HC Deb 21 March 1899 vol 68 cc1661-91
Colonial Office 17,500
Royal Palaces and Marlborough House 16,400
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens 40,000
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings Great Britain 18,000
Houses of Parliament Buildings 12,000
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain 10,000
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings 9,000
Revenue Buildings 120,000
Public Buildings, Great Britain 100,000
Surveys of the United Kingdom 80,000
Harbours under the Board of Trade 2,000
Peterhead Harbour 6,000
Rates on Government Property 210,000
Public Works and Buildings, Ireland 70,000
Railways, Ireland 70,000
United Kingdom and England—
House of Lords, Offices 4,000
House of Commons, Offices 13,000
Treasury and Subordinate Departments 30,000
Home Office 50,000
Foreign Office 25,000
Privy Council Office, etc 5,000
Board of Trade 60,000
Mercantile Marine Services 30,000
Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade 3
Board of Agriculture 75,000
Charity Commission 15,000
Civil Service Commission 15,000
Exchequer and Audit Department. 22,000
Friendly Societies Registry 2,200
Local Government Board 66,000
Lunacy Commission 5,000
Mint (including Coinage) 10
National Debt Office 5,000
Public Works Loan Commission 10
Public Record Office 10,000
Registrar General's Office 13,000
Stationery and Printing 250,000
Woods, Forests, etc., Office of 7,000
Works and Public Buildings Office of 19,000
Secret Service 17,000
Secretary for Scotland 4,500
Fishery Board 8,000
Lunacy Commission 2,000
Registrar General's Office 2,000
Local Government Board 4,000
Lord Lieutenant's Household 2,000
Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments 15,000
Charitable Donations and Bequests
Office 750
Local Government Board 15,000
Public Record Office 2,000
Public Works Office 12.500
Registrar General's Office 6,000
Valuation and Boundary Survey 6,000
United Kingdom and England—
Law Charges 40,000
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses 26,000
Supreme Court of Judicature 120,000
Land Registry 7,000
County Courts 10,000
Police, England and Wales 14,000
Prisons, England and the Colonies 200,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain 140,000
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum 10,000
Law Charges and Courts of Law 30,000
Register House, Edinburgh 15,000
Crofters Commission 2,000
Prisons, Scotland 25,000
Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions 30,000
Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments 38,000
Land Commission 50,000
County Court Officers, etc. 36,000
Dublin Metropolitan Police 35,000
Constabulary 600,000
Prisons, Ireland 45,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools 55,500
Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum 2,500
United Kingdom and England—
Public Education, England and Wales 3,600,000
Science and Art Department, United Kingdom 200,000
British Museum 64,000
National Gallery 5,000
National Portrait Gallery 2,500
Wallace Gallery 6,000
Scientific Investigation, etc United Kingdom 15,000
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales 38,000
London University 5
Public Education 600,000
National Gallery 1,400
Public Education 600,000
Endowed Schools Commissioners 350
National Gallery 1,200
Queen's Colleges 2,500
Diplomatic and Consular Services 220,000
Uganda, Central and East Africa Protectorates and Uganda Rail- way 250,000
Colonial Services 180,000
Cyprus, Grant in Aid 12,000
Subsidies to Telegraph Companies 35,000
Superannuation and Retired Allowances 280,000
Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc 3,000
Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances 1,000
Hospitals and Charities. Ireland 10,000
Temporary Commissions 8,000
Miscellaneous Expenses 6,572
Congested Districts Board, Scotland
Total for Civil Services £9,271,000
Customs 350,000
Inland Revenue 650,000
Post Office 3,000,000
Post Office Packet Service 210.000
Post Office Telegraphs 1,300,000
Total for Revenue Departments £5,510,000
Grand Total 14,781,000

Resolution read a second time.

Amendment proposed— To leave out '£14,781,000,' and insert £14,780,900' instead thereof."—(Mr. Have-lock wilson.)

*MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough)

Mr. Speaker, I move to reduce the Vote for the Board of Trade by £100, in order to call attention to the administration of the Merchant Shipping Act. We are desirous at times to get fresh legislation, but I am very much afraid our hopes of obtaining legislation from the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade have little chance of being realised. We have a right, however, to ask that the President of the Board of Trade will at least administer the Merchant Shipping Act in a just and proper spirit. I have called attention repeatedly in this House to the fact that one of the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, with reference to the accommodation provided for lascar seamen, has been continually broken by a large and important company, which is receiving a considerable subsidy from the Government. In August of last year I was told by the President of the Board of Agriculture, on behalf of his right honourable colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, that the matter was receiving the serious attention of that Board, and had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and that as soon as the law had been ascertained the matter would be dealt with finally. That was last August, but from that mouth up till January of this year not a single thing was done by the President of the Board of Trade to inquire into the state of the law on the subject. I have put a number of Questions to the right honourable Gentleman this year, but have received evasive replies each time. We were told that the matter had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and though five or six weeks have gone by we have had no further light upon the subject. I am entitled to complain of the conduct of the right honourable Gentleman in this matter. I claim to have a right, in the interests of British seamen, to expect other than evasive replies when I call attention to these matters. I would be the last Member in this House to obstruct business, but when we cannot get satisfactory answers to respectful Questions addressed to the Board of Trade there is no alternative but to have it out, and to have it out properly, on an occasion like this. I asked the right honourable Gentleman the other day as to the number of men carried on certain vessels belonging to the P. and O. Company, and the accommodation provided for them. The right honourable Gentleman replied that one of the two vessels named carried 65 men, but I found, on inquiry, that the vessel carried 87, which, of course, largely reduced the crew space. In the ease of the other ship—the "Caledonia"—the right honourable Gentleman said she was only carrying 157 men, but, according to the list supplied by the company to the Customs officers, 192 men were carried on that vessel. The figures given by the President of the Board of Trade did not correspond with the facts: indeed. I assert that the P. and O. Company have misled the right honourable Gentleman. For this reason I say we have good grounds of complaint. This has been going on for years. The right honourable Gentleman has told us repeatedly that there is some conflict between the Indian law and the Imperial law with reference to the accommodation of lascars. I have maintained all through these discussions that the Indian law only applies to ships registered in India and sailing on the Indian coast. The Imperial Act applies to all vessels registered under the Imperial Act, and belonging to the United Kingdom. The P. and O. Company's vessels are all registered in the United Kingdom under the Imperial Act, and the men employed on those vessels are entitled to have the 72 cubic feet of space which is provided by that Act. Again, the Board of Trade have, during the last four or five years, given instructions that wherever any company failed to give the proper amount of accommodation to the lascar crews, in accordance with the Act, there was to be a deduction from the tonnage. The Hoard of Trade have applied that law to small companies, but the Department is evidently afraid of the powerful P. and 0. Company, and have neglected to do their duty. The Royal Commission on Labour recommended that seamen should have 120 cubic feet of space. The Board of Trade recognised that by saying they believed all shipowners were giving this amount of accommodation, and they recommended generally that shipowners should be encouraged to give 120 cubic feet, but now we find one large company who are not giving the men more than 50 cubic feet. The company are, therefore, breaking the law, but the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers are evidently afraid to put the law into force. That is one indictment I make against the President of the Board of Trade, but there are others. There was a Manning Committee appointed by the late Liberal Government, which sat for over two years, and recommended that a manning scale should be passed into law, so that every vessel would be provided with a proper crew according to her tonnage and steam power. We expected that the present Government would have brought in legislation to deal with that question in a proper manner. It is true the right honourable Gentleman brought in a Bill to declare that ships undermanned were unseaworthy, but nothing was said as to the scale. The new Act left it in the hands of the Board of Trade to say what the scale should be, but only a leaflet has been issued giving some vague instructions as to the vessels of 700 tons and over, and even this does not include coasting vessels. The right honourable Gentleman proposes in such leaflet that there shall be, independent of the master and two mates, a sufficient number of deck hands available for division into two watches. There is nothing in the leaflet to guide the Board of Trade officer as to whether the available deck hands should be boys or men. If the President of the Board of Trade had been desirous of putting the manning scale into proper form, with the view of safeguarding the men on board our ships, if he meant that vessels of over 700 tons should carry three hands in a watch, he would have declared whether they were to be men or boys. As I have said, this scale is only to apply to vessels going on foreign voyages. If the right honourable Gentleman had consulted anybody connected with the seafaring trade, they would have told him that there was more danger in trading around our coasts than on vessels going on foreign voyages, and yet vessels trading round the coast can carry what hands they like, and the President of the Board of Trade does not interfere. I put a question to him the other day with regard to two vessels which are trading on the coast, and which have only three able seamen and a boatswain. The majority of the ships on the coast have six able seamen, and it has been the rule in all coasting steamers of 700 or 800 tons to carry six able seamen, so as to have three men in each watch. The right honourable Gentleman said the other day that the Board of Trade did not deem vessels to be undermanned when they only had three or four men. From what I know, that is not the opinion of the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. The Manning Committee included amongst its members one of the permanent secretaries of the Board of Trade, and also the nautical adviser to the Board of Trade, and both of these officers signed the Majority Report, which recommended that no vessel under 50 feet in length or 700 tons burden should be allowed to leave any port in the United Kingdom with less than six hands, so as to provide three effective hands in each watch. I can hardly conceive that they would recommend to the right honourable Gentleman that four men would be sufficient, when in their Reports they have declared vessels to be unseaworthy when they have less than six. There have been many Board of Trade inquiries. I have in my hand a list of a number of inquiries as to the cause of the loss of ships that have been held at the direction of the Board of Trade, and in every case, out of a total of 30, the Court have declared that where these vessels have had less than six able seamen, so as to provide three in each watch, they were unseaworthy. I want the right honourable Gentleman to tell me how he can say that the Board of Trade officials who have held inquiries into the matter have declared this class of vessel to be seaworthy with less than six hands. I think I have some right to complain in this matter. We are not asking for fresh legislation; we are simply asking the President of the Board of Trade to put into force the law, or rather the rule, that he has himself made. I attended an inquest three or four weeks ago on a man who was killed on board a ship entering Tilbury Dock. This vessel was short-handed, and in checking the vessel round the dock head by wire rope, the man's leg caught in the slack of the wire and was cut off. I was able to elicit from one of the witnesses at that inquiry that if there had been another man on the deck to take away the slack of the wire rope the accident would not have happened. Instead of endeavouring to save the lives of our seamen by enforcing the regulations which the Courts have insisted ought to be enforced, the Board of Trade, which costs the country some thousands of pounds every year, take no action in the matter. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give some satisfactory reply to the effect that he will insist upon shipowners carrying a sufficient number of seamen to render their ships seaworthy, and to prevent accidents of this kind occurring in the future. There is another matter upon which I wish to make a complaint. We have a Department in connection with the Board of Trade which is called the Labour Department. The present Government brought in a Measure entitled the Conciliation Act, in order to prevent, if possible, labour disputes, and wherever they did occur to endeavour to have them settled without any trouble. We had a dispute in Glasgow in October of last year, and the men had very serious grievances in connection with the Shipping Federation. They complained that the officials of this organisation in Glasgow had been levying blackmail on the sailors and firemen who wanted employment, and that the Board of Trade had allowed the Shipping Federation to supply men in contravention of section 111 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Because these men refused to take what is known as the Federation Ticket the Shipping Federation immediately commenced to import hands from other ports, so as to compel the men to take this ticket and submit to be blackmailed by these officials. I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this matter, and I explained in detail what the men had to complain of. We sent up to the President of the Board of Trade a number of instances where the men alleged they had been compelled to pay money in order to get employment. We have instances where men belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve, who had been engaged by officers of ships to go on a voyage, had been objected to by the Federation officials when they went to sign on, and subsequently lost their employment. We sent these charges, as I have said, to the President of the Board of Trade, and asked him, under the Conciliation Act, to send down one of the Board's officials to investigate the charges with a view to the matter being settled in a proper manner. Instead of taking these steps the Board of Trade simply sent our charges on to the Shipping Federation, and asked that body what they had to say with regard to them. I think the Shipping Federation denied every statement we made, and I would not have expected that they would have done anything else. I want to know for what reason the Board of Trade sent our charges on to the Shipping Federation. It was the duty, I contend, of the Board of Trade, seeing that it concerned their interests as well as ours, to have held a proper inquiry in regard to the matter. We were told that no inquiry could be held, and although there was a strike in Glasgow, which lasted over three months, causing great suffering to the men, the Board of Trade made no effort whatever to try and bring that dispute to a termination. In this matter we certainly have a right to complain of the conduct of the right honourable Gentleman. Are we to understand that the Conciliation Act of the Board of Trade is only intended for very large industrial disputes where there is a great dislocation of trade? Surely, if there is any body of men in this country who ought to have the benefit of the Conciliation Act it is the men who are compelled to go down to the sea in ships. We have appealed to the President of the Board of Trade before any strikes have taken place to put the Conciliation Act into force, but on every occasion he has refused to move. I understand the Board of Trade are afraid to take any step which is at all likely to offend the great shipping interest. In March of last year I sent the President of the Board of Trade a lengthy statement with regard to the state of affairs existing in the Consular Shipping Office at New York. In July I put a further question to the right honourable Gentleman as to whether anything had been done to put an end to that state of affairs. He stated in reply that the matter was still under the consideration of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. Since that time I have had many complaints from seamen who inform me that the same state of things exists in the Consular Shipping Office in New York as has existed there for years. I sent the right honourable Gentleman a letter which I had received, and which was signed by 18 men connected with a sailing ship, in which they stated that they were compelled to pay crimps £8 each as a shipping fee for getting the chance of employment on this vessel. They were told that the balance of their advance note—60 dollars—would be paid to them when they got on board the ship. No payment was made on board the ship, and they demanded to be taken to the Consul. Instead of that a crowd of crimps and loafers came up to the vessel in a tug-boat and the men were assaulted. I have had many complaints as to this kind of thing. I believe the Consul-General has denied my statement with regard to the matter, but I want to point out to the right honourable Gentleman that the Consul-General's office is not in the same place as the Consular Shipping Office. It is in a different building and a different locality, and the Consul-General himself has no opportunity of witnessing the state of affairs existing in the Shipping Office. Therefore I venture to say, with all respect, that he is not a competent person to form an opinion. The right honourable Gentleman has said that the Government are anxious to do something in the matter, but that there are great difficulties in the way. I should like to know what those difficulties are. I have spent three months at that office, and I know of no insuperable difficulties. The Consul-General in New York has a right to say to the crimps and loafers and the other undesirable persons that they shall not come into the Shipping Office with the sailors. I think the United States Government are prepared and willing to provide police protection in order to prevent them coming into the office. The Consular shipping masters themselves are very much to blame; I find they raise no objection at all to the presence of these persons. When I asked them why these men were there I was told that they were allowed because they represented the sailors and firemen. This, of course, is not the case. The present state of things will go on unless the President of the Board of Trade makes up his mind definitely on the matter. It is only necessary for the Government to give instructions to the Consul-General in New York to the effect that these people shall not be allowed to come into that, office, and' that instruction would be carried out at once. I desired to call attention to the advance notes that the men receive on signing articles in a ship, and I urged on the President of the Board of Trade the desirability of giving instructions that whenever a man is engaged in a Consular Office in a foreign port he shall receive from the Consul his advance note direct. I was promised that that instruction should be given long ago, but nothing has been done, and when a man signs on in the office he is told to go down to the shipmaster to get his advance note. When he goes the shipping master tells him he intends to deduct 10s. or £1 as a shipping fee. Of course, the man cannot help himself and has to pay. I believe one of the points urged by the right honourable Gentleman with regard to New York was that the United States law says it is illegal to give any advance notes to seamen on board a ship. That is true, but the United States law only says that it is illegal to give advance notes to vessels belonging to the United States. They have no control over our Consular Office. Sailors and firemen are people who have no political influence. If they had votes at their disposal there are plenty of hon- ourable Members in this House who would be ready and willing to run about seeing what could be done. I always find that where men have no political influence very little is done for them in the House of Commons. The right honourable Gentleman, in answer to the honourable Member for St. Pancras the other night, promised, with regard to the number of foreigners in British ships, that the Government would make some inquiry as to the engagement and position of seamen. The right honourable Gentleman was asked by the honourable Member for Southampton as to whether the Government were prepared to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the position of seamen on board ship, and he was told in reply that the Government did not intend to do anything in this direction. I am not going to ask the Government to appoint a Royal Commission, because I know it would be a very costly thing to do when a Select Committee of the House of Commons can deal with the question just as effectively and thoroughly. Seeing that the right honourable Gentleman promised that the Government were prepared to inquire into the matter, I am going to ask him whether he is willing to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of the question. One of the matters which the Committee could consider would be whether the system of continuous discharge would be best. The right honourable Gentleman appears to have made up his mind that a form of continuous discharge would be the best thing seamen could have, and that the captain should have a right to record in that continuous discharge a seaman's character for conduct and ability. I have no objection whatever to a form of continuous discharge giving a record of a man's character for conduct and ability, provided that whenever a captain gives a man a bad discharge the man should have the right to go before some competent court to have the matter tried on its merits. I do not object to a captain giving a man such a character if he has a right to appeal; but to leave it in the hands of the captain to give a bad character for conduct and ability without allowing the man an opportunity for redress would be a most tyrannical proceeding, and that is what we have to complain of now.


The question of whether the seamen should have an appeal or not can only be decided by legislation.


Yes, Sir, but this is a matter which is in the hands of the Board of Trade. The right honourable Gentleman has power now, if he chooses to exercise it, to issue continuous discharges, and seeing that he has such power I claim to be quite within my right in saying that it would be a most unjust thing for the President of the Board of Trade to issue such certificates without giving a seaman a right to appeal in the event of the captain giving him a bad character for conduct and ability. If such a power was given to captains it would be possible for them to give men who had served a number of years on board a ship, and had hitherto a good record, a bad character, and in such a case, what chance, I ask, would that man stand of getting employment if there were men around who had no stain what ever in their books? Once a bad character, always a bad character. Under the present system the captain has the power to give a man a bad discharge and he has no remedy whatever. This is a state of things which should not exist. The Board of Trade have a large number of outdoor officers who are supposed to watch the crimps and prevent such cases as I have alluded to, but during the months of October, November, and December of last year wholesale crimping was being carried on by agents of the Shipping Federation. I called attention to a case where the agents of the Shipping Federation went on board a Russian steamer in Hull and persuaded a young ordinary seaman to desert his ship. They conveyed him to the railway station without any sea-kit, too him to Greenock, and put him on board the "Duchess of York." This man could not speak a word of English, but he was shipped as a fireman, and sent across the Western Ocean. I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman why the Board of Trade did not undertake a prosecution against the man who persuaded this Russian to desert his ship, and who conveyed him to Greenock, and also what the officials at Greenock were doing to allow a man to be signed on as a fireman who had never had any experience on an English ship and who could not speak a word of the English language? Was there an interpreter there? This man was persuaded to go down to Greenock on false pretences, and was kept on the "Duchess of York" as a prisoner, and then signed on by the officials of the Board of Trade, and yet we pay over £40,000 a year in order, amongst other things, to prevent such a thing occurring. Are we to understand that the Shipping Federation have full liberty to break the law with impunity? Under another branch of the Board of Trade there are deputy-superintendents who sign on crews. They are provided at considerable cost throughout the country where seamen are engaged. I find that in many eases deputy-superintendents are employed signing on at all hours of the night crews that have been brought on board by the most notorious crimps. I have called the right honourable Gentleman's attention to the case of a railway servant who took a trip to the Isle of Man in a pleasure steamer, and was signed on as an able seaman by one of the Board of Trade officials. I now have to deal with the Surveying Department of the Board of Trade. There has been a tendency in the Board of Trade for a number of years to appoint shipwright surveyors and engineer surveyors, but at the present time there is only one nautical surveyor for the whole of Scotland; and I ask, how can the right honourable Gentleman expect that ships can be thoroughly looked after under such circumstances? Engineer surveyors are quite competent to examine engines and boilers and that kind of work. The shipwright surveyors are perfectly competent to look after the woodwork of the vessel: but the nautical surveyor is the man who is supposed to have knowledge of the loading of the ship, the stowage, the outfit, and the cargo, and yet there is only one nautical surveyor for the whole of Scotland, and his time is fully occupied in Glasgow. There is no nautical surveyor for Aberdeen, Dundee, and Leith. How can the right honourable Gentleman expect that ships can be thoroughly looked after if the Board of Trade continue to appoint engineer and shipwright sur- veyors. What do they know about getting boats out over the side of the ship, and the gear attached to them? It is a farce. For the north-east coast of England there is only one nautical surveyor stationed at Hull. We need not be surprised about vessels foundering or going to sea unworthy when the Board of Trade are not taking proper measures and precautions to look after vessels before leaving port. I trust, from the point of view of humanity, and in the interest of life and limb, that the right honourable Gentleman will make some promise that his Department will seriously consider the question of appointing a larger number of nautical surveyors in order to look after the ships that leave our ports. There are many other ports where there are no surveyors at all, and we have heard numerous instances of foreign ships overloading in British ports. There is no surveyor, for instance, in the port of Burntisland, Scotland, and foreign ships are allowed to leave in an overloaded state, and these vessels are competing with our British vessels. Is this state of affairs to continue? I come next to the question of provisions. An Act of Parliament was passed a short time ago giving powers to the Board of Trade to inspect all provisions to be consumed on board vessels going through the Suez Canal round the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn. I find the Board of Trade inspectors under this Act have in many cases gone on board ships bound on these voyages, and have condemned provisions as unfit for use, but instead of the food being destroyed it has been transferred to vessels going up the Baltic and the Black Sea. I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman if he cannot do something to prevent this, and not allow food condemned as unfit for use in one ship to be put on board another vessel which is outside the limit of the Act to which I have referred. If the right honourable Gentleman will consult his inspectors in regard to this matter, I think he will find that they will bear out my statement. There is only one other matter to which I will refer. There was a dispute in Liverpool a short while ago, and in order to defeat the men one or two of the large companies there resorted to a practice which was entirely illegal, and which the Board of Trade could have prevented, and ought to have prevented. We called the attention of the Board of Trade to this matter some months ago, but have had no reply yet. A number of the men, desiring to have a better wage, refused to sign on. The Cunard and another company got their men who were employed in port—old and infirm men and shore gangs—to sign on the articles of their vessels, as though they were the crew, in order to get their clearance from the Board of Trade Passenger Surveyor. When the ships got outside, the shore gangs came back and their places were filled by all kinds of incompetent men who pretended to be seamen and firemen, and who were supplied from boarding houses. That was a. distinct breach of the Merchant Shipping Act. The deputy-superintendent had no right to sign these men on when it was known that there was no intention on the part of the agents of the owners of sending them to sea. Because one old man refused to sign on, although he was told he would not be required to go to sea, he was discharged, notwithstanding the fact that he had worked for the company for nearly 40 years. The deputy-superintendent who signed these men on knew perfectly well that he was doing wrong, and that he had no right to sign them on, knowing that they were not going to form the crew of the ship. Furthermore, the Board of Trade Surveyor, or the Medical Officer of the Board of Trade, had no right to pass these men as the crew of the vessel when he knew they were not going to sea in the ship. This matter was then brought under the notice of the Board of Trade, but no answer has been given, no doubt for the reason that they do not want to do anything which would offend the shipping interest. All I ask, and all the seamen ask, is that the Board of Trade will administer the law fairly and impartially between employer and man. If we get that we cannot expect any more, but I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that the Board of Trade at the present moment are a long way short of administering the law in an impartial manner. It is administered all on one side at the present moment. The right honourable Gentleman has said that seamen arc better off now than they were, and that they are getting higher wages now than they have ever received. The President of the Board of Trade is entirely mistaken on that point. The men arc getting wages as low as ever they did, and in many cases they are getting 25 per cent. less than the wages which were paid 30 years ago. I cannot see how, in the face of these facts, the right honourable Gentleman can say that seamen are enjoying a prosperous time. With regard to accommodation, I have no hesitation in saying that there are a large number of cases in which the accommodation provided is contrary to the Board of Trade regulations. It is supposed that a man shall be able to read a newspaper in any part of a forecastle by the light of day, but I have been in many forecastles where I could not see my hand in front of me, and where the ventilation was very imperfect. If the Board of Trade would step out manfully in the right direction this could be remedied. Laws on the subject have been passed, and I contend that it is the duty of the Board of Trade to see that those laws are properly administered. I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

MR. J. SAMUEL (Stockton-on-Tees)

Mr. Speaker, I formally second the reduction of the Vote.


No one can doubt that the honourable Member has taken full advantage of the opportunity afforded him by the forms of the House, but I venture to think that if honourable Members generally who had criticisms to make were to take similar advantage it would be so intolerable as to render it necessary to take some action in the matter. I make no complaint whatever about being asked questions, but I do complain of the honourable Member having, without the slightest notice, challenged the Board of Trade on the whole administration of the Merchant Shipping Act. I decline at such an hour, without the adequate material with which I should have supplied myself if I had received notice, to traverse in detail all the statements and accusations which the honourable Member has put forth: but it must not be assumed in consequence that I accept any of the figures or statements that have been made by him. The honourable Gentleman has raised questions with regard to the administration of the Merchant Shipping Act, the inspection of provisions, nautical surveyors, advance notes, the Conciliation Act, the manning of ships, and the accommodation of lascars. Surely, that is a Budget which might well afford ample scope for discussion at many sittings, and which cannot be debated in the course of a quarter of an hour, or even half an hour. I can only say that if the honourable Gentleman supplies me with particulars of the cases in which, in his opinion, the administration of the Merchant Shipping Act has fallen short of what he considers necessary, I will inquire into the matter. But I am bound to say, with regard to many statements which have been made by the honourable Member, that I have found in previous inquiries that the honourable Gentleman's accusations have been, if not baseless, grossly exaggerated.


I have over and over again supplied this information to the Board of Trade, and the right honourable Gentleman has inquired into them by sending them to the very people against whom I made the charges, which were, of course, denied.


The honourable Gentleman has made accusations against shipowners and against officials of the Board of Trade, and he seems to think it extraordinary that we should ask for an explanation from those accused. He desires to be free to make accusations, but he denies the right of those who are charged to answer those accusations. There are one or two matters to which I will refer. We have been in frequent communication with the Consul-General of New York, and only this week I authorised a letter to be sent to the Foreign Office answering in detail the statements made by the Consul-General. If the honourable Gentleman thinks that matters can be dealt with in a week or two he is greatly mistaken. I deprecate just as much as he does the action of crimps at New York, and I can assure him that everything is being done to put an end to the system of which he complains. As to the Board of Trade refusing an inquiry under the Conciliation Act at Glasgow, the Board of Trade have no right, and ought not, to interfere unless they believe that their interference will tend to a peaceful solution of the question in dispute, and what I have to consider is whether any interference on my part will do harm or good. I shall act on my own initiative, and must decline to act on the advice of the honourable Member unless I am satisfied that any action on my part will tend to a peaceful solution. With regard to the manning of ships, the honourable Member knows perfectly well that the only legislation which exists on this subject was passed by myself, and when he says the Manning Scale was issued without any instructions to those interested he is making a statement which is groundless.


I did not say that. What I did say was that the Scale was not in accordance with the views of the permanent officials of the Board of Trade.


The honourable Member said that if we had consulted anybody connected with the seafaring trade we should not have acted as we did. May I tell the honourable Gentleman that I did consult, not only those connected with the seafaring trade, but shipowners, and also the men.


The seamen were not consulted.


The seamen were consulted. The honourable Member professes to be the only representative of the sailors, but there are others in this House who know quite as much about them as he does, and there are those who repudiate him and his action. The only other point to which I will refer is the lascar question. Here again the House must not imagine that the honourable Gentleman appears as the representative of the lascars, because, although he no doubt conscientiously professes great interest in the welfare of lascar seamen, the latter are not only very content with their lot, but entirely repudiate the action which the honourable Member is taking on their behalf. They are quite content, and are extremely happy in their employment, and if the honourable Member is moving on their behalf he is doing so without their approval. How- ever, I am bound to acknowledge that, whether they are satisfied or not, the Board of Trade are bound to see that the Act of Parliament with regard to them and to other seamen is properly administered. The honourable Member says he knows the law much better than any official of the Board of Trade.


I did not say that.


He said I had maintained all along that the Act does not apply. This is purely a legal question, but the honourable Member professes to know exactly what the law is with regard to it. Lascars are dealt with under the Indian Act and the English Act. The Board of Trade have always disallowed tonnage in all ships, whether belonging to the P. and O. Company or not, which have not given the requisite space for the crews. Then comes the question whether we ought to prosecute for penalties. That is another question altogether, and it is an extremely difficult and complicated one. The honourable Gentleman says that my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture stated last year that the matter was under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. I am sure my right honourable Friend said nothing of the kind. I have not got the volume of "Hansard" here, but if my right honourable Friend said the matter was under the consideration of the legal advisers of the Board of Trade he would have been saying what was incorrect. I have thought the matter so intricate and difficult that it ought to be considered by even higher legal authorities than the legal advisers of the Board of Trade. The matter is now under the consideration of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and we shall be guided by the opinion given to us by these Gentlemen. If it turns out that in their opinion the P. and 0. Company or any other company is liable to penalties because of their action in respect to lascars, the Board of Trade will take action. The honourable Gentleman said that the figures supplied to me do not agree with the figures which have been ascertained by him. I cannot, of course, enter into the question of figures across the Table of the House without notice, but I must say that the figures quoted by the right honourable Gentleman are not at all in accord with the figures which have been supplied to me.

Question put— That '£14,781,000' stand part of the said Resolution.

The House divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 31.—(Division List No. 67.)

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Fletcher, Sir Henry Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay
Arnold, Alfred Folkestone, Viscount Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Fry, Lewis Penn, John
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gedge, Sydney Percy, Earl
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Goldswortby, Major-General Pilkington, Richard
Baird, John G. Alexander Gordon, Hn. John Edward platt-Higgins, Frederick
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man.) Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon Pollock, Harry Frederick
Banbury, Frederick George Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Ed.
Barton, Dunbar Flunket Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Purvis, Robert
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benj. Greene, H D. (Shrewsbury) Pym, C. Guy
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir H.M.(Bris.) Gretton, John Rankin, Sir James
Beckett, Ernest William Greville, Hon. Ronald Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Gull, Sir Cameron Ritchie, Rt. Hn C. Thomson
Bigwood, James Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bill, Charles Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Russell, Gen. F.S. (Chelten'm)
Bond, Edward Hanson, Sir Reginald Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Brodrick, Rt. Hn St. John Hare, Thomas Leigh Rutherford, John
Burdett-Coutts, W. Heath, James Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Butcher, John George Henderson, Alexander Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol) Smith, Abel H (Christch.)
Cecil, Lord H (Greenwich) Hobhouse, Henry Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow) Smith, Hn. W. F.D. (Strand)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. (Bir.) Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r) Lafone, Alfred Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hn. Henry Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Charrington, Spencer Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Stock, James Henry
Cochrane, Hn. T. H. A. E. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Long, Rt. Hn W. (Liverpool) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jasse Lorne, Marques of Thornton, Percy M.
Colomb, Sir John C. Ready Lowe, Francis William Tollemache, Henry James
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lowles, John Valentia, Viscount
Cooke, C. W. R. (Heref 'd Loyd, Archie Kirkman Wanklyn, James Leslie
Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. Macartney, W. G. Ellison Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)
Cnrzon, Viscount Macdona, John dimming Warr, Augustus Frederick
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Maclver, David (Liverpool) Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Davenport, W. Bromley- Maclure, Sir John Wm. Webster, SirR. E.(Isle of Wight)
Denny, Colonel M 'Arthur, Chas (Liverpool) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburg, W) Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Dorington, Sir John Edward Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Doughty, George Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Wilson, J. W. (Worcester. N.)
Douglas, Rt. Hn. A Akers Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R.(Bath)
Doxford, William Theodore Milward, Colonel Victor Wylie, Alexander
Duncombe, Hn. Hubert V. More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)
Egerton, Hn. V. de Tatton Morrell, George Herbert
Fardell, Sir T. George Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fisher, William Hayes Nicholson, William Graham Sir William Walrond and
Fison, Frederick William Nicol, Donald Ninian Mr. Anstruther.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Kilbride, Denis Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Lambert, George Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Caldwell, James Lawson, Sir William(Cumb'land Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh) Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lloyd-George, David Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merioneth-sh. Macaleese, Daniel Weir, James Galloway
Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Kenna, Reginald Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Gurdon, Sir William Brampton M'Leod, John
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale Morton, Edw. J.C.(Davenport)
Horniman, Frederick John Pirie, Duncan V. TELLERS FOR THE NOES-
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs) Mr. Havelock Wilson and
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Mr. John Wilson Durham).
MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

Mr. Speaker, my only object in intervening in the Debate is to give a practical illustration, drawn from my own constituency, of the injustice with which parents who desire to take the advantage of the Free Education Act or the conscience clause are treated. The circumstances of which I speak have occurred within the last few days. Mr. R. T. Price, a parent, residing in Flint, applied for a free place for his child in one of the National schools, there being no Board or British school in the town. On the 16th of February last he wrote to the rector of the parish, Rev. W. LI. Nicholas, one of the managers of the Flint National schools, the following letter— Rev. Sir,—Having made an application to the head master of the above school for free schooling for my child, he gives me the information that your school is not a free school; therefore, it debars me from the right to free education for my children. I beg to ask you is the information received correct? If so, upon what grounds? An early reply will oblige. That was a perfectly civil letter, containing no imputation on anyone. The rector replied as follows— Flint Rectory, February 17th, 1899. Sir,—A letter just reached me. It bears no date, and no address, but is signed by 'R. T. Price.' On inquiry I am led to the conclusion that it is written by you, the agent of one of the most respected of English Insurance Companies, and it is this that increases my wonder. You inform the managers that you wrote to Mr. E. I. H. Williams, the headmaster of our school, asking for certain information, and on receipt of his letter, you at once write to the managers practically accusing Mr. Williams of giving you wrong information. Such a charge against Mr. Williams, who bears the highest character for honesty and truth, reveals a baseness of mind that, in my opinion, unfits the writer for any consideration at the hands of the managers, who respect Mr. Williams as a gentleman, whose conduct has always been marked by straight for wardness—On behalf of the managers, yours faithfully, W. LI. Nicholas. To Mr. Price, Agent for the Prudential Society. This is a strange letter for a clergyman to write to a parishioner who had made no reflection upon anyone. Mr. Price replied to this letter, disclaiming the least intention of reflecting upon Mr. Williams' character, and stating that he had written for an authoritative reply from the managers of the Flint National schools to his question whether it was a free school or not. The rector, writing him on the 20th February, informed him that three of the elementary schools in Flint are free schools, while in two others fees are charged in certain standards. Mr. Price then wrote to the rector asking him to state definitely what were the standards in which the managers could make a charge, and there, I believe, the correspondence ended. On the 25th February, Mr. Price received a letter from the Divisional Superintendent of the Prudential Assurance Company, stating that a complaint had gone up to the head office that Mr. Price had given serious offence in influential quarters by reason of his extreme conduct in political matters, and asking him to meet the superintendent at Flint on the following Monday. Mr. Price accordingly met the inspector on Monday, the 27th February. The subject of the conversation was Mr. Price's action in relation to the school, and the correspondence he had had with the rector of Flint. I do not know who it was who wrote the letter to the Prudential Insurance Company, but whoever wrote it, the House will readily understand the nature of the influences brought to bear against a parent who had dared to request that a free place should be provided for his child, and had asked to be informed of the grounds on which the managers refused a free place. I ask the Vice-President of the Council for a full inquiry into the circumstances connected with this correspondence. There is another point I wish to raise in connection with free education in the same place. Mr. Price's child did not bring the money for stationery, and was caned. I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is legal for a schoolmaster to inflict corporal punishment on a child because it did not bring twopence to pay for school stationery? Is the obligation on the parent or on the child? I now come to the case of parents who have withdrawn their children from denominational instruction. On the 1st of February last, Mr. John Williams, of Chester Street, Flint, wrote to the managers of the Flint National Schools asking that his boy and girl should be exempted from repeating or learning the Church of England Catechism, but stating that he had no objection to their receiving Scripture lessons. On the same day, the Rev. W. LI. Nicholas, the rector of Flint, sent him a reply to the effect that his wishes would be strictly carried out. Mr. Nicholas's letter contained the following remarkable passage— This is the second letter you have sent to the Rectory, and on its receipt my mind could not help reverting to the time when you wrote your first letter, and I earnestly trust that a similar period of so much misery to your family and numerous friends may not follow the writing of this your second letter. Subsequently, several parents withdrew their children from denominational instruction, and on the evening of Sunday, 19th February, the names and occupations of four of the parents who had withdrawn their children from denominational instruction were published from the parish pulpit. The publication of names in such a connection from the pulpit of the parish church could only have been intended to terrorise people from claiming their legal rights. It amounted to putting the parents named on a black list, and it was calculated to expose them to annoyance and loss. As a matter of fact, it has since then exposed them to considerable annoyance. In various parts of the country many illegitimate influences have been brought to bear on parents who wish to avail themselves of the protection conferred by the conscience clause. It is perfectly monstrous that the manager of a public elementary school should use his clerical position for the purpose of treating Nonconformist parents, who have acted strictly in accordance with their legal rights, in the way I have described, and I ask the Department to make a full inquiry into the circumstances of this case. I have shown that an attempt has been made by someone to prejudice Mr. R. T. Price in the eyes of his employers. That, unfortunately, does not appear to be the only case of that kind. Mr. S. Catherall, of Gladstone Terrace, Flint, on the 27th February, signed the following statement— Being a London and North Western Railway servant, and having requested the managers of the Flint National School not to teach my children any creed or catechism of the Church of England, the Rector, the Rev. W. LI. Nicholas, interviews my station-master about my doing so, and at the same time stating his intention of writing to the Railway Company's headquarters, pointing out that he has saved the Railway Company many pounds by keeping the Board School out of Flint.—S. Catherall. Now, that looks very like a case of interference with a working man's employment, and I wish to know whether the Education Department or any other department, or arm of Government, have the power to protect parents in cases of this kind. If not, it is a state of things that calls for immediate action on the part of the Government. It is bad enough that parents in 7,000 or 8,000 parishes should have no voice in the local management of the public elementary school to which all alike are compelled to send their children, but when it comes to this, that parents can be denounced by name, and that people can be prejudiced in their means of getting a livelihood, it is time to ask what action the Government are going to take to protect parents in the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of their rights as citizens. On behalf of the parents in Flint who wish to take advantage of the conscience clause, I ask that the Government should make a searching and impartial inquiry into all the circumstances attending the withdrawal of the children, and that they should take such action as will enable parents in the future to exercise their legal rights without being subjected to annoyance or oppression.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

When these matters were brought before the House the other day by the Member for Flint I stated that it was the settled policy of the Education Department to keep itself out of these local quarrels, and that I hoped they would do so in Flint. I am happy to say they have done so up to now, and I do not think the honourable Member will be able to draw the Department into taking sides for one party or the other. He asks me whether I think it was right for the rector of Flint to denounce parents from the pulpit because they had withdrawn their children from denominational teaching. That is a question upon which the Committee of Council have no information whatever. If there was any ground for supposing anybody had been intimidated, that would be a different question; but, as these gentlemen who were denounced from the pulpit were themselves preachers, it is quite plain, however much they were irritated, they were not intimidated. It would be folly for the Education Department to assume episcopal functions, by censuring clergymen of the Church of England or any other church for their ecclesiastical conduct. The London and North Western Railway servant referred to was a man who, having two children at school, aged three and four respectively, desired that they should be withdrawn from religious instruction. I have no doubt the rector ought to have received that request with great meekness and consideration, but he appeal's to have made a confidant of the station-master, who was not the employer, and had no power to dismiss the man. The clergyman seems to have unbosomed his grief to the station-master, and to have told him how bad he thought the man to be. However, he made no representation to the railway company, the children were duly withdrawn from denominational instruction, and the father is as happy as he can be. The other case was one in which some angry letters seem to have passed. It is impossible for the Education Department to secure that all correspondence that takes place shall be conducted with perfect courtesy, and in the style of the "Perfect Letter-writer." These things do arise, and must settle themselves. It is not for a Department of State to meddle with them. The Education Department will not interfere in these ecclesiastical squabbles, but it will see that the law of the land is carried out. In the particular case referred to there had been a little temper shown on both sides, but nobody has been coerced or intimidated, and, if there had been no outside intervention, the whole squabble would, I believe, have settled itself very quickly. The case of the unfortunate child who was caned for not bringing its two pence for stationery is entirely new to me. I have never heard of it until this moment, and if the honourable Member will get the parent to make a formal complaint to the Education Department the matter will be inquired into.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, in my opinion, one of the worst features in the whole matter is the speech of the right honourable Gentleman himself. Here is a legal right claimed by citizens of this country, who, unfortunately, happen to be Nonconformists. They claim to have their children exempted from denominational teaching under the conscience clause, and are intimidated by the rector and manager of the school. The right honourable Gentleman says he has nothing whatever to do with that. Surely, it is one of the prime functions of the Education Department to see that the law is carried out in the letter and in the spirit. The right honourable Gentleman says there has been no intimidation. I say that to go to a man's employer in the way in which this rector has done is clearly to intimidate, and I contend that this matter ought to be inquired into by the Education Department. The right honourable Gentleman has evidently had some communication with the rector of the parish. He says it is not the business of the Education Department to take sides but the right honourable Gentleman himself has taken a side, for he has accepted the statement made by the rector of the parish without any investigation. A working man, although he may be a Nonconformist lay preacher, has as much right to have his word taken as has the rector of the parish, until, at any rate, there is an investigation into the matter. The letters which have been referred to by my honourable Friend prove that the rector has absolutely no control over his feelings or his emotions when excited. When we raised the question of the treatment of Nonconformists in schools the question was asked, "How is it they do not avail themselves of the conscience clause?" This is our answer. Whenever there is a demand made to avail ourselves of the conscience clause there is intimidation on the part of the managers. This Debate has had one good effect. Honourable Members opposite received the support of thousands of Nonconformists in this country at the last election, and we shall not cease to remind Nonconformists throughout the country that when they have legitimate grievances which are not denied as far as the facts are concerned, and when those grievances are brought before the House of Commons, they are met by the laughter and the contempt of the Minister whom they helped to return and place in his present position, and also by the jeers of honourable Members opposite who have been returned to this House largely through the support accorded them by Nonconformists. We do not bring this matter forward because we expect redress, for never has the right honourable Gentleman really attempted to do justice to Nonconformists.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

I rise to draw attention to a matter of very great importance to my constituency. It is with reference to a dog licence. I have tried to get information on the subject, and have written numerous letters to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, but without result. The case is as follows: A spinster who resides in Ross-shire owns a cow and two heifers. The Excise Act of 1878 definitely states that every per-

son who owns cattle or sheep is entitled to keep a dog for the purpose of attending them without paying a licence, but this poor woman is compelled to pay. She signed a sworn information that she kept the dog for the purpose of attending to the cattle, and I have forwarded this to the Secretary of the Board of Inland Revenue. I was told there was no reason why the dog should not be taxed. The next-door neighbour to this woman has obtained exemption from taxation in respect of her dog, and I am told that her dog is not qualified to receive exemption. The question I wish to put is a very natural question—namely, What is the test as to whether a dog is qualified for exemption or not? This is a serious matter to a poor crofter. I want to know how it is the Board of Inland Revenue do not abide by the statute, which distinctly states that a person keeping cattle or sheen is entitled to keep a dog to look after them without paying a licence.

Question put— That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

The House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 32—(Division List No. 68.)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Arnold, Alfred Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Fardell, Sir T. George
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Charrington, Spencer Fisher, William Hayes
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A. E. Fison, Frederick Wiliam
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cohen, Benjamin Lewis Fletcher, Sir Henry
Baird, John George Alexander Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Folkestone, Visccount
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Gedge, Sydney
Banbury, Fredrick George Compton, Lord Alwyne Goldsworthy, Major-General
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cooke, C. W. Ratcliffe(Heref'd) Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bathurst Hon. Allen Benjamin Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol) Curzon, Viscount Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Beckett, Ernest William Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bigwood, James Davenport, W. Bromley- Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)
Bond, Edward Denny, Colonel Gretton, John
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Diekenson-Poynder, Sir J.P. Greville, Hon. Ronald
Burdett-Coutts, W. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Gull, Sir Cameron
Butcher, John George Dorington, Sir John Edward Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Doughty, George Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hanson, Sir Reginald
Chaloner, Captain R.G.W. Doxford, William Theodore Hare, Thomas Leigh
Chamberlain Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.) Duncombe, Hon Hubert V. Heath, James
Henderson, Alexander More, Robert J. (Shropshire) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol) Morrell, George Herbart Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Hobhouse, Henry Murray, Rt. H. A. Graham(Bute) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart
Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) Nicholson, William Graham Stock, James Henry
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Nicol, Donald Ninian Stone, Sir Benjamin
Lafone, Alfred Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead) Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington) Thornton, Percy M.
Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset) Penn, John Tollemache, Henry James
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. B. Percy, Earl Valentia, Viscount
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wanklyn, James Leslie
Lorne, Marquess of Pollock, Harry Frederick Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.(Kent)
Lowe, Francis William Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Warr, Augustus Frederick
Lowles, John Purvis, Robert Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Pym, C. Guy Webster, Sir R. E.(Isle of Wight
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Rankin, Sir James Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Macdona, John Cumming Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartle'l Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.
Maclver, David (Liverpool) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Willox, Sir John Archibald
Maclure, Sir John William Royds, Cement Molyneux Wilson, John (Falkirk)
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
M'lver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R.(Bath)
Massey-Mainwaring, H. W.F. Rutherford, John Wylie, Alexander
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Middlemore, John Throgmorton Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES▀×
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) Sir William Waldrond and
Milward, Colonel Victor Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Mr. Anstruther.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Lambert George Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bill, Charles Lloyd-George, David Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Caldwell, James Macaleese, Daniel Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh) M'Kenna, Reginald Weir, James Galloway
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Leod, John Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk
Ellis, Thos. Edw.(Merionethsh- Morton, Ed. J.C.(Davenport) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Pilkington, Richard Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesboro'
Gurdon, Sir William Brampton Pirie, Duncan V.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) TELLERS FOR THE
Horniman, Frederick John Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Mr. Herbert Lewis and
Kilbride, Denis Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Mr. William Jones.

Resolutions agreed to.