington, Spencer

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G W. (Leeds)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bathurst, Hon Allen B.

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Garfit, William

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward B.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Bethell, Commander

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Bigwood, James

  Curzon, Viscount

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Bill, Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Goschen, George J. (sussex)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Denny, Colonel

  Greene, Walford D.(Shrewsbury)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Brassey, Albert

  Disraeli, C. Ralph

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Gretton, John

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Doughty, George

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Henderson, Alexander

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  M'Killop, James

  Russell, Gen. F.S.(Chelten'm)

  Houston, R. P.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Milbank. Sir Powlett C. John

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Milton, Viscount

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Morgan, Hn. F.(Monm'thshire)

  Sidebottom, T. H (Stalybr.)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. Deptford

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Kemp, George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Kenyon, James

  Myers, William Henry

  Start, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn

  Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderrry)

  Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Quitter, Sir Cuthbert

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wilson, John (Falkirk

  Lucas-Shadwell, William Rent

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wyndham, George

  Lyttelton, Hon Alfred

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W H.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Robinson, Brooke

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Round, James

  NOES.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Billson, Alfred

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burns, John

  Holland, W. H. (York, W. R)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Caldwell, James

  Steadman, William Charles

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Edward

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lambert, George

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

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Logan, John William

  Trevelyam Charles Philips

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

  Warner, Thomas Courtnay T

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maddison Fred.

  Wedderburn, Sir. William

  Davitt, Michael

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dewar, Arthur

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Williams, John C. (Notts.)

  Dillon, John

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Dunn, Sir William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Price, Robert John

  MR. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the main Question be now put."
  Main Question put accordingly, "That
  132
  the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 53. (Division List, No. 227.)

  AYES.

  Anson. Sir William Reynell

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arrol, Sir William

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Myers, William Henry

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Bethell, Commander

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Bill, Charles

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gretton, John

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmno Orme

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Basch, Major Frederic Carne

  Brassey, Albert

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanson, sir Reginald

  Richards, Sir T.(Hartlep'l)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. sir M. W.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Hill,Sir EdwardStock (Bristol

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich.)

  Houston, R. P.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Round James

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

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Ch'It'nh'm

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawie

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jebb, Richard Claver house

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Shape, William Edward T.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H A. E.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  kemp, George

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Kenyon, James

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Corbett, A Cameron(Glasgow)

  Strutt, Hon, Charles Hedley

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W

  Cox, Irwin Edward B.

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Davies, Sir H D. (Chatham)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Wentwort, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

  Disraeli, Coningshy Ralph

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Doughty, George

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Wilon, John (Falkirk)

  Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers-

  Wyndham, George

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Macartney. W. G. Ellison

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwvn E.

  Maclure, Sir John Williams

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  M'Arthur, charles (Liverpool)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  M'Killop, James

  Finch, George H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milbank, S. P. Charles John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,

  Fishier, William Hayes

  Milton, Viscount

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  FitzGerald Sir Robt.Penrose-

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

  NOES.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dunn, Sir William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

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

  Evans, Sam. T. (Glamorgan)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Fitzwaurice, Lord Edmond

  Billson, Alfred

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Burns, John

  Davitt, Michael

  Harwood, George

  Caldwell, James

  Dewar, Arthur

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale

  Cawley, Frederick

  Doogan, P. C.

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  134

  135

  Hedderwiek, Thos. Charles H.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, J. (Northumberland)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, Robert John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Labouchere, Henry

  provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Lambert, George

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Logan, John William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Maddison, Fred.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Mr. Dillon and Mr. Buchanan.

  Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Strachey, Edward

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

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (BYE-LAWS) BILL. [Lords].
Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One of the clock.