Commons Sitting of 28 May 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the object of the Bill was to acquire certain lands in the counties of Flint, Denbigh, Carnarvon, and Anglesey for the purpose of widening the line and making necessary alterations in stations. He was sure that no one would wish to place any obstacle in the way of the company making such improvements, which were called for by the greatly increased traffic on the North Wales coast. His only object in intervening in the debate was to draw attention to the fact that, although the traffic was so heavy that the line, already a double line, had to be converted into a quadruple line, providing two sots of rails for slow and two for express traffic, no reduction whatever was made in the maximum rates for carrying goods traffic, which were much higher on the Chester and Holyhead section than on other portions of the main line. The line from Chester to Holyhead was originally constructed by the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company. One of the pleas that had been put forward for higher rates was that the original cost of construction was high. Whether that was so or not, it was hardly for the London and North Western Railway Company to put forward that plea, seeing that they bought the line at one half the cost of its construction, and they therefore got it very cheaply. Moreover, at the time the line was made the cost of land was very much loss than at present. They complained, too, that traffic could only be drawn from one side of the railway, and that the coast was rugged; but it was the sea which had caused those difficulties, that induced tourists by the tens of thousands to visit the North Wales coast. It had caused large and populous watering places, and a number of smaller but rapidly growing towns, to spring up all along the coast-line; indeed, it looked as if the North Wales coast-line would in time become one continuous line of houses. These towns had enormously increased the goods and passenger traffic of the company—increased it, indeed, to such an extent that it was necessary for the company to come to Parliament for fresh powers to enable them to deal with the great and constantly growing volume of

  1459
  traffic, not only along the North Wales coast, but also the through traffic between England and Ireland. The rates charged on this line were discussed in Parliament in the year 1891, when the House of Commons reduced the rate levied on goods under Table A. to 95d., under a penny per ton per mile, the same rate as that charged on other sections of the main line. The House of Lords, however, raised the rate to 1½d. per ton per mile. Finally, the rate was fixed at l¼d. per ton per mile. It still remained at that figure; to-day it was 25 per cent. higher than the rates on other sections of the main line up to distances not exceeding twenty miles; it was 32 per cent. up to distances of fifty miles—60 per cent. higher for distances above fifty miles. The traders' contention was that there was nothing to justify the maximum rate being placed at a higher figure than 95d. per ton per mile, the amount charged on other sections of the main line, and he had never heard any argument which could not be easily refuted to show that any higher rate should be charged. If ever there was any reason for charging higher rates, it had long ago ceased to exist. The London and North Western Railway Company, by reason of the very configuration of the coast, occupied such a favourable position that no rival company could hope to compete with it for a share of the enormous traffic with which it was now prepared to deal. It had, in fact, an absolute monopoly. Any other company attempting to run a parallel line would find that the North Western Company had taken possession of every point of vantage that the coast could afford. The company was therefore in possession of a great monopoly, and it was the duty of Parliament to guard with the most scrupulous care the interests of traders and consumers, and to see that they were fully protected under any statute that conferred additional powers on a groat monopoly. The North Western Railway Company had not only secured a monopoly of the coast, it had acquired as many inland branch lines as possible, so that the greater part of North Wales was entirely in its hands. In conjunction with the Great Western Railway Company the London and North Western Railway Company had even gone to the length of constructing lines for purely obstructive purposes. He would give a case in point. About thirty years ago it was
  1460
  intended to bring a competing line of railway into North Wales. The Great Western and the London and North Western were determined to prevent competition, and accordingly constructed a line from Wrexham to Mold with the object of keeping out the new railway. The "obstructive" line was not opened for passenger traffic for twenty years, and had only been opened within the last few years under pressure from the county councils and other authorities. He had given this instance to show how determined those great railway companies were to preserve their monopolies. That spirit on their part must be met by a corresponding spirit on the part of the representatives of the public, that at the very least companies which obtain such monopolies should not be allowed to charge exceptional rates in those portions of the country where the monopoly existed. He might be asked, why not fight this question upstairs? Unfortunately, the public in North Wales had no large and comprehensive organisation to protect their interests in matters of this kind. The railway company, a wealthy and powerful corporation, could fight in detail local bodies which were naturally and properly averse to spending the ratepayers' money in litigation with a great railway company, which could afford to pay the ablest counsel and get the best expert evidence. They even went the length of approaching the witnesses brought to London to give evidence against them, finding out their individual grievances and settling with them, thereby cutting the ground from under the feet of the opposition. The interests involved were so great that no effort or expense was spared to make the case of the company as complete as possible. Ordinary opponents had no chance whatever against a highly perfected organisation of this kind. The contest was so unequal that it was not surprising to find the councils of small counties, municipalities, and urban districts shrinking from the task of protecting the interests of traders and the public in their fear of incurring undue expense. But the representatives of constituencies in North Wales had the right to protest against the charging of these exceptional rates. He hoped that opposition to them would be continued until full justice was done to the manufacturers, traders, and general public of North Wales. He

  1461
  wished the company well, having met nothing but kindness and courtesy at the hands of its officials in the country, and he hoped that they would soon see the justice of reducing their maximum charges to the manufacturers and traders of Flintshire and other counties in North Wales to those charged on other portions of their main line.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): I think the time has arrived when something should be done with regard to the charges on this particular branch of the London and North Western Railway Company's system. The matter has been before the House repeatedly during the last eight or nine years, and, as has been pointed out, exceptional treatment is meted out to the residents along the Chester and Holyhead line, for reasons which are absolutely insufficient. I recollect that when this question was raised in the House many years ago, the rates on this part of the line were reduced to exactly the same level as those obtaining on other parts of the main line, which was surely logical and proper treatment, the only difference between the sections of the railway being, so far as I know, that the Welsh part is far more remunerative than any other section. My hon. and gallant friend who represents the London and North Western Railway Company in this House, and deals with these matters in so genial a manner as to make it difficult for anyone to oppose him, will not deny not only that this part of the line was not constructed by his company, but that they bought it at less than one-half the original cost. Whatever the initial cost of this particular part of the line, the North Western Company got it cheap. No one else could have bought it, and now, with the ruthlessness which pertains to all monopolies, they take advantage of the position and charge exorbitant rates. The maximum rate charged on the company's main line is ·95 of a penny. The difference in rate between ·95d. on the main line and l·25d. on the Chester and Holyhead section is duo to the fact that up to Chester there is competition to be met from the Midland, the Great Western, and the Great Central lines; but on this piece of coast-line the North Western Company are autocrats of the situation except so far as traffic can be carried by
  1462
  sea. When there is a possibility of sea competition the company reduce their rates, but inland towns are forced to pay the increased rate, and thus smaller industries that might be carried on in the rural districts are crushed out of existence. I do not see why these places should pay higher rates in order that Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Nottingham, which are specially favoured in the matter of railway competition, should enjoy cheap rates. The maximum ought to he carefully scrutinised and reduced to the lowest possible point in towns where there is no competition. The House of Commons gives a monopoly to railway companies. In some cases it is not detrimental, because other companies serve the same district, but it is where there is only one line in the district; and I believe that sooner or later Parliament will have to see that rates in such districts are not piled up in order to cover losses created by competition in other places. We know that one of the greatest problems requiring to be solved is caused by the crowding of masses of the people into big towns. One of the reasons for that is that it is impossible for any trade or industry to be carried on successfully in the rural districts because of the excessive charges of monopolist railways. In 1891, when the question of railway rates was before the House, I moved an Amendment which the Government and the House accepted, by which the rates on the Chester and Holyhead section were reduced to the level of the general rate, but in the House of Lords Lord Stalybridge—who, in addition to being a Peer of the realm, is a director of the London and North Western Company—moved a return to the old figure, and, mustering his railway director friends, carried his proposal against the opposition of the Government. When the Bill returned to the House of Commons at the end of the session the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, appealed to the House to accept the compromise of l·25d We did so, and for nine years these little industries have been starved and pinched simply because the railway directors gathered together in the House of Lords and out-voted the Government. It is a most monstrous system by which a ring of railway directors are enabled to prove themselves more powerful than the

  1463
  Government of the day, and to render it absolutely impotent in the face of the great railroad monopoly.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon): There seems to be a conspiracy of silence on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in regard to these grave charges against this railway company. We do not object to granting the increased facilities demanded by reason of the increasing traffic on the North Wales line, but we do object to this strong company declining to remedy the grievances and burdens under which the people in this district have so long suffered. I know they say that they can only draw traffic from one side of the line; but as against that we can point to the fact that on this coast are to be found some of the most beautiful and most important watering resorts, which have been created not by the company, but by the sea. Although the coast owes a good deal to the London and North Western Railway Company, I maintain that the company owes a great deal more to the coast. Besides that, the Chester and Holyhead branch of the system is the main artery along which the great Irish traffic runs, and I should gather from what I have heard even from the directors that that traffic alone would be sufficient to make the line remunerative, even if they did not carry a single passenger or a single ton of goods for any part of North Wales. A great principle is involved in this. The local rates are so excessive that commercial men are receiving goods from London through the Midland to Liverpool, shipping them to Carnarvon, and carting them thence to inland towns, and, as was shown at a conference held at Bangor in 1896, the charge for the carriage of a horse from an inland town in Anglesey to Liverpool is £2, while the animal can be sent from Dublin along the Holyhead line to Liverpool for 25s., including the return fare of the groom, the charge being twice as much from the inland town for half the distance. Again, tradesmen at Bettws-y-Coed can by carting from Conway get their goods at a cheaper rate than is charged by the London and North Western Company. I do contend that the company should be compelled to readjust its tariff and make it the same as obtains on the rest of the system. What we want is to get an assurance or understanding that this
  1464
  question will be settled on broad and liberal lines. It has been said that the London and North Western Railway Company is conscienceless; but I must say that they have shown conscience in the highest degree with respect to the war. They have kept the places of Reservists in their service who have had to go out to South Africa, open; and they helped the Reservists' wives and children. I only ask them to show conscience in the same way to the poor agriculturists of North Wales, and solve the problem of this long-standing grievance.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: It happens that I represent the county of Denbigh, which is affected by this Bill, but I only desire to draw the special attention of the Committee to the real grievance from which the farmers suffer by the excessive rates demanded by the London and North Western Railway Company. I wish to endorse all that has been said in regard to the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in reference to these rates. We appreciate entirely the difficulties he has had to contend with in this matter, and I hope it is not too late for him to show again his personal sympathy, and give his personal support to the case we are laying before the House. It seems to me that the fact that this company holds the practical monopoly of North Wales between Chester and Holyhead should induce the House of Commons to carefully consider the question of the rates charged. I know, for a fact, that these high rates are a material detriment to the trade and agriculture of the whole of North Wales; and in these times when we are forced by distressful circumstances to give special attention to the farming classes of the country, I think it is only right that the House of Commons should carefully examine the points the Welsh Members have laid before it. It seems to mo that a number of now considerations have been advanced in the debate, and I do not think it unnatural that the Government should have some time to reconsider this question. Further than that, I think it would be only right that the question at issue should be again considered upstairs. With that object, I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clause 6, which is the clause we wish to bring before the arbitrament of the House. There are many grounds

  1465
  on which we can advocate that. It may be urged that evidence has not been forthcoming in regard to the attitude of the people of North Wales in reference to Clause 6; but I am assured that if this further opportunity is provided for expressing the views of North Wales, that opportunity will be taken advantage of. I hope therefore that the Government, or, at all events, the promoters of the Bill, will agree to the suggestion I have made, and not oppose my motion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words ' now read the third time,' and add the words ' re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clause 6.' "—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' now read the third time ' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I rise to support my hon. friends the Welsh Members, inasmuch as they have supported the Irish Members again and again in their disputations with the London and North Western Railway Company. I hope the Government, or the promoters of the Bill, will give us the opportunity of enabling us to confer with the ten or twelve railway directors who were on the Committee as to whether those rates, where there is no competition, should be charged by this monopolist company. As I listened today to the speeches of the Welsh Members, and to the silence with which they were received from the Treasury Bench, I thought I recollected a speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury a year or two ago in reference to another monopolist vote. The Secretary to the Treasury, who is one of the very few members of the Ministry who is not a company director, then said—
  "The indirect influence which a big company like this"
  —he was referring to the National Telephone Company, and I apply it to the London and North Western Railway Company—
  "can bring, and is bringing, to bear is enormous; and it is difficult to see where public policy begins and private interest ends."
  Possibly the Government and the railway directors will not answer that question. They will rally their big battalions,
  1466
  against the strongest argument that can be brought to bear on a question of this kind. I saw a moment ago an hon. Gentleman enter the House—a Minister of the Crown who is a paid director of the London and North Western Railway Company, and received his directorship after he was appointed a Minister, in order that he should use his Ministerial position for the purposes of this monopolist company.
  HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must withdraw that expression. The hon. Member said that a Minister of the Crown has received some appointment with a view to its wrongful influence upon his conduct as a Member of this House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh no, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: That was the nature of the imputation.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You have misunderstood roe, Sir.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I shall not withdraw until I have explained. I made no personal imputation against the hon. Gentleman himself; but I do say that his position, sitting on the Treasury Bench, would lead—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] that is my opinion—might lead to the inference that he is there as a director and not as a Minister.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must withdraw what he first said.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Of course, I do withdraw. I make no personal implication against the hon. Gentleman; but what I can say is that, although a position of this kind was not accepted by the hon. Gentleman as a bribe, it may have been given to him as a bribe by this monopolist company. I think I am fully in order in saying that; and I am very glad that you, Mr. Speaker, have called me to order, because by doing so it will expose this system.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now departing from the

  1467
  question before the House; the question is that the Bill be recommitted to reconsider Clause 6.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I think the Bill should be recommitted to give the Government an opportunity of consulting with their friends, both in the railway interest and outside of it, as to whether this Bill should be passed or not. It is a scandalous thing that a great public company like the London and North Western Railway company, with their great influence, can use that influence in the House of Commons as they do. If I have spoken with heat on this question, I hope the House will forgive me, for I recollect a great contest in regard to an Irish question in which I was engaged with this company. Wherever they can, they have oppressed the poor, and they have endeavoured to raise their dividends by a system which enables them, where there is no competition, to impose excessive rates detrimental to the interests of the country. On all these grounds I hope the Bill will be recommitted; and if, without disorder, I may say this: that I wish to enter my protest in a case of this kind against the appearance on the Treasury Bench of a director of a railway company.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: The feelings of the hon. Member for South Donegal are apt to run away with him at times, but we speedily pardon him.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do not want your pardon.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Well, I would only ask the hon. Gentleman to follow the moderate language of his Welsh colleagues who sit in front of him. They represent the interests of their Welsh industrial and agricultural constituents, and it is only natural that they should have an opportunity of reproducing the arguments that can be brought forward in favour of the general question of reduction of rates. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs complained that the London and North Western Railway Company did their best to crush the small business men—I suppose he means the small shopkeepers—by maximum rates, but he must know that the small shopkeepers get their goods carried fairly well,
  1468
  and that there is a good mail service. I will not dispute with the hon. Member the probability that there is some little excuse for complaint on a point here and there; but it would be a very singular company which was never found fault with. The London and North Western Company, however, have endeavoured to do their duty to the country throughout which they run their lines. They have reduced the rates considerably, and their great object is to provide a good service to the country, and make it as cheap and efficient as possible. The object of the Bill is to widen about six miles of the Chester and Holyhead Railway in order to increase the attraction of the public to the towns and watering-places in North Wales. Hon. Members who oppose the Third Reading of the Bill must remember that, if it should be rejected by the House, it will impose a very great disability on the company, and be fraught with very serious consequences to their traffic. We all wish to increase the attractions of North Wales, but we have also to consider the mercantile aspect of affairs in regard to that traffic, and likewise the commercial interest of the shareholders we represent. With regard to the toll-powers, they will be the same as the maximum rates applicable to any part of the London and North Western system. But it must be mentioned that the maximum rates are not invariably charged, except, perhaps, in Class A., where oven the maximum rate of 1½d. per ton has been reduced to 1 ¼d. per ton for all distances. It should also be borne in mind that these maximum rates are not always invariably charged. There has never been any complaint at all inside or outside the House as to the actual rates charged. I inquired before I came into the House, and I was informed that there had not been any complaints by the county councils or the traders. It is perfectly true, and I acknowledge fully, that hon. Members from Wales desire the best facilities obtainable for the public, but all the same they will do well to recognise that if there had been universal dissatisfaction some complaints, at all events, would have come to the ears of the London and North Western Railway Company, and surely some of the county councils would have approached the company and endeavoured to make out a case. Something has been said of the rates for horses and cattle, but the

  1469
  maximum charges, except in the middle class, are the same as on the Holyhead and Chester Railway and other parts of the system. The matters alluded to by the hon. Member for Carnarvon have nothing to do really with this case. The question of rates stated by hon. Members from Wales has been argued and settled with the authority of the House of Lords. I am sure I have myself been a sufferer from the way the House of Lords regards Bills, but I should be sorry to accuse them of having an ulterior motive in doing what they do. That would be a very serious matter indeed. I look upon them as men of business, performing their duties in the way they believe to be for the public interest. I would appeal to hon. Members from Wales whether at this particular stage, and in view of the fact that the subject has not been brought forward on this Bill, it would not be desirable to allow the Third Reading to be taken without opposition. I perfectly recognise their right to bring forward the whole question. It is one that is most interesting to the Members from North Wales. I hope they will not delay the passing of the Bill, which is really of very great importance to passengers in North Wales. It will have the effect of opening up a beautiful country. I can assure hon. Members from Wales that, as far as my small interest in the company goes, I have always acted in the public interest, and I shall always endeavour to bring before the board of directors any question affecting , the interests of Wales. I hope that at the present stage of the Bill they will see their way to withdraw the motion.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: The hon. Gentleman has spoken as if we desired to reject the Bill altogether. We only wish to recommit it in connection with Clause 6 with reference to exceptional rates. As far as the other parts of the Bill are concerned, it is welcome to pass through the House without the slightest opposition. We do not desire to place the slightest opposition in the way of the railway company, but this question ought to be considered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken made no allusion whatever to the fact that the circumstances have completely changed now that the company has doubled its line. I said before that it is the best portion of the main line,
  1470
  and there is no reason why the rates should not be reduced to the same amounts as are charged on other portions of the main line. The hon. Gentleman did not give us any reason why this difference should continue to exist. The one exception refers to the minerals carried under Class A. Flintshire, Denbighshire, and Carnarvon are deeply interested in this question, because their exports are coal and stone, and owing to the low price of minerals they find it extremely difficult to compete with other counties if these exceptional rates are allowed to be charged. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no complaint from the county councils. As a matter of fact, my own county council is considering whether it shall not appeal to the Lords Committee on this question, but what we see before us is a great and powerful corporation, and a small, weak county council could only fight by spending a disproportionate amount of the ratepayers' money. Under these circumstances, I think the House would only do justice to this portion of North Wales by recommitting the Bill to the former Committee in respect to Clause 6. I wish to propose this in no unfriendly spirit whatever to the railway company or the officials. I put it to the House as a matter of simple justice. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given any reason against the course we wish the House to take.
  COLONEL PRYCE - JONES: I am bound to say that what the hon. Gentleman opposite has stated is perfectly true. We are in the hands of this great railway company in my part of Wales. I attended a meeting the other day—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question of rates charged under this Bill on this particular part of the London and North Western Railway.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: All right, Mr. Speaker. At that particular meeting, when I complained of the rates they referred me to the London and North Western Railway Company. I can assure hon. Members that the House will be doing a real good turn to the Principality of Wales by objecting to the maximum rates that are being charged

  1471
  in certain parts of Wales. These railways in many parts have an absolute monopoly of the traffic.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the general question of railway rates in Wales.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: Well, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will have some regard to the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member with regard to the want of facilities, and the high rates charged by this great railway company.
  MR. FLYNN: I can very well remember, in regard to this particular portion of the line, that there was considerable opposition on the part of the Irish Members. We at first got no concessions in regard to rates or passenger fares. After considerable pressure and opposition we got some concessions, though not nearly as many as we were entitled to. I think the Welsh Members would be very well advised to take a leaf out of our book, and press for the reconsideration of this clause, so as to delay the matter until after Whitsuntide, or until a satisfactory assurance is given. I think it is a regrettable tone to the debate which the hon. Gentleman opposite has introduced. I do not think he should call the railway company "my company." That is rather a large order. I do not think that is a dignified way of conducting public business in this House, and I think the Welsh Members should press their opposition. There is one very important point which I think they have not sufficiently emphasised. Everyone acquainted with North Wales knows that the mineral industry is probably the most important in that part. I think this is their opportunity. Bargains behind the Chair, and not across the floor of the House, are very much to be deprecated.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): This discussion has travelled over rather a wide area since the motion was proposed by the Member for West Denbighshire. He suggests that the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clause 6. That clause enacts that there shall be a widening of seven or eight miles of the system. Supposing this Bill were to be recommitted in respect of the rates, the
  1472
  only question the Committee would have to consider would be whether along this distance of eight miles a differential rate is to be charged, not in respect of all goods, but only in respect of minerals. I think hon. Members will see that when the question as to rates has so narrow a limit as that, it really would be futile to send the Bill back to the Committee, for supposing that hon. Members get their way, and supposing that the Committee were to insert a proviso that along the new lines which are to be added to the main line—along the distance of eight miles—a loss rate is to be charged for minerals, the result would be that the London and North Western Railway Company would run all other traffic on the new line, and all mineral traffic on the old line, so that hon. Members would not gain by it. What hon. Members object to is not so much what is in the Bill as what is not in the Bill. They do not object, I understand, to any of the clauses in the Bill. They approve of the widening, but what they want is a general revision of rates along that part of the system. I do not see how that can be obtained. It does not seem to me to be possible to insert in this Bill those provisions, and that being so, I feel myself compelled, without expressing any opinion whatever as to the contention about rates, if they press the matter to a division, to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill and against the re-committal.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that once the Committee of the House of Commons adjudicated upon this question, that was an expression of opinion which was tantamount to a decision of the House that upon the whole of that portion of the line the rates would be reduced. Brushed of its technicalities, the whole question was whether the company should discriminate between the Chester and Holyhead branch and the other part of the line. They asked why the company should charge l¼d. upon the Chester and Holyhead line and ·.95d. on the other part of the line. The hon. and gallant Member opposite had not attempted to give an answer to that question. What possible reason was there for charging l¼d. and discriminating between the case of coal and the case of slates? If the House of Commons authorised this company to make exceptions and special charges on this line, why should it not

  1473
  also be done in regard to other traffic? He thought their appeal was a perfectly fair one. Unfortunately this was the only way they could raise the question in the House, and he appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman at any rate to agree to the adjournment of the debate until after the Whitsuntide recess. Then there might be an opportunity of conferring upon the subject, and there was really no need to hurry in the matter. There was no serious opposition to any other part of the Bill, if there was a friendly conference between the parties during the Whitsuntide recess, he believed it would be attended with excellent results. There was no claim made on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company in respect to these exceptional charges, and they did not contend that there ought to be preferential rates, if the conference he suggested took place during the recess he thought they would be able to got the measure through afterwards as an unopposed Bill. He did not know whether he should be in order in moving the adjournment, but he would do so if it was in order, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member opposite would assent to the course he had suggested.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Heath, fames

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Helder, Augustus

  Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt, Trotter

  Hartley, George C. T.

  Denny. Colonel

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)

  Bethell, Commander

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bill, Charles

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Halson, George Bickersteth

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

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

  Johnstone, Hevwood (Sussex)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Knowles, Lees

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lafone, Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

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

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Leighton, Stanley

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

  'Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Fry, Lewis

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Garfit, William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Charrington, Spencer

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lowe, Francis William

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Cumb'l'nd)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.)

  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept a motion for adjournment at this stage. The hon. Member has already heard the views of the railway company, and also the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I mean upon the question of a compromise.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept the motion.
  MR. WILLIAM JONESsupported the appeal made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon to adjourn the debate until after the Whitsuntide recess, in order to discuss the point which had been raised. If this were done he thought an arrangement could be come to which would satisfy all parties.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of the course suggested being taken.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 1G3; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 139.)

  M'Ewan, William

  Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  M'Killop, James

  Penn, John

  Spencer, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Percy, Earl

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Maple, Sir John B'undell

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

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Win. H.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Welby, Lt-Col A.C. E.(Tauntn)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Rankin, Sir James

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Rasch. Major Frederic Carne

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

  Monk, Charles James

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Mount, William George

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wyndham, George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

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

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Myers, William Henry

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Nicholson. William Graham

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Mr. Banbury and Mr. Gal-

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  loway.

  NOES.

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

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hayden. John Patrick

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Holland, William Henry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Baker, Sir John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power. Patrick Joseph

  Balcarres, Lord

  Howell, William Tudor

  Price, Robert John

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Blake, Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Brigg, John

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Caldwell, James

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh)

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Souttar, Robinson

  Carew, James Laurence

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Colville, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Dewar, Arthur

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ure, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, Eugene

  Duckworth, James

  Maddison, Fred.

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Engledew, Charles John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Evans, Sir F.H.(Southampton)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gold, Charles

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Mr. Herbert Roberts and

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Lieut.-Col. Pryce-Jones.

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the directors of the London and North Western Railway Company an opportunity of making an arrangement more satisfactory to North Wales than at
  1476
  present exists. I do this in view of the strong feeling indicated by the vote we have just taken.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that motion.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Aston Manor Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Margate Pier and Harbour Bill [Lords].
  South-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords].
  Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER HILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill.
  London (Clerkenwell and Holborn) Provisional Order Bill.
  London (Poplar) Provisional Order Bill.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time upon Thursday, 14th June.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER HILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been ' complied with, viz.:—
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Thursday, 14th June.

  POST OFFICE SITES HILL (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  1478
  Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd day of May, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Post Office Sites Bill.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDER (64 NOT COMPLIED WITH.
  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, originating in Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. G4 has not been complied with, viz.:—
  Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmelling-ton Railways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  SPALDING URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, 14th June.
  DEVONPORT CORPORATION BILL.
  Prince of Wales's consent signified; read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  GOVERNMENTS STOCK AND OTHER SECURITIES INVESTMENT COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Road the third time, and passed, without amendment.
  ILERACOMBE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  ST. ALBANS WATER BILL
  Read the third time, and passed

  LAMBETH WATER BILL.
  LANCASHIRE INEBRIATES ACTS HOARD BILL [Lords]
  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAM-ROAD BILL.
  As amended, considered to be read the third time.
  BREWERY AND COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST, LIMITED, BILL [Lords].
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [Lords]
  CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL.
  DEARNE VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  FALKIRK CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  NEATH HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  PLYMOUTH, STONEHOUSE, AND DEVONPORT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  RAWMARSH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
  RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  ALEXANDRA PARK KILL.
  "To constitute a body of trustees for the purpose of acquiring the Alexandra Palace and Park and other lands in the county of Middlesex; and to empower them to hold and manage the same as a place of public resort and recreation and for other public purposes; and to make all provisions necessary or proper in that behalf," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  PRIVATE BELLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 39, 129, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.—(The Chairman of ways and Means.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board
  1480
  for Ireland relating to Dublin, Belfast, Kingstown, and Blackrock, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Dublin, Belfast, Kingstown, and Blackrock," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 240.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (No. 2).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Bray, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Bray," presented, and read the first time: to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.2).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Ayr, Bridlington, Felixstowe, and Penryn, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Ayr, Bridlington, Felixstowe, and Penryn," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

  PERTH AND PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Perth and Paisley,

  1481
  ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.

  PERTH AND PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Perth and Paisley," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) HILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed] Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, 14th June.

  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER HILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, 14th June.

  BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Sir HENRY FLETCHER reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills, That a letter was received from Viscount Sandon, one of the Members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable to be present at the meeting of the Committee this day on account of illness.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION HILL AND CLONTARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH reported from the Joint Committee on the Dublin Corporation Bill and the Clontarf Urban District Council Bill, That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Thursday, 21st June, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills (Section A), with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee-on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills (Section B), with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the South Staffordshire Tramways Company to sell and transfer portions of their undertaking to local authorities; to confirm a lease of their undertaking to the South Staffordshire Tramways (Lessee) Company, Limited; to re-arrange their capital;. and for other purposes." South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the working of the Mersey Railway and railways connected therewith by electricity to regulate the capital of the Mersey Railway Company; and for other purposes." Mersey Railway Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Barnsley to make deviations in constructing the lines of pipes authorised by the Barnsley Corporation (Water) Act, 1896; to transfer to them certain powers, works, and obligations granted or transferred to the Corporation of Sheffield by the Sheffield Corporation (Water) Act, 1896; and to extend the periods for the taking of lands and for the construction of works, and for other purposes." Barnsley Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company to construct

  1483
  additional harbour works at Rosslare and alterations of portions of their authorised railways; and for other purposes." Fish-guards and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act for supplying with water the parish of Llanllyfni, being part of the rural district of Gwyrfai, in the county of Carnarvon." Gwyrfai Rural District Council Water Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to make provision in regard to the water undertaking of the Corporation of Margate, to authorise the Corporation to construct promenades, sea-walls, street improvements, and other works, and to make further provision in regard to the health, local government, improvement, and finance of the borough: and for other purposes." Margate Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act for defining and extending the limits of supply of the Westgate and Birchington Water Company; and for conferring further powers on the company for the construction of works, the raising of capital, and otherwise in relation to their undertaking; and for other purposes." Westgate and Birchington Water Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act for making and maintaining railways in the county of Lanark, to be called the Mother-well and Bellshill Railway; and for other purposes." Motherwell and Bellshill Railway Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the North Eastern Railway Company to own and use vessels for the conveyance of traffic between Hull and Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Harlingen; and for other purposes." North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer additional powers upon the North Eastern Railway Company for the construction of new railways and other works and the acquisition of additional lands, and upon that company and the London and North Western Railway Company in respect of the Leeds new station, and for vesting in the company the Londonderry (Seaham to Sunderland) Railway, the Cawood, Wistow, and Selby Light Railway, and the Merrybent and Darlington Railway; and for other pur-
  1484
  poses." North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords].

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]. MERSEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords].

  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
  GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [Lords].
  MARGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  WESTGATE AND BIRCHINGTON WATER BILL [Lords].
  MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS BILL [Lords].
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  Petitions against, from Bow and Bromley; and Marylebone; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Dalziel; and Motherwell; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL.
  Petition from Felton, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Alverstoke; and West Derby; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Magan Singh, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment, from Paisley; Perth; Inverkeithing; Selkirk; Broxburn; Inverness; Alloa; Culross;

  1485
  Hawick: and Benhar Moor; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS UN SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from North Camber well, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Eckington; Guildford; Aberdeen; Wooburn; Dewsbury; Paul; Woodhouse Eaves; Worthing: St. Neots; Glasgow; Old Hunstanton; King's Lynn; West Lynn; Peckham; Lewes; Sunderland; Hunstanton; Hindley Green; Marple Bridge; and Sheffield '(three); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OK INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) MILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Dundee (two); Paisley; Port Bannatyne; Kilmarnock; Perth; Falkirk; Port Glasgow; Galashiels; and Motherwell (two); to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Malvern; Sheffield; Dewsbury; Woodhouse Eaves: and Sunderland; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WAR RELIEF FUNDS COMMITTEE.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute relating to the appointment of the War Relief Funds Committee, dated 17th February, 1900, and of the Report of the Committee, dated 28th May, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th April; Mr. Hanbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.;[No. 189.]
  SINKING FUNDS.
  Account presented, of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, showing the amount received and applied in the year ended 31st March, 1900, in respect to the Old and New Sinking Funds [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 190].
  CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS) (SUPPLEMENT).
  Appropriation Accounts presented, of the sum granted by Parliament for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid for the year ending 31st March, 1899 (Supplement), together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 191.]
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS HANK (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Draft Post Office Savings Bank Regulations, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Draft Regulations of the Trustee Savings Banks, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACTS, 1881 AND 1892.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-sixth Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works by the Chief Inspector, being for 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 192.]
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Returns for 1898–9, Part I. (Poor Rate Return and Valuation for the Poor Rate) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 193.]
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consents of certain Local and Road Authorities in the case of the Wath-upon-Dearue and District Gas Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 194.]
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the St. David's Railway (Abandonment) Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE(SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of General Orders for the Regulation of Proceedings under and

  1487
  in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 195.]

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2431 to 2435 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 5, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Convention for the Preservation of Wild Animals, Birds, and Fish in Africa. Signed at London, 19th May, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Carnarvon).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 10th February, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 196.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill;
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 197.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 198.]

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CON FIRMATION BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to be upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.. 200.]

  BRITISH INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Address for " Return of the net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the eleven years from 1888–9 to 1898–9."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  INDIAN FINANCIAL STATEMENT, 1900–l.
  Address for "Copy of the Indian Financial Statement for 1900–1, and off the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Governor General thereon."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  SOUTH AFRICA (UNWOUNDED SOLDIERS DEAD OR INVALIDED HOME).
  Address for "Return of the number of Officers and Men who since the commencement of the present War have died or been invalided Home from causes other than wounds received in. action."—(Mr. Thomas Bayley.)
QUESTIONS:

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR— PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a, position to give the House any information as to reported negotiations for peace with the Transvaal Government.
  THE FIRST LORD of THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I have no information on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

  BRITISH PRISONERS AT PRETORIA.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): I beg to ask the First Lord of

  1489
  the Treasury whether he can give the House any information as to the condition and treatment of British prisoners at Pretoria: and whether any overtures for the exchange of prisoners of War have been made by the Transvaal Government; if not, would any such overtures be favourably considered by the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have no information of the condition or evidence of the ill-treatment of British prisoners at Pretoria, and we have no confirmation of a statement that the Transvaal Government have proposed an exchange of prisoners.

  DAMAGE TO HUMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES IN NATAL.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Roman Catholic church at Newcastle, Natal, has been burnt by the Boers, and the sacred images on it mutilated and destroyed; and whether, in the claim for compensation to be exacted at the conclusion of the war, reparation will also be made to the Roman Catholics of that district for this destruction of their place of worship.
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): Information has been received that the Roman Catholic chapel has been burnt. Mr. Chamberlain is of opinion that this ease is clearly one in which a claim for compensation out of the indemnity to be raised from the Boer States, may properly be entertained, subject of course to the prescribed inquiry as to the actual losses sustained.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to granting a Return showing how many Catholic churches were burnt by the English in Ireland?
  [No answer was returned.]

  PROVISION FOR INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what provision has been made, or is contemplated, for invalided soldiers from South Africa who are so physically
  1490
  weakened or shattered as to be-incapacitated for earning the livelihood of themselves and their families or dependents.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE. FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The men will be paid and medically treated, until they are discharged, their families receiving the ordinary allowances. After discharge their claims to pension will be considered by the Chelsea Commissioners. The powers of the Commissioners have recently been enlarged to admit of a higher scale of pension being accorded to men incapacitated by disease contracted on service.

  MARTIAL LAW—ALLEGED FENIAN PRISONERS AT MAFEKING.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now say if the stationmaster, Mr. Quinlan, and the other alleged Fenians, whom Colonel Baden-Powell was reported some months ago to have in custody in Mafeking, are still alive; and, if so, where they are, upon what charge were they arrested, were they tried, and, if so, by what tribunal, and upon what charge, and what was the sentence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to the replies I have made to questions put by the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire on 17th May, and by the Member for Mid Cork on 18th May.† Records have not arrived, but will arrive in due course.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I will repeat the question on 14th June.

  ARMY STATISTICS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, without injury to the public service, he can inform the. House what is the total strength in men and guns of the Army in South Africa at the present time, and what is the total strength in men and guns of the Army (including Reserves and Auxiliary Forces) within the United Kingdom, and also in India, as well as in other Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The total number of troops of all kinds in South Africa is about 221,000. The total number of
  †See pages 392 and 574.

  1491
  men under arms at home cannot be stated with any exactitude, as we have no returns of recruiting from the Volunteers. The Regulars, including Royal Reserves, numbered on May 1st, 102,730 rank and file, and the Militia about 77,000. It is not considered expedient to publish details of armament, or of the garrisons of India and the Colonies.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: How many Boors are there? You are ten to one

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS ON TRANSPORTS RETURNING WITH WOUNDED.
  MR. ARTHUR J. MOORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can now state what steps can be taken to provide ministrations of Roman Catholic chaplains on transports returning with sick and wounded from South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As I informed the hon. Member on the 17th inst.,† Roman Catholic chaplains are being detailed for transports returning with sick and wounded from South Africa when the numbers warrant it. The discretion in each case rests entirely with the general officer commanding the lines of communication.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement by the First Lord of the Admiralty that Catholic chaplains 'will be put on all hospital ships?
  MR. WYNDHAM: And it is done. But this is not a case of hospital ships. These are transports which come home with a certain number of invalids. It is impossible to provide a chaplain if there is only one man. No men are put on board who are in danger of death.

  STEGE OF LADYSMITH —DISAPPEARANCE OF STORES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have received a report on the disappearance of stores at the hospital in Intombi Camp during the first two months of the siege of Ladysmith; and whether any inquiry
  † See page 394.
  1492
  has taken place; and, if so, with what result.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): No information has reached the War Office of this matter.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: When will you have the records of the court-martial held on this subject in December last?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: They have not come yet. I do not know how soon they may arrive. When they do, I will answer1 any question that may be put on the subject.

  NON-DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS TO THE SEAT OF WAR.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is he aware that a number of telegrams sent in accordance with postal regulations, for which in some cases sums of £10 and upwards have been charged, to officers on active service in South Africa, have not been delivered to the persons to whom such telegrams have been addressed; and whether he can explain the causes of non-delivery, and state the steps which the postal authorities intend to take in future to secure the prompt delivery of telegrams to officers and men serving in South Africa.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): Very few complaints have reached the Postmaster General of the non-delivery of telegrams sent to officers on active service in South Africa. There are, no doubt, considerable difficulties attending the delivery of such telegrams, and they are only forwarded from this country at the sender's risk. The delivery arrangements in South Africa are not, of course, in the hands of the Post-master General. The telegrams are, it is believed, handed over to the military authorities.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the telegrams reached Mr. Buncombe, the Member for West Cumberland?
  MR. HANBURY: I know nothing of that.

  NAVAL OFFICER ON LORD ROBERTS'S STAFF.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the representative of the Navy on Lord Roberta's staff was chosen at the special wish of Lord Roberts or by the special selection of the Admiralty:0.and whether he will state the services and experience of the officer in question, as compared with those of all other officers of the same naval rank, which were considered to entitle him to the staff appointment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): The officer in question was nominated by the Admiralty at the request of Lord Roberts. It is usual to endeavour to meet the wishes of a general in the situation of Lord Roberts in the selection of his personal staff. There is no question of any officer-being entitled to such an appointment.

  VOLUNTEERS—SUGGESTED BOUNTIES.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in order to ensure a better attendance at parades and in camps of Volunteers in the future, he will consider the desirability of offering bounties somewhat as follows—namely, 10s. bounty to every man who attends camp for the whole week in addition to the daily rates of pay; 2s. 6d. additional bounty to every man attending five drills over the minimum towards efficiency (recruits not included) thus: fourteen drills minimum for efficiency, with bounties of 2s. 6d. for twenty drills; 5s. for twenty-five drills: 7s. 6d. for thirty drills; and 10s. for thirty-five drills.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It is not considered expedient to introduce the system of bounties into the Volunteer force.

  MANCHESTER VOLUNTEERS—TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain battalions of the Manchester Volunteer Regiment to be encamped on Salisbury Plain only receive a travelling allowance of 8s. per head,
  1494
  whereas the journey costs 13s.; and whether, in view of the- fact that this entails an additional cost of £250 to each battalion of 1,000 men, he can make a special grant towards the travelling expenses.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: All expenses incurred by Volunteers travelling over 100 miles to their camps will be specially dealt with under paragraph 586 of the Volunteer Regulations.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will the money be paid?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Special allowances will be made where special expenses are incurred.

  MANCHESTER POST OFFICE VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether employees of the Manchester Post Office, who are also Volunteers, have been refused fourteen days leave to attend camp at Whitsuntide (although they offered to forfeit their wages and regular holidays), and, further, are even denied their customary seven days leave for attendance in camp; and whether arrangements could be made so that the Government offices should set an example to private employers of giving opportunities to Volunteers for attending camp.
  MR. HANBURY: Every effort consistent with the exigencies of the service will be made to allow Post Office employees at Manchester who are Volunteers to attend camp; but as there are 107 members of the Manchester staff now serving in South Africa, and as Whitsuntide is one of the busiest seasons in the year for local telegraph work, it would not be possible to allow all the Volunteers, numbering over 100, to be absent at that season. The annual leave arrangements have not been disturbed, and anyone whose holidays were fixed for Whitsuntide will be able to take them.

  MILITIA—FURLOUGHS IN AGRICULTURAL COUNTIES.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the scarcity of agricultural labourers in the country

  1495
  districts, he will arrange that furloughs to non-commissioned officers and men of Militia battalions belonging to agricultural counties shall be granted during the months of June, July, and August, instead of during the winter, to enable farmers to gather in their harvest.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Military considerations are, of course, paramount; but every effort will be made to enable the men to have furlough during harvest-time.

  MILITIA—FAMILY ALLOTMENTS. HOME AND FOREIGN SERVICE.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, seeing that a Militiaman when on active service or garrison duty abroad is obliged to make an allotment from his pay to his wife and children, but when called up for service and doing garrison duty in the British Isles is under no such obligation, whether he can say what reason there is for the different treatment in the two eases, and whether, as relief funds are in consequence called upon to contribute more to the support of the family of a Militiaman serving at home than to the family of a Militiaman serving abroad, the Militia when on service at home may be brought under the Allotment Order; and whether he can make arrangements to enable Militiamen desirous of doing so to make allotments in favour of their widowed mothers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The system of allotments was established to meet the difficulty a soldier would otherwise experience in forwarding money to his family from abroad. At home the same difficulty does not arise. If, however, a soldier fails to remit money, his wife can, under the Army Act, obtain a compulsory stoppage from his pay. There is no reason to believe that such a measure of compulsion is generally necessary. The Militiaman abroad can allot a portion of his pay to his father or mother.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—BRIGADE CAMP SUPPLIES.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Army Supply Department will divide the contracts for the supply of each class of articles required for the brigade camps to
  1496
  be formed this summer, so as to allow the smaller traders in the locality of the camps to tender.
  ?MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: In most cases the camps of the Regular forces and the Militia will be provided under existing district contracts. In certain cases special contracts will be necessary, and some are being made with local traders. The Volunteers are granted an allowance, and in many cases make their own arrangements, but they can come under existing contracts if they like, and obtain what they require on repayment.

  MALTA—CARKISON CHURCHES.
  MR. BOSCAWENI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the barracks of Pembroke Camp and Imtarfa, each accommodating over 1,000 men, at Malta, are unprovided with garrison churches, and that the religious services for the troops have to be carried on with difficult in the open air at Pembroke, and in a small recreation room at Imtarfa; and whether, having regard to-the fact that the need for providing garrison churches at these two places has been frequently brought before the notice of the War Office by the military authorities at Malta, and that in 1896 a definite promise was given that a church should be built at each place, but that since then nothing has been done, he can undertake to remedy what is felt to be a grievance by the Malta garrison.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The desirability of building the churches-mentioned is fully admitted, but the provision of good barrack and hospital accommodation for the troops was considered a more pressing matter. I can assure my hon. friend that the provision of the churches will not be lost sight of when we have any funds at our disposition.

  NAVAL MANŒEUVRES.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state the number and class of ships that are to be employed, at this year's Naval manœuvres, and for how many days they are to continue; also, will experiments be made in coaling a portion of the squadrons from colliers at

  1497
  sea, irrespective of the condition of the weather, and whether it is intended that submarine torpedo boats shall form part of the equipment of some of the ships, seeing that this type of craft is now being largely adopted in connection with other Navies; and whether detachments of the land forces will in any way co-operate with the fleets in practising the landing and embarkation of men, guns, and stores, similar to the combinations which took place in connection with the French Naval manœuvres last year in the Mediterranean.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is premature to make any statement about the manœuvres now, but I think I may safely say that I do not think any naval officers would attempt to coal from colliers at sea irrespective of weather.

  THE "VICTORIA AND ALBERT."
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say when he anticipates that Her Majesty's new yacht "Victoria and Albert," will be equipped and ready for the. use of Her Majesty the Queen: can he now state the probable cost of the alterations and the quantity of iron ballast which is to be placed on board for the purpose of making the vessel seaworthy, and the addition to the draught of water as compared with that of the original design; and will he say if it is intended to retain the water-tube boilers or replace them with those of the Cylindrical type.
  MR. GOSCHEX: The steam trials of the Royal yacht are expected to take place in July or August. No date can at present be given for her completion. I am unable at present to state the cost of the necessary alterations, but of course the House will be given every information on the subject later. About 200 tons of iron ballast will be put in the vessel to give her the same stability as originally contemplated. She is expected to be about 18 inches deeper than was originally intended. It is intended to retain the water tube boilers.

  NAVAL CONSTRUCTION—MESSRS. ARMSTRONG'S OFFER.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to correspon-
  1498
  dence with Messrs. Armstrong, of the 23rd and 24th instant, in which they say that their offer of laying down and delivering within three years from date of order three battleships and two large cruisers still holds good, all the said ships to be delivered, complete in all details, hull, machinery, armour, guns; and if so, whether, in view of his statement that our programme is limited to what is believed to be the output of the country in armour, hull, machinery, and a vast number of accessories to be provided, he will now consider the advisability of taking advantage of Messrs. Armstrong's offer.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman has sent me the correspondence in question. In reply I must respectfully refer him to the answer which I gave to a similar question last week.✶ I will only repeat that we have very shortly to invite tenders for four armoured cruisers and one unarmourod cruiser, and may add that we shall have to send tenders out for the machinery of two battleships, six armoured cruiser's, and one unarmoured cruiser, and some smaller craft, representing in the aggregate 180,000 horse-power.
  MR. YERBURGH: Are these tenders part of the programme which the right hon. Gentleman said was limited by what he believed to be the output of the country?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly. It is part of the programme of the Estimates. It would be folly to go further until we know how far we can place the large orders we are now giving out.

  ZANZIBAR—BRITISH DESPATCHES BY GERMAN STEAMERS.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all letters from Admiral Commanding at Capo Station to senior naval officer commanding detachment at Zanzibar have to be carried by German steamers, and if there is any reason why these important documents should not be carried in British steamers
  MR. GOSCHEN: I understand there is no regular service of British steamers between the Capo and Zanzibar. I presume the Admiral in command at the Cape would take care that no highly
  ✶ See page 725.

  1499
  important confidential letter would be sent by a foreign steamer.
  COLONEL DENNY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know why there is no British line of steamers?
  MR. GOSCHEN: That question had better be addressed to the Postmaster General.

  EXPERIMENTS ON THE OBSOLETE "BELLEISLE."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the First Lord of the Treasury give any information with regard to the battering and destruction of the "Belleisle."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot until investigations have been completed give particulars of the results of the interesting and instructive experiments upon the "Belleisle," but I can answer the hon. Member's question as to whether the vessel took fire immediately after the bombardment commenced. The "Belleisle" did not take fire at all, to the extreme surprise of all concerned. Spectators were mislead into the supposition of fire by seeing clouds of steam arising through a steam pipe being cut, and lyddite shells, as they burst in the water, emitted clouds of smoke, again giving the impression of the ship being on fire; but she was not on fire; there was only a little shouldering fire in one of the cabins among some clothes. The woodwork was shattered in all directions, but did not take fire. While the ship was being battered the fire pumps were uninjured, and for a long time continued to work flooding the deck. I shall be able to give more details later, but I thought that the ship not having taken fire was an interesting fact I might communicate at once, because one of the objects of the experiment was to see if the woodwork would be set on fire, as has been reported to have been the case in some of the Spanish-American engagements.

  INDIAN GOLD CURRENCY—LIGHT COINAGE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that numbers of money-sweating establishments have lately been set up in various parts of India for the purpose of sweating the gold coin now in circulation there, with the result that shopkeepers in Calcutta and
  1500
  elsewhere do not take sovereigns freely, and in many cases find it necessary to keep scales to test the weight of sovereigns which have only been in circulation for a few weeks; and whether the sovereigns which the Government of India are now issuing at post offices in payment for money orders, at the rate of one sovereign for fifteen rupees, are already deficient in weight, through having undergone the operation of sweating, with the result that hardship is caused to the poor and ignorant classes who are compelled to take sovereigns instead of rupees; and, if so, what steps the Government of India propose to take to suppress these money-sweating establishments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have been in communication with the Government of India on the subject of the hon. Member's question,, and find that they have no information to the effect suggested. As there is at present hardly any gold in circulation among the people, the statement that sweating is already extensively practised does not seem likely to be correct. But the Government of India will not lose sight of the possibility that such a practice may arise, and I know that they have already had it under consideration.

  LACCADIVE ISLANDS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the present position of the claim of the Sultan Ali, Rajah of Cannanore,, to the sovereignty of the Laccadive Islands; and whether, seeing that the arrears of tribute on account of which the islands were sequestrated by the Government of India in 1876 were subsequently paid, and the islands ordered to be restored to the Rajah through the direct intervention of the Secretary of State for India in 1895, he will give the reasons why the restoration of the property to the Rajah has not been carried out.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The matter to which the question refers is under discussion between the Government of India and the Government of Madras, and I am informed that the proposals for a final settlement were placed before the latter

  1501
  Government on the 11th of this month. The object of the Government of India is, first, to secure the well being and good government of the islanders, and it appears to be extremely doubtful whether this is compatible with the administration of the islands by any member of the Cannanore family, to whose claims and interests, however, due consideration will be given in any decision that may be arrived at.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Will the noble Lord make a statement at an early date?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot promise that.

  INDIAN FAMINE—STATISTICS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state when he will be able to lay upon the Table Papers showing the spread of the famine in India during the last six months, and the steps taken to relieve the distress.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Papers will he laid on the Table at once, but they are voluminous.

  GREAT LNDIAN PENINSULA STOCK.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the amount of Great Indian Peninsula five per cent. guaranteed stock held by the trustees of the sinking fund of the D annuities on the 1st of April, 1899, 1st of January, 1900, and the 1st of May, 1900, respectively.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The only information I have on this subject is contained in the half-yearly returns published in the London Gazette, from which I find that on the 25th of January, 1899, the funds invested in, respect of the annuities, Class D, of the East Indian Railway, included £3,544 9s. Cd. of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway five per cent. capital stock. In the subsequent returns there is no mention of such stock.

  INDIAN RAILWAY ANNUITIES.
  MR. COHEN:: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a memorandum giving the method
  1502
  by which in each instance of the four Indian Railways acquired by him, the rates of interest on the respective annuities were calculated, and also, for the purpose of comparison, the same details in respect of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no objection to laying on the Table the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Bank of England as to the rate of interest for the calculation of annuities in the cases of the Eastern Bengal, the Scinde Punjab and Delhi, and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Companies; but that correspondence, though it states the rate of interest settled, will not show the method in which the interest was calculated in the two former cases. There is no other case of the acquisition of a railway by the State in which any similar reference to the Bank of England has been necessary.

  FRENCH TARIFFS AND INDIAN TRADE.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that the French Government in February last adopted a new import tariff which imposes increased duties on, among other articles, coffee, pepper, spices, and tea, which may tend to hamper Indian trade with France, if he can state whether it has been imposed by Franco in retaliation for the countervailing duties levied by India on French beetroot sugar.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the new French import tariff on the articles referred to has been adopted in retaliation for the countervailing duties on sugar in India. I may add that the amount of sugar sent from France to India is inconsiderable.
  MR. MACLEAN: But is it not in fact a policy of retaliation?
  [No answer was given.]

  AUSTRALIAN APPEALS.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can now say in how many appeals from Australia issues of constitutional or Imperial importance have boon raised.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I have some difficulty in giving a categorical answer to my hon. friend's question, as there may be differences of opinion as to what are issues of constitutional or Imperial importance, but I may say that I am informed that there have been from l876 to 1899 inclusive forty-seven cases referred to the Judicial Committee which might be regarded as involving directly or indirectly such issues. Of these, twenty-one are cases under Crown Lands Acts; five arise under Constitution Acts for Colonies; six affect rights of persons not domiciled in the particular colony in question; twelve bear on the prerogative powers or rights of the Crown or a Governor, including three cases of dismissal of Government servants; one rebates to restrictions on immigration of Chinese into a colony; one to general powers of the Judicial Committee to review former decisions, and one to payment of members in a Legislative Assembly.

  RUSSIA AND KOREA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that Port Hamilton was evacuated by Her Majesty's Government in 1887, in consequence of a formal pledge given by the Russian Government on 5th November, 1886, that Russia would under no circumstances occupy Korean territory, and that this pledge was formally quoted by the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to this House on 10th July, 1894, as binding, and, again, as holding good on 13th June, 1895, whether he can state what events have occurred since these dates to diminish the binding character of the Russian promise of 1886; whether the Russian Government have offered any explanations of their breach of this pledge to Her Majesty's Government either directly or indirectly; whether a Russian armed force is now in occupation of the Korean territory recently ceded to Russia at Mesampho, and whether Russia intends to fortify this land.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have already explained to the House that the recent agreement between the Russian and Korean Governments has no reference to sovereign rights, but to a concession simi-
  1504
  lar to that which the Japanese Government has obtained within the area of the treaty port of Masampho. We have no information as to the presence of any armed force on the site granted for a coal depot or of any intention on the part of the Russian Government to erect fortifications there. The assurance given by Russia in 1886 was not an assurance with Her Majesty's Government, but to another Power. What steps Her Majesty's Government would think it right to take in case of the policy indicated by this assurance being abandoned is a question which cannot be answered until circumstances arise affecting the rights or interests of Great Britain.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, or has he forgotten, that it was expressly on the faith of the guarantees given by the Russian Government that Her Majesty's Government evacuated Port Hamilton?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR. E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTgave notice that he should, as early as possible, call attention to the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Go to war with Russia.

  TURKISH TARIFFS.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government have proposed an increase of import duties for the Ottoman Empire; and whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any diplomatic action with regard to this increase.
  MR. BRODRICK: I explained a few days ago that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople is engaged in negotiations, in concert with his colleagues, in reference to this question. I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: On what ground is the increase proposed?
  MR. BRODRTCK: I must ask for notice.

  DISTURBANCES IN JERSEY.
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the Under Secretary give any information as to the riots in Jersey? Have any representa-

  1505
  tions been received from the French Government on the subject? Were the disturbances caused by the throwing of water on an orderly crowd?
  MR. BRODRICK: We are aware that some disturbances took place in Jersey on the 21st, in which some French houses and shops were injured, but the origin of them has not yet been ascertained. All possible precautions have been taken by the Governor against their renewal, and a full report will be called for.

  POOR LAW ACT, 1899.
  MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could give the number of boards of guardians who have signified their intention of putting into force the provisions of the Poor Law Act, 1899, and how many children have been adopted under the Act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): The Local Government Board have no information on this subject. The usual course would be for a board of guardians to avail themselves of the powers of the Act when occasion arose for the exercise of those powers, and it would not be necessary for them to signify beforehand any intention of putting the Act in force.

  RECEIVING HOMES FOR POOR LAW CHILDREN.
  MR. FLOWER: I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps have boon taken to carry out the recommendation of the Poor Law Schools Committee that small receiving homes be established for the temporary reception of children above the age of three years outside the workhouse, pending arrangements for their future allocation, what boards have already established receiving homes, and what power has the Local Government Board to compel unsatisfactory boards of guardians to obey their recommendations.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board have, where necessary, pressed upon boards of guardians in the metropolis the importance of establishing receiving homes for the purpose referred to. In the majority of cases the guardians have already provided, or are in course
  1506
  of providing, accommodation for this pur pose, and in other instances they have the matter under consideration. I see no reason to doubt that the Board's recommendations on this subject will be complied with.

  ASHFORD POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the amount proposed to be expended by the Paddington Board of Guardians on their Ashford schools; and if accommodation is to be provided for a larger aggregation of children.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The managers of the West London school district, to whom the Ashford schools belong, submitted a proposal to provide new classrooms; but as its effect appeared to be to increase the number of children for whom accommodation would be provided at the schools, the Board have felt themselves unable to sanction the proposal. They have not been informed of the estimated cost.

  LOANS FOR POOR LAW BUILDINGS.
  MR. LEWIS FRY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that the maximum period for the repayment of loans for the erection of poor law buildings is fixed by the Board at thirty years, although, under the Poor Law Act, 1897, the period of repayment may be extended to sixty years, and in view of the longer periods sanctioned by the Treasury and by the Education Department for the repayment of loans for industrial dwellings, schools, and the buildings, whether he will reconsider the rule in question with the view of extending the period of repayment in the case of poor law buildings of a permanent character.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Only eleven days ago I answered a precisely similar question, which was put to me by the hon. Member for the Walthamstow Division, † and I have nothing to add to what I said then— namely, that for the reasons which on several occasions I have stated to the House, I do not feel able to meet the wishes of the hon. Member.
  † See page 414 of this volume.

  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state in what number of cases local authorities have advanced money under the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, for enabling persons to acquire the ownership of small houses in which they reside.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I can only repeat the answer which I gave to a similar question recently put to me by the hon. Member for Leicester✶—namely, that the Local Government Board have no information as to the number of cases in which local authorities have made advances under the Act referred to. Their jurisdiction, however, only extends to England and Wales.

  MARRIAGE ACT, 1898—RETURNS.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant the Return respecting the Marriage Act, 1898, which appears on to-day's Paper.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I shall be happy to grant a Return on the subject referred to. But there will be difficulty in supplying some of the particulars asked for, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as to the form of the Return.

  LONDON PARISH BOUNDARIES.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I beg to ask the President of the i Local Government Board whether the questions of adjustment between parishes under schemes prepared in accordance with the provisions of the London Government Act, 1899, will be dealt with by the existing vestries and district boards, or whether it is intended that such matters shall be left open for settlement by the now borough councils in November next; and whether, if the first course is to be adopted, he will move the Boundary Commissioners to have the inquiries held before the end of July, as otherwise the various parishes interested will be prejudiced owing to the long vacation depriving them of the services of their accustomed legal advisers.
  ✶ See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series] Vol. lxxix., page 1432.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I learn from the Commissioners under the London Government Act that they do not propose that the proceedings in connection with adjustments under the Act should commence before the new borough councils have been constituted.

  FIRE AT HIGH LANE, CHESHIRE.
  MR. BARLOW (Somersetshire, Frome): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a fire occurred at High Lane, Cheshire, on 8th April, and that, in consequence of the refusal of the fire brigade on arrival from Stockport to take steps to put the fire out, three or four stacks of hay, worth £200 or £300, were burnt; and is he aware that the Stockport Fire Brigade acted under the instructions of the corporation in this course, because the farm was outside the boundary and within the parish of Marple and that the Stockport Corporation have refused to allow the fire brigade to assist in extinguishing fires under such circumstances unless the Marple district are willing to contribute toward its maintenance a sum equal to about l½d. in the £ annually on the whole assessment of the Marple district, in addition to the charges and expenses of the brigade in attending; and will he state if this course meets with his approval.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am informed that the watch committee of the Stockport Corporation gave notice some time since to the Marple District Council that the fire-engines and appliances of the corporation would not be allowed to attend fires in their district. The ground for this action appears to have been that the district council had not agreed to contribute towards the fire brigade. It was in consequence of this that the fire brigade, acting under the instructions of the watch committee, declined to extinguish the fire in the Marple district which is referred to in the question. I understand that the Marple District Council have not been asked to contribute any such sum as that mentioned in the question towards the maintenance of the Stockport Fire Brigade. It is stated that no sum has been specified, and that the district council have taken no steps whatever to make an arrangement with the corporation for the protection of their district,

  1509
  no reply having been made to the communications sent to them by the corporation on three separate occasions. On the information before me, it seems to me that the responsibility in this matter rests with the Marple District Council.

  DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL SEEDS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will explain why no representative of the Irish seed trade was appointed on the Departmental Committee on Agricultural Seeds, seeing that it includes an English seedsman and a Scotch seedsman.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): In consultation with my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture, I selected the members of the Departmental Committee in question to the best of my judgment, and the question of their nationality did not enter into our consideration.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN NORFOLK.
  MR. PRICE: Can the President of the Board of Agriculture see his way to any further relaxation of the foot-and-mouth disease regulations in Norfolk?
  MR. LONG: No, Sir; I am sorry to say I can make no promise on the subject.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—INQUESTS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total number of coroners' inquests held upon railway servants killed by accidents in which the movement of vehicles used exclusively on railways was concerned, in the years 1895 to 1899 inclusive; in what number of such inquests the coroner has applied to the Board of Trade, under Section 8 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1881, for a representative of the Board to act as assessor; and whether in any other, and if so how many, such inquests the Board of Trade has been represented by any of its officials to watch or take part in the proceedings.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. RITCHIE, Croydon):
  1510
  Section 8 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, does not apply to Scotland or Ireland. The total number of fatal accidents in which the movement of vehicles used exclusively on railways was concerned that occurred in the five years period, 1895 to 1899, to railway servants and contractors' servants employed on railways in England and Wales was 1,869. An inquest was, no doubt, held in each case. In thirteen of these cases application was made by the coroner for a representative of the Board of Trade to act as assessor, and in twelve cases such appointment was made. In the remaining case, a sub-inspector was directed to attend the inquest and assist the coroner. In four other cases during the period referred to, an officer of the Board of Trade has attended the inquest to watch the proceedings.

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that representatives of the railway companies have expressed themselves willing to give favourable consideration to the proposal for greater travelling facilities for workmen, the Railway Department of the Board of Trade is willing to approach all the companies with a view of inducing them to arrange for the issue of cheap tickets for bonâ fide workmen from suburban stations by all trains arriving at their destination before 8 a.m.
  MR. RITCHIE: Having regard to the promise of consideration to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I do not doubt that the matter will be considered by the railway companies.

  SUPREME COURT CLERKS—RETIREMENT REGULATIONS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with reference to the non-retirement of clerks in the Probate and other divisions of the High Court at sixty-five years of age, in accord nice with the recommendation of the Ridley Commission for the rest of the Civil Service, he can inform the House if there is any statutory impediment assigned by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls, for not enforcing such retirement under conditions

  1511
  which are applied to the whole of the Civil Service; and whether the Treasury will call the attention of these authorities to the present deadlock in the way of promotion of this class of public servants, with a view to the removal of this alleged grievance.
  MR. HANBURY: These high legal authorities are, I am informed, in disagreement as to the power to make an order for retirement at a fixed age in the legal departments.

  NEW NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if the plans of the new National Physical Laboratory buildings and the smaller building in connection therewith can be shown in the Tea-room for two or three days.
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS): A rough map showing the proposed site shall be placed in the Tearoom; but it will not be practicable to exhibit the final detailed plans which are not yet completed. Perhaps I may mention that the western portion of the two buildings will only measure 80 feet by 40, and will be placed 140 yards from the Queen's Cottage grounds in a position which will not interfere with any of the vistas from the gardens.
  LORD BALCARRESI asked for a plan of the buildings, not of the site.
  MR. HANBURY: The detailed plans are not yet ready.

  ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART—MRS. CASABIANCA'S PENSION.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the claims for pension put forward by Mrs. Casabianca, late art mistress of the Royal College of Art; whether the services of this lady were dispensed with owing to the re-organisation of the Department, three months notice being given; and whether, in view of the fact that this lady, now a widow, has been forty-four years in Her Majesty's service, and that all her predecessors received pensions or gratuities, he will take the case into consideration.
  MR. HANBURY: I have examined this case very carefully myself more than once. I think hers a most deserving case, and I regret that Parliament has given no powers to the Treasury which would enable us to give a pension to Mrs. Casabianca. Up till a few years ago various persons in similar circumstances did receive pensions, but it was afterwards ascertained that the Treasury had exceeded its powers in granting them. The termination of her services was occasioned by the re-organisation of the Department, coupled with the fact that she had passed the limit of age at which retirement is usual in the Civil Service. Six (not three) months was the period of the notice.

  THE NEW GREAT SEAL.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he say whence the necessity has arisen for do-signing a new Great Seal; have there been any, and, if so, what alterations made in the design of the Great Seal; how many new Great Seals have been made in the present reign, and what has been the cost of each; and what becomes of the old Great Seals.
  MR. HANBURY: In 1897 it was represented to the Treasury that the present Seal had been in use for nearly twenty years, and twice as long as the average time during which previous Great Seals had lasted. New Great Seals wore made in 1838, 1860, and 1878. Since 1878 many documents which had formerly to pass the Great Seal have under statute been impressed with a wafer instead. It was also stated that the mechanical parts of the Great Seal wore worn out, and that the fittings and ornaments had become sensibly defaced the mechanical press and fittings are not, of course, a part of the Seal the Seal itself, I am informed, requires careful cleaning, but there may be technical difficulties in the way of sending the Seal to be cleaned and refitted. The cost of the 1838 Seal is not known. That made in 1860 cost £413, and that of 1878 £513. The new one will cost £400. The disused Great Seal is disposed of as the Sovereign may direct.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What alterations have been made?
  MR. HANBURY: It is difficult to describe them in an answer. I shall be

  1513
  glad to show the new design to my hon. friend.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the cost provided for in the Votes?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not think it is.

  TRANSATLANTIC LINERS AND WIRELESS TELEG R APHY.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy is now used by the American, French, and German Transatlantic steamships, fifty of the Gorman steamers having been supplied with the apparatus; and whether, as none of the British Transatlantic liners have adopted the Marconi system because the Postal Telegraphic Department objects to their using it within the three miles limit, the Department will consider the expediency of removing a restriction which places British at a disadvantage as compared with foreign mercantile steamers.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has no information as to the extent to which the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy has been adopted by the Transatlantic steamships of other nations. The Postmaster General is quite prepared to grant the Marconi Company a licence if suitable terms can be arranged.

  TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  MR. JOHN BUTTON: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will allow the telegraphic address, Richmond, Yorkshire, which is charged as two words, to be changed to Richmond-upon-Swale, so that it may be charged as one word.
  MR. HANBURY: Richmond - upon -Swale does not appear to be the name of the place in question, and the Postmaster General has no power to rechristen it. If the name of the place is altered by any duly constituted authority the alteration will, of course, be accepted by the Post Office, with the result indicated in the hon. Member's question.

  STIRLING POST OFFICE—ALLEGED INTIMIDATION.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to
  1514
  the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that postmen in the Stirling Post Office complain of the course adopted by one of their inspectors in regard to the time occupied in completing their rounds; and whether, seeing that there is a regulation of the Department that rounds shall be properly tested in case the delivery occupies more than the scheduled time, instructions will be issued to apply the official test in all cases in this office in which that time is habitually exceeded.
  MR. HANBURY: No complaint such as that described by the hon. Member has been made by the postmen attached to the Stirling Office, so far as the Postmaster-General is aware. In the event of a postman habitually exceeding the time allotted for the completion of his round it would be in accordance with the usual practice that the walk should be officially tested.
  MR. STEADMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there is a certain amount of intimidation going on in this office which is not prevalent in other offices?
  MR. HANBURY: I am not aware of it, but if the hon. Member can prove it I will bring the matter before the authorities.
  MR. STEADMAN: I will refer the right hon. Gentleman to the case of the man Taylor.

  LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case, tried in the Central Criminal Court last Thursday, of Sydney Frederick Atkins, director of the Automobile Association, Limited, an indictment againse whom, charging him with fraudulently applying to his own use money belonging to the company, was dismissed by the Recorder on the ground that, although he had considered himself and been considered by the shareholders as a director, there had been some legal informality in his appointment; and whether he will introduce some provision into the Companies Bill now before the House to provide against such cases.
  MR. CLANCY: I bog to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Recorder of London, in the case of Sydney Frederick Atkins, reported on Friday, from which it appears that a person in whose appointment as director of a public company there may be a flaw may be guilty, as such director, of fraud and misappropriation of funds, and cannot under such circumstances be brought to justice; and, if so, whether the Government intend to introduce any legislation for the amendment of the law relating to the liability of directors for criminal acts.
  SIR R. FJNLAY: I have made inquiries as to the case referred to in these questions. The circumstances were very peculiar. By the articles of association a director could be appointed only by the shareholders at an extraordinary meeting. The accused had been co-opted by the existing directors, and his appointment was therefore ultra vires. The Recorder did not decide that any legal informality or flaw in the appointment of a person who acts as director of a public company would prevent his conviction under Section 81 of the Larceny Act. His decision was confined to the very special circumstances of the case before him, and the legal difficulty would not have arisen if there had been counts in the indictment charging Atkins as a member or officer of the company. Under these circumstances I do not think that it will be found that the consequences of the decision will he such as to make legislation necessary.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in arriving at the rateable value of tithe rent-charge, poor rate may be deducted from the gross value; and whether an assessment committee can refuse to allow the portion of rate now paid out of the Local Taxation Account under 62 and 03 Vic., c. 17, to be deducted.
  SIR R. FINLAY: The answer to this first branch of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second branch should, in my opinion, he in the negative. The whole rate ought to be deducted as before the statute, but I must
  1516
  remind my hon. friend that I have no authority to determine the point. If raised it must be settled by a court of law, and I express my opinion upon it only because it affects practice and administration under a recent Act in a very large number of cases, and is of interest to a great many assessment committees.

  SCOTTISH ORPHAN HOMES—BRIDGE OF WEIK.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any arrangement has yet been come to by the health authority of Renfrewshire to provide for the reception of cases of scarlet fever and other infectious diseases occurring at the Orphan Homos of Scotland at Bridge of Weir.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Local Government Board that they have had no further communication from the local authority on the subject of the hon. Member's question.

  KILMALCOLM PUBLIC SCHOOL.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state for how many pupils the public school at Kilmalcolm affords accommodation, and how many pupils are on its roll; and whether the school board of the district has refused to permit any of the children from the Bridge of Weir orphan homes to utilise the surplus accommodation by attending the school.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The number of pupils on the register of the Kilmalcolm public school for last school year was 362, and the accommodation is sufficient for 632. I am not aware of any proposal that a certain number of the children of the orphan homes should be accommodated in the vacant places. The only proposal dealt with by the Department was that the whole of these children who were in excess of the vacant places should be received.

  DUBLIN ROYAL HOSPITAL—THE GIBBONS CEILING.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the famous Gibbons ceiling in the Royal Hospital, Dublin, has been condemned as

  1517
  unsafe; and, if so, what steps are being taken to strengthen it without impairing its original character.
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that the ceiling of the Royal Hospital Chapel is unsafe, and that it has been found necessary to suspend holding of divine service in the building. The ceiling will not be removed unless upon investigation, which is in progress, it is shown that it is impracticable to render it secure. I may mention that it became necessary to restore the roof of the chapel in 1891–2, and that in order to do this without interfering with the ceiling it was necessary to attach the joists carrying the latter to the new roof. This was done with every care. The ceiling had previously been for some time in an unsatisfactory condition and was under frequent examination. Ornaments forming part of it had been falling and it had been found necessary to remove some and secure others. The condition of the ceiling was partly the result of the state of the old roof and partly of natural decay caused by age and of the character of the ornamentation, a great part of which was in high relief and highly undercut. The renewal of the roof tended to prolong the life of the ceiling.

  WATERFORD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the construction of the line from Water-ford to Rosslare, sanctioned by Parliament in 1898, has been begun; and, if so, can he say how many men are at present employed on the works.
  MR. HANBURY: I have received this morning a letter from the Secretary to the Fishguard and Rosslare Company of which the following is an extract—
  "A tender for the construction of twenty-nine miles of the Rosslare and Waterford Railway, involving an expenditure of £147,000, was accepted by the directors at the last meeting of the Hoard. Owing, however, to certain alterations in the specification which were considered desirable by the engineers, the contract was only executed within the last few days, and consequently the works have not yet been commenced. Arrangements are, however, being made with the contractors for the works to be started forthwith."

  VIRGINIA (CO. CAVAN) POST OFFICE.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury,
  1518
  as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is in contemplation to change the post office at Virginia, county Cavan, from the status of head office to that of sub-office, and whether he is aware, if such a change be made, that there is reason to suppose that it will retard the despatch and delivery of letters and telegrams, and otherwise interfere with the efficient working of the postal business of the locality; and will he protect the inhabitants of Virginia from such an inconvenience.
  MR. HANBURY: It has been decided by the Postmaster General to reduce Virginia from the status of a head post office to that of a railway sub-office; but so far from the alteration being detrimental to the efficient working of the postal and telegraph business of the locality, it will admit of an improved and accelerated service, while the existing facilities will in no degree be curtailed.

  THE CARRICKROE MAILS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what steps have been taken to carry out the promise made some time ago to regularise the delivery of mails in the Carrickroe district, county Monaghan, where dissatisfaction exists in consequence of certain townlands receiving only two while others receive four deliveries in the week.
  MR. HANBURY: The official delivery is about to be extended to some unserved houses near Carrickroe: but the Post-master General regrets to find, as the result of the further inquiry which has been made, that he would not be justified in increasing the frequency of the service in other parts of the district. No promise to equalise the service throughout this district was made in the answer to the hon. Member's previous question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In view of the great delays, will the right hon. Gentleman hurry the matter forward?
  MR. HANBURY: There are special difficulties to be overcome.

  ENNISCORTHY POST OFFICE.
  MR. THOMAS J. HEALY: I bog to ask the Secretary to the

  1519
  Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the cause of the delay in building the proposed new post office in Enniscorthy, or if he can say when the work will be begun.
  MR. HANBUBY: The Postmaster General regrets that it has not been practicable even yet to arrange satisfactory plans for the new post office at Enniscorthy, but the matter is being pressed forward as much as possible. It cannot yet be stated when the work will be begun.

  OMAGH POST OFFICE.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware if an opportunity was given the Omagh Urban Council to inspect the plans of the new post office in Omagh; if tenders have yet been invited for the work; and if he will state when it is expected building operations will begin.
  MR. HANBURY: The Omagh Urban Council has not yet had an opportunity of seeing the plans for the new post office. Owing to difficulties that have been met with, the plans have not yet been finally completed. Consequently tenders have not yet been invited, nor is it possible to state when building operations will be begun.

  RESULT FEES IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what provision has been made for the payment of the portions of results fees and customs and excise grant to those teachers whoso results year terminated on dates other than the 31st March, 1900, and who have been working under the results system for periods ranging from one to twelve months ended 31st March, 1900.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether schools whoso results period terminated with the end of the financial year, though examined in April and according to the new methods adopted by inspectors, will be paid as usual; and, if not, will the teachers of such schools receive any remuneration for their twelve months work.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): In answer to these questions I have to say no results fees can be paid after the 1st April, but teachers who taught under the results system up to the end of the last financial year will receive an equivalent for such fees based on the average payments for the last three years. The mode of payment is at present under consideration.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY CODE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary Code has been printed yet; and whether advocates appearing for members of the force at courts of inquiry will have an opportunity of purchasing or providing themselves with a copy of the same, as at present they have to defend the accused charged with some violation of one or more articles of the code without having had an opportunity of studying same.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: A similar question by the same hon. Member was answered by me on the 21th inst.

  GREENISLAND WATER SUPPLY.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under a sealed order of the Local Government Board (Ireland), dated 25th May, 1898, the area of charge for water supply to Greenisland and neighbourhood was fixed, and if it is competent now for the area to be extended over the dispensary district in which Greenisland is situated.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Under the Public Health Amendment Bill which, I hope, will become law in the course of a few days it will be competent for the Local Government Board, with the consent of the Rural District Council, to alter an area of charge for special expenses under the Public Health Act. This provision will apply to the case of the Greenisland water supply.

  NEWMARKET FAIR TOLLS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the

  1521
  Petty Sessions Court at Newmarket, County Cork, on the 11th inst., at which court Mr. Hardy, R.M., presided; is he aware that a man named James Browne summoned a man named O'Shea (who claims the right of collecting tolls on fair days), for an assault upon him because of Browne's refusal to pay tolls on 10th May, which was a market day and not a fair day, and that the magistrates, upon O'Shea's production of some documents, dismissed the case without hearing the plaintiff; and whether, in view of the fact that O'Shea was defeated a year ago in an effort to establish his claim for payment of these tolls, the magistrates will be called upon to explain why they dismissed this case and other charges of assault without allowing the plaintiff's to be heard in court.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The answer to each paragraph is in the negative. This would appear, on the facts stated in the question, to have been a private prosecution, and the prosecutor, if he feels aggrieved by the decision of the magistrates, has his remedy at law.

  TEMPORARY PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to give a Return of the temporary appointments made within the last eighteen months to the various public offices in Dublin, showing the names of the persons appointed and their salaries, whether they were asked to submit to any examination, and whether any of the number, and, if so, how many, have since been appointed to permanent posts in the public service.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I consider there are objections to granting a Return such as asked for in the question, but if the hon. Member will communicate to mo his object in asking for the Return, I will consider whether I can supply him privately with such information as may be suitable for his purpose.
  [LATER.]
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, now that he knows the reason I put the question, he will have any objection to giving the Return asked for.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not think the reason assigned would justify me in giving the Return.
  MR. CLANCY: Then I beg to give notice that, on the Estimates, I shall call attention to a scandalous violation of one of the rules of the Civil Service.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when he will take the Indian Budget.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be premature for me to give any indication on this subject.

  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the large majority by which the London Borough Councils (Women's Disabilities Removal) Bill passed its Second Reading on Wednesday last, the Government is willing to provide such facilities as will enable the measure to be passed into law this session, so that the first elections to these councils, which are fixed for the 1st November next, may take place under existing conditions.
  MR. BOULNOIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise similar facilities to the County and Borough Franchise Assimilation (London) Bill?
  M. A. J. BALFOUR: Both my hon. friends must be aware what insuperable objections there are to invidious selections being made in favour of Private Members' Bills.

  HAGUE CONFERENCE.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to specify the reasons for which Her Majesty's Government have not yet ratified the Convention adopted by the Hague Conference.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There were three conventions signed at The Hague, but I presume the hon. Member refers in his question to the Pacific Settlement of

  1523
  International Disputes Convention. We have reason to believe that it is the wish of the Netherlands Government that it should be ratified by all the Powers on the same date, to be fixed after the necessary Acts have been received at The Hague, probably not before the beginning of July.

  DISTURBANCES AT PECKHAM.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice as to the disturbances at Peckham.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What are the terms of the question? Is the hon. and gallant Member not bound to read them?
  MR. SPEAKER: He is not bound to, certainly; and I presume it is because he has not read it that no notice is taken of the question.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I did not know I was at liberty to road the question. It is as follows: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to a report in the press that on Sunday, 27th May—
  MR. SPEAKER: If that question were brought to the Table it would be found to be irregular by reason of the mode of reference to a report in a newspaper. The hon. Member cannot merely refer to a newspaper report; he must vouch for what appears. He had better give notice in the usual way.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I will do so, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBRLL-BANNERMAN: What business is it proposed to take after the first Order today?
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I should not propose to go beyond No. 7. I think there are one or two of those which precede it that might be taken.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No. 4 (Elementary Education Bill) may not in itself be controversial, but it contains controversial points.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend in charge of the Bill seems to think there must be some misunderstanding as to its being of a controversial character.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it would be better to put it off.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Mr. Arthur O'Connor to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill, in the place of Sir James Fergusson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE).
Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Registration of Firms Bill have power to send for poisons, papers, and records.—(Mr. Attorney General.)
STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., have leave to sit this day during the sitting of the House.—(Mr. Stuart-Worthy.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend and extend the provisions of the Law of Scotland on the subject of Education." Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be road a second time upon Monday, 18th June, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
The Hon. William Robert Wellesley Peel, for the Borough of Manchester (South Division).

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Ordered, That the proceedings on the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill,

1525
if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House). —(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (WHITSUNTIDE).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday, 14th June, and that so soon as Government Business is disposed of this day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

EDUCATION IN CHURCH OF ENGLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I rise to complain of the arbitrary manner in which the Government has confiscated the rights of private Members. I had the first place to-morrow with a question of great importance to the Protestant population of this country;†but by adjourning the House to-day the Government has taken away my right and the rights of millions of people who were interested in this question. I never knew a more arbitrary exercise of power in this House. The First Lord excused his action on the ground that I could discuss the same question on the Education Vote—in fact, he gave me what I consider to be a solemn pledge—but I have learned from the Chairman of Committees that I cannot do so, as my motion involved alterations in the law; and so the Government have contrived that as
† The following notice stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Samuel Smith for the 29th May: " To call attention to the growing practice of using Church of England Elementary Schools for the inculcation of sacerdotal doctrine and ritual; and to move, That in view of the rapid increase of sacerdotal and ritualistic teaching in the Anglican Church, especially in the rural parishes, and of the absolute control of the religious teaching which the clergy exercise in voluntary schools through their power of appointing and dismissing the teachers, through their diocesan inspectors, through requiring attendance at ritualistic services, and otherwise; also in view of the fact that large numbers of Protestant children are obliged by law to attend these schools without sufficient protection from the conscience clause, this House resolves that no system of education can be satisfactory where State support is given and compulsory attendance required without representative local control, and where the rights of teachers, parents, and children are not fully safeguarded."
1526
far as they can they should suppress debate all this session on any burning question arising out of ritualism in the National Church and schools. I appeal to private Members, whoso rights have been ruthlessly confiscated this session, to resent this constant invasion of their rights, which are gradually being extirpated altogether. we have only had six or seven Tuesdays this session. Three times the Government have tried to take from me the right I possessed of bringing forward motions on that day, and I protest against the abolition of the right of free speech, which is fast degrading the mother of Parliaments to be a mere machine! to register the decrees of Government. Never was there less excuse for taking away the rights of private Members. This is the idlest Parliament I ever sat in. The Government can scarcely keep the House employed, and it is giving double the usual length of holidays at Whitsuntide, as it did at Easter; yet never have the rights of private Members been so ruthlessly confiscated. I claim the right to lay before the House briefly the grievances I meant to bring forward on the day that was filched from mo. I think I am within my rights in doing so, and I ask the indulgence of the House while I state why the Protestant people of this country are indignant at the abuse of Voluntary schools and training colleges to stamp out the work of the Reformation. It is not far from the truth to say that there is a wide-spread conspiracy to use this vast engine of education to carry out the designs of the Ritualistic section of the Church, who have gradually got control of almost the whole of the huge machinery of education, and are using it in a manner quite contrary to the convictions of the parents of the great mass of the children who are compelled to attend those schools. This work is carried on with the same subtlety that has marked all the tactics of the Oxford movement. The seat of this conspiracy lies in the training colleges which are practically the only entrance to the teaching profession in the Church of England, and these colleges as a rule refuse admission to Nonconformists except they renounce their faith. Even pupil teachers are not admitted into most Voluntary schools without signing letters in which they agree to abandon the faith of their parents. [Sir JOHN GORST

1527
dissented.] I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I will refer the right hon. Gentleman to a fact within my own knowledge. The Wesleyan body have made inquiries and have found that out of 986 schools to which their children applied, there were only eighty-eight in which they had not to enter into an engagement similar to the one I have described. Here is a letter a Wesleyan girl of fourteen years of age had to sign before she was admitted to one of these training colleges—
"I being of the age of fourteen years, and now living with my parents at whose signatures are here appended, do, with their consent, declare that I intend finally to separate from the Wesleyan body and return to the Church of England, and that I will therefore not attend or assist in the services, school, or meetings of the Wesleyans, will also present myself before the Bishop of the diocese as a candidate for confirmation, and will henceforth be and remain in communion with the Church of England, and that I will devote myself to the profession of schoolmistress in the schools of the Church of England, and to the preliminary training required by such office.
"I promise also that I will keep a duplicate copy of this declaration to show to anyone who may desire me to act in any way inconsistent with this declaration.
"Signed in the presence of
"Parents
"Witness their signatures
"Countersigned Vicar of"
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): Can the hon. Gentleman say where this took place?
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I cannot name the place, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman whence I obtained my information. It was at a deputation to the Duke of Devonshire a week or two ago; and the statement was made with the authority of the Wesleyan body, and I understand they are prepared to give the particulars to the Vice-President if he desires to have them.
SIR J. GORST: I am very desirous of having them.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Very well; I will see that they are sent. I am told that in 900 of those schools similar declarations were required. But the grievance does not end here. Formerly the teaching of the Church of England
1528
was Protestant, and differed little from that of the Protestant Nonconformists. It was based upon Holy Scripture, and when the Education Act of 1870 was passed it was taken for granted by all that religious education in Voluntary schools and colleges was essentially Biblical education. The Liberal Party of that day would never have given complete control over the education of half the children of the country to Anglican clergy had they dreamt that they would use it to stamp out the principles of the Reformation, and reimpose priestly domination. But this is what is now being done in these schools.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In which schools?
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: The Voluntary schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Give a case.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I will give some specimens if the right hon. Gentleman will wait a moment. I would like first of all to give an admirable definition —to which the House will listen with much interest, as it comes from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House himself—of what these clergy are doing, and the kind of doctrine they are teaching the children of this country. This is what the First Lord of the Treasury wrote a short time ago in the North American Review—
"A section (I believe a relatively small one)"
—that is the only point I dispute in this quotation—
LORD HUGH CECIL: I rise to a point of order. I see the hon. Gentleman has a motion down for the 19th June with reference to ritualism in the Church of England. I ask your ruling, Sir, whether he is not now entering upon that subject.
MR. SPEAKER: I had observed that notice of motion, but it did not seem to mo to be directed to the kind of religious education given in voluntary schools and training colleges—that being the point the hon. Member is now discussing.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I understood the hon. Gentleman was going into the

1529
general ritualistic question. He was quoting from an article by my right hon. friend, who certainly did not write about the schools.
MR. SPEAKER: I will follow the speech of the hon. Member; but so far he does not appear to me to have touched the ground covered by the notice of motion to which reference has been made.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: My object is this—that the admirable description given by the First Lord of the Treasury enables me to point out how the clergy are controlling the education of this country, in a sense entirely different to what I would call the authorised teaching of the. Church of England, according to the decisions given by the Archbishops. I will only quote one sentence from the right hon. Gentleman's article—
"A section (I believe a relatively small one) of the High Church clergy seem bent on proving their Catholicism by embodying as much of Roman ritual and observing as much of the Roman doctrine as is compatible with remaining in a communion which the Church of Rome has declared to be schismatic."
My argument is this: that these clergymen have control of a large number of Voluntary schools—in some places almost entire control—and have invented a system of inspection whereby the teachers are all brought under an extreme ritualistic standard, or else lose their positions. It is not now as it used to be, when a very large amount of discretion was left to the teachers. They are now screwed up by the diocesan inspectors, who introduce text - books into the training colleges of the most extreme kind. I find, for instance, that the Rev. Prebendary Reynolds, who is the Archbishop's inspector of training colleges and the chief diocesan inspector for London, has published a handbook of Church history, which is full of the utmost animus against the Reformation. This great text book for training the teachers who are to train nearly three millions of English children instructs them that—
"the Reformation afforded an opportunity for every bad man to let loose every vile passion" (p. 31).
I ask hon. Members opposite whether it is a proper thing that young men and women in the most impressionable period
1530
of their lives, and nine-tenths of whom are Protestants, should be taught such a travesty of history as that. Then the text-book states—
"An attack was made upon the old altars instigated by Bishop Ridley."
"Under such influences as those it was no wonder that in the second Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1552) the English Church reached its low-water mark" (p. 42).
The reign of Queen Mary, generally known as "Bloody Mary," Prebendary Reynolds passes over without even hinting that a single Protestant martyr was put to death. He states that during her life—
"most of the extreme Reformers escaped to the Continent and spent a cat-and-dog life at Strasburg and Frankfort, or plotted further reforms at Geneva or Zurich."
The men he holds up to admiration are Laud and Charles I.; the men he vilifies are the great reformers and Puritans. But this book is a joke to one published by the Rev. J. Sidney Boucher, late principal of the Training College at Carnarvon. It is filled with abuse of Protestant dissenters from end to end. It contains, I assume, the substance of his addresses for twenty years to young men and women under his control, and is issued for use in other training colleges. From its flowers of rhetoric I cull a few gems—
"Yet there can be no doubt that schism is as deadly a sin against God and his law of unity as are murder and adultery against the Sixth and Seventh Commandments. And so they are classed by the Apostles in many such passages as Gal. v. 20, etc."
"Dissent does in fact charge God with stupidity or cruelty, or both."
"Dissent does implicitly make God to be the Author of Evil."
"Dissent does naturally and inevitably pave the way to atheism."
"It follows, as a matter of course, that sacraments, as ministered by Dissenters, cannot be anything more than a sacrilegious outward show, and as much a mockery and a delusion as grace without meat, a shell without a kernel, or a knife without a blade."
This will be strong enough even for the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. Here is another extract—
"The Bible is emphatically the Church's Book, to which Dissenters have no more right than have deserters to the Drill and Text Book of the Army from which they have seceded."
There is one statement so astonishing that I hesitate to quote it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is the book from which the hon. Member is quoting, and is it authorised?
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: It is a book written by the late Principal of the Training College at Carnarvon, entitled "Manual of Doctrine and Practice," and it contains the substance of the lectures he delivered to the teachers under his control. I ask if a single hon. Member will approve of the following statement—
"The soul-starvation thus resulting has naturally caused that sad loss of moral and spiritual tone so painfully conspicuous among the various sects, and has reduced them from 'religious societies' to mere 'political clubs ' for the dissemination of unbelieving Radicalism, the creed of ignorance and vice, of knavish demagogues and the criminal classes —an incendiary system which aims at the goods of the rich, not the good of the poor, and which yet, in their envious hatred of the Church, dissenting leaders are not ashamed to propagate as gospel truth—to carry out their godless purposes."
The whole book is written in that style from beginning to end, and I would not believe it had been written by any man occupying the position of the author if I had not seen it. These training colleges receive from the Government £200,000, they are exempt from all inspection by the Education Department, and any kind of travesty of history may be taught in them. I think it is high time that the country should know the kind of teaching given in them to teachers who will have to teach 3,000,000 of the children of England. To show how tightly the ecclesiastical rope is drawn round the teachers, I may mention that no less than eleven of the diocesan inspectors for religious instruction are members of the English Church Union, and the teachers of the National schools are obliged to give such instruction as will secure their approval, otherwise they are in danger of dismissal from their schools. One teacher in a National school wrote to mo that the diocesan inspector came into his school to test the religious instruction of the children. The question he put was, "Who forgives sin? " and the answer the children gave was, "God." The inspector was not satisfied with that, and said, " Is that all?" and at last he required the poor children to say, " And the priest."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is the name of the school?
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: The teacher would probably be dismissed if it were known that I had quoted him in this House. Formerly the teachers were allowed latitude, as all teachers should, but now a system of inspection has been invented. Eleven of these inspectors are members of the English Church Union and followers of Lord Halifax, whom the First Lord of the Treasury designated as one who regards "the history of the Church of England for the last three centuries as an unprofitable parenthesis in the history of the Church Universal." These inspectors visit the schools twice a year, and they require poor little children to answer the most difficult questions about sacerdotalism, the sacraments, and the absolute necessity of confessing to a priest in order to obtain forgiveness. It is remarkable that the two books from which I have quoted scarcely refer at all to the teaching of the Scriptures. They are all about questions of church ceremony, sacramental powers, the apostolic succession, and such like. I ask the House, was it ever designed by Parliament that enormous sums of money should be given to train teachers who have half the children of the country under their control—800,000 of them children of Protestant Nonconformists— and that they should have their minds poisoned against the very children whom they have to train? I say this is a crime against justice and charity, and is unworthy of a free country. Many of the schools are under the control of the squire and the parson, and a parent who withdrew his children would probably lose his employment. That is the position and the difficulty, and on it I intend to take the decision of the House fully and broadly, and not on any incidental point. The fact is that in many cases the children in those Voluntary schools are marched from school to church on week days to be present at the celebration of Mass, or what is practically the same thing, " Children's Eucharists," and all the children are required to go.
SIR J. GORST: Were you there?
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Let me say if I were to give all the facts I have accumulated on this question the House would howl me down, for it would take mo two or three hours to go over them. Here is a single case, that of the notorious

1533
Hensall-cum-Heck in the diocese of York. The National schools are the only schools in the parish, and they are attended by the children of Dissenters as well as of Churchmen. There was at the beginning of the year in the schools an altar with candles and crucifix, and the children were taken to church every Thursday morning at nine o'clock to hear Mass.
LORD HUGH CECIL: Was that by the late or present incumbent?
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: It was by the incumbent who had been in the parish for fourteen years, and who left the Church of England two months ago and joined the Church of Rome. I may further toll the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that the facts of the case had been laid before the Archbishop of York over and over again during the fourteen years that that incumbent indulged in those ritualistic practices; but the Archbishop did not pay the slightest attention to the representations made to him. It was only two months ago that the Archbishop asked the incumbent whether he could not see his way to resign; and he did resign, and went over to the Church of Home. Hero is what the children were taught in these schools. They were taught to bow on one knee on the high altar before the "reserved Sacrament." They were taught the Rosary, and they were taken to church to the "Blessing and Imposition of Ashes," and some of them were smudged with the ashes. I may mention that, in the Sunday school, they are obliged to learn the Roman Catholic catechism, and the boys and girls all receive the "Children's Pictorial Mass Book," with the imprimatur of "Henry Edward, Cardinal Archbishop." It may be said that the Sunday school was nothing to do with the day school, but the teachers in the day schools are always found to be teachers in the Sunday school. It is part of the agreement forced upon them. They pass from the day school to the Sunday school, where they teach Roman Catholic doctrines, and when they return to the day school on Monday is it likely that they will teach any others? Certainly not. Another case I may mention incidentally is that of St. Bartholomew's at Brighton, whore 2,000 children from the National schools are inarched once a week to hear Mass in a
1534
Church of England school. The Archbishop of York stated in his Diocesan Magazine for March 19th, after the resignation of the Vicar of Hensall-cum Heck, that Mr. Bryan had "laboured for fourteen years with exceptional devotion and earnestness." That leads mo to say that I do not for one moment doubt that many of these men are earnest and devout. That is shown by their strenuous lives and by their devotion to duty among the poor. I agree with the First Lord of the Treasury in his article in the North American Review, that in many respects they are really pious and good men, but they are teaching a different religion from that held by the people of England, and they ought not to be in the Church of England. The Education Act of 1870 would never have been allowed to pass through this House by Nonconformist Members if it had been understood that we were handing over the education of the rural population of England to clergymen who in their hearts were Roman Catholic priests. We handed over the education of three millions of children to the Church of England, under the belief that it was a Protestant church. The Nonconformists had no great objection to the differences between the great Protestant Church of England and the Nonconformist churches. All of them look to the Scriptures as their supreme guide, but none of us ever dreamed, when we agreed to hand over the education of three millions of children, that we were going to poison the minds of both the teachers and the scholars with the practices and doctrines I have been quoting, such as that Dissenters are all going to hell, and that they have never been properly baptised. The time was come when we must re-arrange the whole educational system of the country. We have either got to do that or we shall see some consequences which will be very painful, and very difficult to deal with indeed. There are two religions taught in the Church of England at the present time, which are absolutely opposed to each other. The one is based on the right of private judgment, and the other wholly built upon the authority of the priests. There is no reconciliation between them possible. Most of the hon. Members who hear me know the truth of what I am saying, and they themselves do not believe in the priestly system. They must know that this state of things

1535
is a great injustice to Nonconformists, and to three-fourths of the Protestants of England.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is trenching on the ground referred to in a notice of motion on the Paper.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I appeal to the Unionist party to act up to the spirit of the resolution passed by this House on this matter, and only objected to by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and a small group of his way of thinking. That resolution was as follows—
"That this House deplores the spirit of lawlessness shown by certain members of the Church of England, and confidently hopes that the Ministers of the Crown will not recommend any clergyman for ecclesiastical preferment unless they are satisfied that he will loyally obey the bishops and the Prayer-book, and the law as declared by the courts which have jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical."
I ask the House to go a little further, and say that no such lawless clergy shall have the control of the Voluntary schools of the country. It is there the real mischief is done; it is amongst the children tenfold more than amongst the adults that the mischief is done. When you got young children of ten or twelve years of ago, and threaten them with dire penalties in the next world unless they confer their sins to the priest, you are poisoning their minds, and indulging in practices by which Protestantism will be well nigh stamped out. I am persuaded that three-fourths of the hon. Members I am addressing believe in the bottom of their hearts all I am saying. I am in favour of keeping religious education in the schools. I believe that to a God-fearing people the elementary teaching of religion is exceedingly valuable, and I shall be sorry indeed to see it driven out of the schools. In this secular and unbelieving age it is necessary that everything should be done to save the children from irreligious influences. But if the religious education of the children is to pass wholly into the hands of a priestly caste, who are out of sympathy with the beliefs of the British people, there will be such an outburst of popular indignation that our whole system of primary education will be entirely sccularised; and I would regard that as the
1536
greatest misfortune that could befall this country. I say this is the most prominent question of the day. It is obscured for the moment by the war in South Africa; but that will pass away, and the question will remain whether England is to be unprotestantised, or whether the deepest convictions of the nation are to be respected. I insist that this House should not be deprived of a free discussion of this subject; and in order to enable the House to express its opinion upon it, I beg to move as an Amendment to the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury the insertion of the word "to-morrow" after the word "rising."
Amendment proposed—
"After the word ' rising' to insert the word ' to-morrow.'"—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
Question proposed, "That the word ' to-morrow' be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise at once to follow the hon. Gentleman, for two reasons. The first reason is that he prefaced his speech by a personal attack on myself.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Not an attack —a comment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman and I differ in the meaning we attach to words. I call it an attack—-a personal attack on myself; he calls it a comment. And, in the second place, I rise at once because I do not think that the motion for the adjournment of the House is a very convenient occasion for a long discussion on matters however important. It would raise more than one issue of great importance to which we cannot give the necessary time, and some control should be exercised by hon. Members as to the time occupied by each topic. The hon. Gentleman's criticism, as he was pleased to call it, on the arrangement of business in this House appears to be based on the right of private Members in general, and his own rights in particular, as regards the day on which the House should rise. The hon. Gentleman succeeded in the ballot in getting to-morrow for his motion, and he seems to think it not only a personal insult to himself, but also an outrage on the rights of private Members, that the holidays should begin on Monday

1537
night instead of Wednesday or Thursday. Never was such a pretension made in this House before. The hon. Gentleman says that the rights of private Members are being gradually extinguished. Private Members have had more opportunities this session than they have had for many sessions in recent times, and they have shown their appreciation of the opportunities given them, I think, in the most wise way they could show it, by counting out the House at 8 o'clock and going home comfortably to dinner. Then the hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and professes to i represent an oppressed and ill-used class— oppressed by the tyranny of the Government, which, in his own graceful expression, had turned the House into a machine for registering its own decrees. I hope the hon. Gentleman will learn more moderation in his criticisms in future, and I confess the preface he made did not give me a high idea of the candid spirit in which he was going to approach his main topic. What was that main topic? It was in part an attack upon those who, being members, or professing to be members, of the Church of England, hold doctrines which I certainly find it very difficult to reconcile with the doctrines of the Church of England, and which, I am afraid, in some cases, are held by persons whose loyalty to the Church of England is very questionable. That was the general text of the hon. Gentleman, and no doubt it is a text which will always find favour in this House, where the great bulk of Members are strongly opposed to the particular school of theology which the hon. Gentleman is attacking. But, not content with this vague, general attack on this particular section of the Church of England, the hon. Gentleman made a specific proposal with regard to our system of education, which was none other" than the modest suggestion that the whole of the Act of 1870 should be upset, that the whole system of Voluntary schools should be brought to a summary conclusion, and that we should adopt a plan which he himself denounced— namely, that of purely secular education. That was the thesis the hon. Gentleman put forward, that was the conclusion to which he asked the House to arrive. Anything more preposterous than the making of such a suggestion on a motion for the adjournment of the House,
1538
or even on a Tuesday evening, I can hardly imagine, and I cannot believe that any hon. Gentleman, whatever view he takes of the ritualistic question, would really concur with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. But that suggestion, after all, is based on a fundamental confusion as to our system of Voluntary schools. It has never been pretended that under our system of Voluntary schools the teaching given in every Voluntary school was in accordance with what I may call the average religious views of the community. On the contrary, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, under our Voluntary school system it is specifically intended and contrived that Roman Catholics should be able to have Voluntary schools. Does the hon. Gentleman object to that?
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: No, I do not object to that, because we do not send to them Protestant children. They are simply for the benefit of Roman Catholics. What I complain of is that these ritualistic schools receive vast numbers of Protestant children who are compelled to go to them.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. There is no distinction whatever between Roman Catholic Voluntary schools and Protestant Voluntary schools, between Church of England schools and Wesleyan schools, in the particulars of which he speaks. It may happen, and probably does happen, that there are more Church of England schools in parishes where no other schools exist. That is the more common case; I grant that; but the other case is distinctly contemplated, and plenty of Protestant children, under our present system, go to Roman Catholic Voluntary schools.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Very few, and they are very much objected to.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I made the accurate statement that there are many Protestant children who go to Roman Catholic schools, and in Ireland a Protestant child, except in the north of Ireland, has never any chance of going to a school which is not under the management of Roman Catholics, and probably of the Roman Catholic priest. Ninety-five out of 100

1539
of the children are Roman Catholics. But the evils of that system, in so far as it has got evils, are obviated by the conscience Clause. The hon. Gentleman says the Conscience Clause is no protection He did not give us one atom of proof of that contention. I interrupted him more than once to ask for specific cases, because it all turns on authenticated cases. It not only turns on authenticated cases, but on the proportion of such authenticated cases to the total number. The hon. Gentleman is singularly unsuccessful in his cases. The only case he gave, as far as I remember, was one which is no longer a case—a case which has come to an end, a case in which the offending clergyman has ceased to be the clergyman of the parish and has joined the communion with which, I dare say, he has been much more in sympathy than with the Church of England. But even in that case I did not make out that the hon. Gentleman alleged that the Con-science Clause was without effect, or a dead letter. Does he think it was violated in that case?
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: What I said was that in this particular case the children had to go to Mass once a week, and as a rule those who refused to go were so penalised, were made so to suffer in many ways, and their lives were made so miserable, that they were compelled to go to Mass.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I absolutely disbelieve that statement, and if the hon. Gentleman has any proof of it, it is his bounden duty to bring it before the Education Department. A greater scandal than that of compelling children, against the wish of their parents, to attend religious services or even to be taught doctrines of which these parents disapprove I cannot imagine. It is directly contrary to the whole spirit of the Education Act, it is contrary to the law of the land, and the hon. Gentleman, instead of coming down here and making vague declarations upon an occasion like this, should bring before the Education Department, before this House, and before the country the specific cases in which the clergy are guilty of this gross dereliction of public duty and this open violation of the law of the land. I do not say that such cases do not exist, because there are a large number of Voluntary schools throughout the country, and here and
1540
there errors and breaches of the law may occur, but I am perfectly certain that they are very few; and the hon. Gentleman would have done bettor if, instead of telling us that he has so many cases that the House would be kept up all night if he gave them, he had given us one or two authenticated cases which would bear examination.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I brought a similar case last year before the Vice-President of the Council of Education in my own constituency. I told the right hon. Gentleman that in the town of Flint the vicar had read out from the pulpit the names of the child; en who did not attend a certain service, and had written to some of the employers asking them to dismiss their parents.
SIR J. GORST: I cannot allow the hon. Member to say that. That is not a correct representation.
AN HON. MEMBER: What is?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is most earnest and sincere in the cause he advocates. But he is credulity itself, if he will forgive my saying so; he is incorrigible. I have always wished to pin him to facts—but I have always failed to do so--because I think that if these things exist they should be cured. If it is true that there are parsons, school managers, throughout the country openly breaking the law Sunday after Sunday, week after week, in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, they should be brought to book. Why does he not help us to bring them to book, instead of making these vague general accusations against the whole class, which as a class, I am sure, do not deserve his censure? The truth is, the hon. Gentleman habitually uses language of the most exaggerated kind. He describes cases, which I hope do not exist at all, but which certainly, if they do, exist in very small numbers, of clergy-men teaching in their schools extravagant doctrines which I find myself unable to reconcile with the teaching of the Church of England. He makes the statement that 800,000 Protestant Nonconformist are obliged to go to such schools. Sir, that is a preposterous exaggeration. The 800,000 Nonconformist children are not obliged to go to those schools, If the

1541
hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to go into the schools throughout our rural districts he would have found that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the religious education given by the clergyman to the children of the parishioners, be they Churchmen or Nonconformists, is absolutely in harmony with the general wishes of the parents, and I do not believe that he will be able to find half a dozen —I doubt whether he will be able to find three—cases throughout the length and breadth of the land in which he can show that the Conscience Clause has really been violated by the clergyman. If he does, it is not only his right, it is his bounden duty, never to rest until these cases are thoroughly exposed, and until the legal, normal, and healthy system is introduced into them—that system which, I believe, does prevail throughout the rest of the country. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman through his criticism of certain text-books which he brought to the attention of the House. The extracts he gave from the only one which I gathered to be authorised in the training colleges seem to me to be too brief, and in fact too innocuous, to deserve much comment. The only statement in that book which the hon. Member quoted, and which he thought was an attack on the Reformation, was, I must say, a very severe, if not wholly exaggerated, criticism of the stormy times which accompanied the Reformation movement.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: The whole book is a condemnation of the Information. There is nothing at all in the book to indicate the true character of the great Reformation in this country.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the hon. Member's general statement, but his only specific instance, which I have ventured to quote, does not bear out his general statement. If the hon. Member will call to mind the excesses of the Anabaptists at the one end of the scale, and the massacres of St. Bartholomew at the other end of the scale, I think he will find that his references do not justify the incriminating deductions which he has drawn from them. I do not profess to have road the look, but the quotations made by the hon. Gentleman from it do not, in my opinion, support the statement he has made. The hon. Gentleman has put before the House a broad general proposition, and to that I
1542
hope the House will express its strong dissent. Because here and there, in his opinion, there are, rightly or wrongly, doctrines taught in Church of England schools that he wishes to make it impossible for the most Protestant members of the Church of England to teach in Voluntary schools, he wishes to destroy the whole system of the Wesleyan Voluntary schools and the whole system of the Roman Catholic Voluntary schools.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: No, no.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, but he does. His proposition is that the Voluntary schools lead to abuses, which he has described; that the settlement of 1870 has proved to be a failure, and therefore he thinks that the whole system should be uprooted. That is his proposition, and I hope that the House will express an emphatic negative to it. If the hon. Member simply asks me to agree with him that some of the teaching on which he comments is very unfortunate and inconsistent, in my personal views, with the position of the Church of England, of course I agree with him; but that is not the proposition he brings before the House. He says that because here and there there are abuses in the system, the system itself must be destoyed, the only alternative being the introduction of secular education. I do not think that this is a convenient opportunity for the House to come to a vote on that question. The actual proposition before us is whether we shall go for our holidays to-night or to-morrow. I do not think that that raises the issue in a very clear, practical, or convenient form; but whenever the hon. Member does raise the clear, practical issue I certainly shall be found voting with those who think that the existing Voluntary school system, with all its defects, deserves to be maintained, especially considering that the only substitute suggested by the hon. Member himself is secular education, which is put in rivalry with the Voluntary schools. I am sorry that the House has not an opportunity of voting on that, and that the hon. Member has not had an opportunity of bringing on his motion. He has, however, had an opportunity of making a speech, and that, I hope, will partially reconcile him to his loss. [AN HON MEMBER: Oh!] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman objects to in that. I

1543
think, at any rate, he will not find this a convenient opportunity to ask the House to divide upon an issue which can give no true indication of the opinion held in this House on the very important subject which he has brought before it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): I very much regret the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to the hon. Member for Flint. This is a matter of much greater importance than he seems to imagine. It is a question which affects very deeply the religious convictions of a community numbering two millions of people; and I regret much that he did not address himself to its consideration in a much more grave spirit than he did. I quite agree that a motion for the adjournment of the House for the holidays is not a convenient method of raising a discussion on a matter of this kind; but surely that is the greatest argument that could be adduced in support of the motion of my hon. friend. I think it is important enough to have induced the House to curtail its holidays by twenty-four hours. The right hon. Gentleman complains of what he called the exaggeration of my hon. friend. But I do not think I ever listened to a speech which so completely distorted every statement and argument put forward by my hon. friend. I will give one illustration. He said that my hon. friend wishes to destroy the Roman Catholic, the Church of England, and the Wesleyan Voluntary schools. That was not my hon. friend's argument at all. Our whole complaint is that in a large number of districts in England and Wales there are schools where the doctrines of the minority of the population are taught to the children of the majority, and where the religious opinions of the managers of the schools are not those of the majority of the population. The right hon. Gentleman asks, "Are there no Protestant children who go to Roman Catholic schools in Ireland?" That may be the case; but I point out the distinct difference. There the Protestant children constitute a very small minority. But in the east and west of England and in Wales there are hundreds of parishes with hundreds of schools which are managed by Church of England ministers, while the bulk of the population are Nonconformists. That is a very different case, and the right hon. Gentleman knows
1544
it, or ought to know it. I say that is a grievance which he ought to recognise— a grievance which was recognised by the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentleman complained that my hon. friend made vague declarations as to the Conscience Clause being an insufficient protection in these cases. It is not a question of whether the Conscience Clause is violated; but of whether it is a sufficient protection or not. My hon. friend gave a specific case in support of his contention, but the right hon. Gentleman carefully ignored it altogether. And what about the case of the Welsh girl who was told that unless she signed a declaration abjuring the Wesleyan faith she could not become a teacher in a particular school?
SIR J. GORST: Where was it?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In the west of England somewhere. I confess that at the moment I cannot give the name of the village, but I undertake to supply it to the right hon. Gentleman. There are hundreds of cases like that. It is perfectly well known that no Nonconformist child can become a teacher in any of these National schools, except on the express condition of giving up his or her faith. The right hon. Gentleman has never denied that.
SIR J. GORST: Oh yes, I have. Two years ago I challenged the hon. Member to produce me any case of that kind, and he has failed.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The challenge was entirely on our side, and the right hon. Gentleman failed to accept it. Let me say that this is not the only case of interruption by the right hon. Gentleman which is not entirely in conformity with fact—I do not say intentionally. The challenge was this. We made a general statement upon the evidence of statistics, collected by the Wesleyan communion in the east of England—statistics which were quoted to the right hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and the hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman did deny their accuracy; but we challenged him to get a Return from all these State schools of all the pupil teachers in

1545
them who wore not of the Anglican faith. The right hon. Gentleman very prudently did not take up that challenge. He referred us to the First Lord of the Treasury, and the First Lord of the Treasury referred us to the Duke of Devonshire; and the only result of that challenge is that they have declined to give us the information. It is very easy to obtain it. It is simply to call upon the school managers to give in the name of every teacher and pupil teacher who belongs to any faith except their own. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman read some letters from Wales on the subject; and it is true that one particular inspector belonging to the Church of England did deny our allegation, but the other did not. He said in regard to the case given by the hon. Member for Flint, that there was no intimidation. He denied it. Let mo remind the House of the facts which were given, and which were not denied.
SIR J. GORST: It was twice discussed in the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would not have discussed it a third time had the right hon. Gentleman not now denied it. What happened then? A resident in the town of Flint claimed his rights for his children under the Conscience Clause in regard to free education; and what did the manager of the schools, the rector of Flint, do? He found out who were the employers of this parent, and he wrote a letter to Sir Henry Harben, one of the directors of the Prudential Assurance Company, complaining of the company's agent in Flint " interfering in polities" by claiming for his children the protection of the Conscience Clause.
SIR J. GORST: The facts were denied twice in the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The rector of Flint wrote a letter to Sir Henry Harben, who is the chief director of the Prudential Assurance Company, complaining of the action of his agent down there—that he was interfering in politics. What was the interference? Simply claiming for his children the protection of the Conscience Clause. That is not denied by the rector of Flint. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he denies that the rector wrote the letter, and that Sir
1546
Henry Harben communicated with the man and told him not to interfere in politics. So much for the protection of the Conscience Clause. There is a specific case where it was in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to interfere. I remember what he said was that the rector denounced some poor labourers.
SIR J. GORST: Poor labourers! They were not poor labourers. They were ministers or officials of the rival church.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman administers the Conscience Clause. If they are preachers of a rival institution, what business has an official of the only State school in Flint to use his powers and the money the taxpayers give him in order to kick a rival institution and the ministers of a rival faith? Those hon. Members who know about the Conscience Clause never heard of labourers preaching in a Nonconformist church. These are the gentlemen who legislate for Nonconformists. [Laughter.] Is it a thing to laugh at that a labourer should be allowed to preach in a Primitive Methodist church? Those labourers were preachers in the Primitive Methodist church. Each of these men works for his daily bread and preaches on Sunday. What is there to laugh at and regard as discreditable in that? This is the way they are treated simply because they happen to preach on Sunday. They are therefore not to get the protection of the Conscience Clause. These are the exceptions to be made to the rule. This is the way that even-handed justice is to be meted out to the people of Flint and to the majority of Nonconformists. The school is entirely in the hands of the Anglican parson, who dooms it part of his duty to use his position, to use the tithe which the Nonconformist farmers of that district contribute towards his maintenance, for the purpose of mounting the pulpit, in order to denounce the people who claim the protection of the law of the land. It seems to me that Irishmen must obey the law or there is a Coercion Act. Parsons are the only people who can break the law which has been devised for the protection of the poor. Certainly, the rich people require no protection. They have schools of their own. The

1547
children of the labourer, simply because he preaches on Sunday, are to be insulted. These are the facts which were given at the time. What happens? If an insurance agent claims the protection of the Conscience Clause for his children he is to be dismissed and starved. The rival preachers are not to have the protection of the clause. They ought to stop it. They should not be rivals. The right hon. gentleman, I am sorry to say, has been administering the law not equitably and not fairly, but has simply allowed himself to be pressed by hon. gentlemen behind him. He simply wants to utilise the powers of the Education Department for the purpose of crushing out the board schools and giving now life to the other schools.
SIR J. GORST: I shall not intervene in the debate for more than a few minutes; but I cannot allow the accusation of the hon. Member to pass unnoticed —that the administration of the Education Department in these matters is not fair. I have always tried to get the hon. Gentleman to give specific charges. I have, however, always succeeded in getting general denunciations, but I have never been able to get a specific case. The Flint case has already done duty many times. If the rector of Flint from his pulpit attacked the persons referred to, they gave as good as they got. I confess that I am not prepared, without notice, to say that I am accurate in my recollection of everything connected with the case, but so far as I remember the case it was this. The rector of the parish had denounced from the pulpit certain persons who made use of the Conscience Clause. But those people had attacked him, and they brought down an agitator from Liverpool who made a speech in which the rector was attacked. There was no pretension that in Flint any Nonconformist parent was unable to obtain the protection of the Conscience Clause. The conduct of the rector was very reprehensible, but I am not his bishop, and have no eight to censure him. The only business of the Education Department was to see that parents were not intimidated for making use of the Conscience Clause, and I challenge any hon. Member opposite to bring forward a concrete case in which the Department has failed in its duty in that respect. There is another point I
1548
want to mention. I believe there are few schools from which Nonconformists are excluded from becoming pupil-teachers. Two years ago, when the subject was debated in the House, I challenged hon. Members opposite to give a concrete case. The challenge was taken up outside the House, and two cases were submitted, but on investigation they both broke down. I strongly suspect that one was the case brought forward the other day by a deputation which waited on the Lord President. A girl who was a Nonconformist and sought admission into a Church school as a pupil-teacher was about to sign a declaration, in order to become a pupil teacher in a Church school, that she would join the Established Church. My recollection of the case is that she got a batter situation in a school elsewhere, and the undertaking was never signed. It is the desire of the Government, the Education Department, and myself never to aggravate religious animosities. They do not exist in the schools. They are unknown in the practice of the Department. They are only known in the House of Commons and on platforms. It is the desire of all the officials of the Education Department, from the highest to the lowest, to avoid aggravating religious dissension and to administer the schools fairly, that all children may be taught the religion their parents desire, and that no one should be under any disability because of that religion.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: My hon. friend the Member for Flint brought forward a motion which I think, in the first instance, seemed to touch one comparatively small specific part of the large question of education—namely, that in certain cases the rectors of schools, clergymen as a rule, are teaching doctrines which are anti-Reformation doctrines. I am inclined to think with the First Lord of the Treasury and the Vice-President of the Council that these cases are comparatively rare, but the mere fact that they are not capable of accurate statement and proof in the tribunal of this House docs not, it appears to me, show necessarily that they do not exist, because I think, if the First Lord of the Treasury could have approached this subject in a larger spirit than he appeared to do, he would have realised that this kind of thing is exceedingly difficult of proof,

1549
for this reason, that the only persons who can give evidence are placed in an exceedingly difficult position locally, and they have great temptation to remain silent. But, nevertheless, I am not inclined to think that these cases are exceedingly numerous, nor am I disposed to think that cases are numerous where it can be shown as the result of attacks, whether directed from the pulpit or in school by the headmaster under clerical influence, that some child, or the parent of some child, is forced to abandon the benefit of the Conscience Clause. But from our point of view the whole of this argument is a far larger matter. What I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council is—does he deny that there are in this country an enormous number of schools, especially in the rural districts, where the children of Nonconformist parents must either attend the school and accept the teaching of Church of England principles, or withdraw altogether from religious teaching, and be satisfied with nothing but that secular education which hon. Members opposite are always ready to denounce as bad? The facts are perfectly well known. They are to be found in the volumes placed on the Table of this House by the right hon. Gentleman. There are now in the rural districts an enormous number of parishes in which there are nothing but Church of England schools, and the children of Nonconformist parents must go to these schools, or break the law by not attending school at all. Does Her Majesty's Government deny these facts? These facts are notorious, and constitute a great educational injustice in this country. These occasional cases of hardship occur when some clerical manager comes forward, and, having been accustomed to rule the roost in his own parish, ends at last by threatening those who will not accept his domination and dictation. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he investigated the case, I believe, of an aspiring pupil who desired to be a pupil teacher in a rural school, and who was prevented from becoming so by the practice of the Church of England party in that particular parish; but he said those cases are so exceptional that really they are not worth mentioning in this House. Why, as a matter of fact the clerical managers of the Church of England schools, with the rarest exceptions, would be breaking
1550
the very trusts which they manage if they were to admit a pupil teacher who does not belong to the Church of England. It is the case that in every school connected with the National Society for Promoting the Education of Children in the Principles of the Church of England, every manager, and every head teacher, whether a master or a mistress, and every pupil teacher, must be a member of the Church of England, and must make a declaration to that effect in order to be admitted to the humblest step on the ladder. Those who do not belong to the Church of England are thereby prevented from putting a foot on the ladder, and rising to the highest rung. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that we cannot bring forward a particular case which will stand discussion in the House. The facts cannot be denied, and it is out of the atmosphere so created that the insolence of tone adopted in some clerical circles has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman said that such cases as have been mentioned are rare, but, as a matter of fact, managers of Church schools are usually required by the conditions of their trust to insist that every teacher shall be a member of the Church of England, and a Nonconformist pupil teacher has to give up his legitimate ambition or make a declaration hostile altogether to every principle in which he has been nurtured. The injustice consists in the fact that the whole power of management is with the Church. Let the First Lord of the Treasury apply the same canons he applies, perhaps with an excess of liberality, to the grievances of Roman Catholics in regard to university education in Ireland. Since a court of law in a test case decided against the National Society on the question of the validity of transfer of a school to a school board, the trust deeds of the society have been so altered that the society can absolutely veto the transfer of any such building. The facts of the situation are notorious and proved by Departmental reports. It is idle to require that a special case should be proved by technical rules of evidence. The struggle will not be relinquished until Nonconformists in country districts have equal rights with Churchmen, and such as they largely possess in towns, and which, by every claim of justice and equity, they are entitled to have by the law of the land.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot say that I think the First Lord of the Treasury treated the hon. Member for Flint quite fairly in the speech he made, and I do feel it would be somewhat a misfortune if this debate, so unfortunately thrust upon the House, were to close leaving an impression that there is on this side of the House no feeling corresponding to that expressed by the hon. Member for Flint. Though I do not associate myself with everything that has been said, there is a deep feeling, though this may not be the occasion for expressing it, that the view presented by the hon. Member deserves the careful attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman diverted attention from the main gravamen of the charge brought by the hon. Member for Flint. I confess I agree with the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division that, as regards some of the points raised, this is not a question for minute proof. Some of the facts are too notorious to be capable of any denial at all. But when the hon. Member for Flint quotes from books authorised for use in the training colleges passages in which attempts are made to bring the great Protestant Reformation into ridicule and contempt, it becomes a question to consider whether in view of such teaching we can continue the position we have hitherto maintained towards these colleges as to payments out of State funds. With regard to the other book from which the hon. Member read disgusting passages of profane drivel which I understand form part of the religious instruction given to pupils destined to be teachers in our State-paid schools, I honestly believe that even the bigotry of Spain in the days of Alva could hardly outrival the spirit there shown. This is not the place to discuss whether or not those expressions were justifiable, but I do say, and really I think there are very few who will disagree with me, that if this is to be the doctrine which is to be taught in these great training college, the whole position will have to be reconsidered. I think the First Lord rather unfairly put upon the hon. Member the dilemma of saying that if he held these views he must desire to see all religious teaching swept away. If that is so, it. is a dilemma which will no doubt present itself to a great many hon. Members besides the hon. Member for Flint. It is within the knowledge of
1552
Members of this House that attempts have been made to ensure that teaching of this kind should not be continued with the aid of public money, and we have had many assurances that the evils would not be continued. It is therefore a very relevant fact to be informed that in some very important centres it has been continued and is prevalent at the present moment. I am by tradition and conviction a strong believer in the maintenance of religious education in our schools. But you may pay too high a price for gold, and that is the conviction which I think will eventually be brought home to a great number of the people of this country. I commend to hon. Members who accept without demur the rather warm condemnation of the hon. Member opposite, which the First Lord has thought it his duty to pronounce, a study of the passages which have excited—and, I think, not unreasonably excited—the indignation of the hon. Gentleman. Whether we can on this occasion, or, indeed, on any other occasion in this House, profitably occupy ourselves with legislation for the purpose of diminishing these evils is another matter, but I do desire for my part—and, of course, I have no right to speak for anyone but myself— to say that I believe the hon. Member opposite has put his finger on a very grave and serious state of things, and one which really does merit the attention of this House.
MR. BOSCAWEN: The hon. Gentleman opposite told us this was a very large question, because there were hundreds of places where Nonconformist children had to attend schools presided over by Anglican clergymen, thereby suggesting that in those schools religious teaching was given which was not suited to the requirements of the children, and to which, in fact, the parents objected. If that grievance is to be brought forward I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there are still more schools—namely, Board schools, where the children of Church of England parents are given religious education of which they disapprove. ["No."] At all events, that is the case in a great many schools, and in many there is no religious teaching at all. ["Where?"] There are forty schools in Wales where there is no religious education whatever given. Therefore, if one

1553
grievance is to be brought forward, the other grievance also must be brought forward, and if there is to be a great change made in our Voluntary school system, which I am quite prepared to admit is not perfect in every respect, there must be a great change in the Board school system also. So this question is really a much larger one than even the hon. Gentleman suggested. The question we have before us is the whole question of elementary education. Are we to have our present system, which is a double system—the Voluntary system, where religious teaching is given in accordance with the wishes of the managers, protected by a Conscience Clause; and the Board school system, which is entirely undenominational—or are we to have one great system—of Board schools, if you like, but Board schools which are denominational and where denominational teaching may be given? That is a great question, and one which I submit cannot be decided by a snatch vote and a short debate on an occasion like the present. It is the great question of religious teaching in our schools for the future. The hon. Gentleman asks us, simply because certain things are alleged to occur in very badly authenticated instances in Voluntary schools, to sweep away that system, and to substitute for it nothing but the present Board school system. Hon. Members on this side of the House representing Church of England and Roman Catholic feeling will never consent to get rid of Voluntary schools unless the Board school system is amended. Therefore I say that the question is a much bigger one than has been suggested; it affects the whole of our educational system. The present occasion is not one upon which we can adequately or properly discuss that question; it is impossible at the present time to remodel the whole of our educational system. Therefore we must continue to carry on the double system until we get something better, and until the British public is prepared to allow denominational education in all schools.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken is, as he has unquestionably shown us by his observations, a stout supporter of denominational schools and of religious education. I cannot imagine anyone who holds those
1554
views thinking that that cause is assisted by ignoring or attempting to defend such proceedings as have been exposed by my hon. friend. The point before the House to-night, if I may say so in correction of the hon. Gentleman opposite, is not a question of Board schools and Voluntary schools, or of religious education and non-religious education. The question is whether the influence of certain schools, which are Church of England schools, supported out of public funds, to which many children of Nonconformists as well as of Churchmen have to go, and whether the influence of training colleges, in connection with the Church of England, for which we vote a large sum of money every year, is to be employed to undermine that which undoubtedly is the conception of the vast majority of the people of this country of the creed which they are intended to support. That is the point at issue. Surely if there is any way more certain than any other of giving additional strength to denominational schools and to religious education, it would be to purge the whole system of any suspicion of the sort of underhand proceedings which my hon. friend has exposed. I had not the advantage of hearing the —I understand lively and energetic— speech of the Leader of the House, but I believe he denounced in no measured terms the conduct of those who use their position in connection with the schools for the purpose of inculcating doctrines contrary to the received doctrines of the Church of England. That is the point of my hon. friend, and I submit to the House that it is not at all cleared away or disposed of by the plea being made that detailed particulars in each case must be given. We have heard quite enough and we know quite enough from various sources of information to be sure that this sort of thing is going on; and surely if the House of Commons can be called upon to pronounce its opinion upon any subject it would be in condemnation of such a breach of faith as well as breach of duty as has been exposed to us tonight. Then we come to the question of the course which Members of the House are to pursue. My hon. friend has moved an Amendment which has reference solely to the question of when the House of Commons is to adjourn. That does not appear to me to be an opportunity for expressing any very explicit opinion on

1555
the subject. My hon. friend has been driven from pillar to post in this matter, and he takes what he thinks is the best opportunity he has of dividing the House and getting an expression of opinion. But what would be the value of an opinion so expressed? I venture to doubt whether the division on the Amendment the hon. Member has moved—in fact, I do not doubt, I am quite certain the division would convey no information whatever to the ordinary outsider in this matter as to the view of the House. There would be a great many Members who would not be disposed to vote for it, not because they disagreed with my hon. friend, but because they thought it was so irregular and so indirect a manner of expressing their opinion that it would be impossible to support it. I confess I am in that frame of mind myself. While I cordially sympathise with my hon. friend, while I think he has done great service in bringing this matter forward, and while I think he has been accidentally hardly used by the circumstances and the time in not having a better opportunity, and an opportunity which would have enabled him to take the direct judgment of the House, still I do not think the expedient he has adopted is altogether a satisfactory one. I would strongly urge him to be content with the effect, which will be not inconsiderable, of the debate he has initiated, and not to take a division in a manner which would not really represent the opinion of the House.
MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon): The hon. Member for the Tunbridge Wells Division said there were forty schools in Wales under the School Board system in which no religious teaching was given. Possibly the House will be interested to know in what kind of a district those schools are situated. They are situated in three counties where there are no county jails, and where the system of Sunday schools has been so good that all the children attend them regularly. These schools are called godless schools because the parents who send their children to them have such a splendid system of Sunday schools to which the children go. But to come to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education. I look upon this question not from any sectarian point of view; in fact, I never like to look
1556
at education from a sectarian point of view at all. Education is a much larger question than any sectarian creed or denomination. But the truth must be known, and since the right hon. Gentleman has challenged us to point to cases where pupil teachers cannot be drawn from Nonconformists, I will give him some specific instances from my own constituency. There is a quarry district in my constituency where seven-eighths of the parents and seven-eighths of the children are Nonconformists. The school in this district is a Church school, and never within my experience has a pupil teacher in that school been drawn from the Nonconformist majority. This is not a religious grievance; it is an educational grievance, because, given a restricted area of selection, where you have only a few Church children from whom to draw your pupil teachers, you get the worst teachers. It is a natural thing, from an educational point of view, that if you want the best pupil teachers you must draw them from the widest possible area. Here the widest possible area is a Nonconformist area, and yet these pupil teachers are drawn exclusively from Church of England children. What is the result? The result is that many of these pupil teachers fail in their examinations and degenerate into what are called "Article 68." Not merely in Wales is this the case, but in England also. In the diocesan district of Oxford, I was told by an Oxford educationalist the other day that nearly 40 per cent. of the teachers belong to the class "Article 68." If the right hon. Gentleman, in order to get at the facts, will read the report which those who inquired into our pupil-teacher system in Wales made a few years ago, he will find instance! after instance quoted by Professor Phillips and others, when they were examined before the Committee, of cases where it was impossible for Nonconformist children to become pupil teachers or teachers in Church schools. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman so much, or the First Lord of the Treasury; I blame mainly for perpetuating this system within the last few years the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although the Archbishop of Canterbury is an eminent and distinguished scholar, and has been headmaster of Rugby School and of a training college, he inculcates education from the point of view of a rural parson. Last year, when we were

1557
trying to amend the pupil-teacher system, the Archbishop controlled the whole Cabinet, and runaway with them in his archiepiscopal apron. If he came as a poor quarryman to my constituency, he would find that the chapels collect on Sunday nights subscriptions to send pupil teachers to county schools because of this attitude in connection with clericalism, catechism, and Church creed. It is to the detriment of education that such a thing can survive, and it is mainly from the educational standpoint that I look at the matter. I, like many hon. Members opposite, believe that no educational system is complete without religion, and I want them to consent to my proposition that these schools in which pupil teachers are drawn from a narrow area—a system of ill-staffed Article 68 schools — cannot possibly produce a system of education which can be religious. I feel strongly upon this question from an educational standpoint. I want not mere secular education, but a thoroughly sound national education, not to make Churchmen or Nonconformists, but to make more manly men and more womanly women and trained citizens according to the spirit and highmindedness of the English and the Welsh people. In addition to these schools we have the training colleges. I can give instances in my own constituency where young men who have applied after getting a Queen's Scholarship to the national training colleges have failed to get admission unless they sold their conscience. There was one instance of a young Congregationalist who passed, I believe, first-class on the list of Queen's Scholarships, but not high enough to enter the college at which he sat. He applied for admission to one of the Church training colleges—a Church training college supported mainly by the money of the State—but because he was a Congregationalist he was asked by the head of the college whether he would sell his own creed and conscience and become a member of the Church of England. I am sorry to say he did both. The man may be weak, but the system that weakens a man's conscience in that way cannot be a right system, and it is because that system is being perpetuated by such men as the Archbishop of Canterbury and other educationalists of the Church of England that I enter my small protest against this state of things being allowed to exist.
MR. BROADHURST: I rise for the purpose of repeating to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President the question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, namely, will he supply the House with a Return of the number of Nonconformist teachers in Church schools? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That is the only answer he can give to the challenge which has been made to him. He denies the existence of oppression and coercion, and yet when we ask him to take steps which he is perfectly capable of taking to controvert the statements here made, he shakes his head and refuses to take any action.
SIR J. GORST: As I explained at the time, the Education Department have no authority whatever to ask any teacher in a national school his religion.
MR. BROADHURST: No, but you can ask the managers of the schools. The fact is, the statements which have been made here to-night are perfectly true, and they are known to be true. It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to demand proofs. He knows perfectly well what that means. In many cases the only effective proof would be the evidence of the managers themselves who cause the teachers to be discharged or to be refused employment because of their religious convictions. The challenge, therefore, is a perfectly safe one. Only a few months ago when talking with the master of a Voluntary school in a rural district as to his work in the school he complained to me of the difficulty of getting qualified teachers, and he told me that the qualified teacher who had recently been at the school had been discharged on account of his religious convictions. The moment I attempted to obtain names, dates, and all other incidents connected with the matter the master said—
"If you bring this matter under the notice of the proper authorities my position will be at stake. I should risk my appointment, and the probabilities are that I should be discharged."
How are you to get proofs under conditions such as that? I had another case brought to my notice not long ago of most outrageous proceedings towards Nonconformist children on the part of the managers of a Voluntary school, 19s. out of every £1 spent on the maintenance of

1559
which probably comes from the general taxpayer. The father of the children was a poor working man who held an appointment in the parish, and if his complaint had been lodged and the proof given it is perfectly certain that the man would have lost his position, and had to seek another home, with nine children to be responsible for. It is almost impossible to give the proofs in such cases as these. The fact is, the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House do not appear to desire proof. They have mot the whole case in a spirit of utter want of sympathy. They seem to have mot the case as though they were the specially appointed defenders of the conduct which has been condemned to-night. In connection with the case of Flint, I remember very well the main facts. I was in the town shortly after the main incidents occurred, and to-night the right hon. Gentleman rides off with the lame excuse that he is not the bishop controlling the actions of the Rector of Flint. No, but he belongs to the Department that supplies the Rector of Flint with probably 18s. out of every £1 spent in the school, and it is with regard to the educational and not the ecclesiastical law we are appealing to the right hon. Gentleman. The Bishop controls the ecclesiastical law, but the right hon. Gentleman has the right, in the name of the House of Commons, to demand obedience to the educational law, seeing that the money is supplied by the House of Commons. The way in which the Government have conducted this debate to-night, their evasive replies to the charges made by my hon. friend, the manner in which they have evaded all the real issues under discussion, seem to point to the fact, lamentable as it is, that they are party educationists, that the Nonconformist conscience is of no account with them, that in their view Nonconformists have no rights, and that the Government exists to bolster up the Church system, irrespective of the claims of other churches who contribute equally with the Church of England to the educational system of the country. We shall draw our own conclusions as to the reason of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to grant the Return which has been asked for. We have a grave suspicion that such a Return would prove the complaints up to the hilt, and that the right hon. Gentleman would not then have a fact to stand upon in defending
1560
the present system. If my hon. friend takes this Amendment to a division—I am not urging him to do so—I shall support him. It is not a good or an effective opportunity of taking a vote, but the effective opportunities are so rare in this House that we the poor unfortunate minority must seize any and every opportunity that offers, and, for all we know, from the discussions and gossip of the lobbies, this may be our last opportunity this Parliament.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I heard with amazement the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the cases of pupil teachers' grievances are rare. He said he had thrown out a challenge. My hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon replied to the challenge, but the right hon. Gentleman completely ignored the Report made by the Departmental Committee on the subject. What did the Committee themselves state after having taken evidence upon this question?—
"The grievance of Nonconformists in regard both to lack of facilities for obtaining posts as pupil teachers and subsequent entrance into training colleges are very serious, and we believe the State loses a large number of competent pupil teachers in this way."
Can anything be stronger than that? Here is the official Report of a Departmental Committee, specially appointed to investigate cases of this kind, and yet the right hon. Gentleman dismisses the question in a light and airy way as though the grievance was non-existent. The right hon. Gentleman challenges us, but may I remind him of a challenge I gave him on the 28th April last? I said—
"The Vice-president of the Council has asked for particulars of cases in which Nonconformists have been prevented from becoming pupil teachers on religious grounds. What reply has he to make to the report of the Education Committee of the Wesleyan Conference, which states that, out of 946 towns and villages in regard to which the Committee made inquiry, it was found that there were only 88 cases in which candidates were admitted to become pupil teachers without any act of conformity to the Church of England, and 858 cases in which either confirmation or attendance at the services of the Church of England was required as a condition of becoming a pupil teacher."
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, has he any reply to make to that? He has stated that the grievance is a non-existent one. I point him to these facts. He

1561
has never ventured to deny them or to make any comment upon them. I think I may safely leave the matter at this point in the hands of the House, who I think will he pretty well convinced that the grievance is one of real and substantial character, and one which Parliament ought to remove at the earliest possible opportunity.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I am thoroughly satisfied with the tone of the debate which has been elicited from the House this afternoon, and I do not intend to proceed with my Amendment. Before sitting down I wish to say, with the permission of the House, that I had not the slightest intention of imputing any want of faith to the right hon. Gentleman in any assurance he gave; I have far too much respect and admiration for him to think that for one moment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.

IRISH REGIMENTS — PROMOTIONS — KOORN SPRUIT DISASTER—NON-PUBUCATION OF DESPATCHES, ETC.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I wish to recall the House from things spiritual to things temporal. We have been listening for a considerable time to a discussion on the question of religious education; I want to raise a point which has nothing to do with education. The authorities at the War Office, for all I know to the contrary, are grown-up people, but one thing I respectfully submit to the House is, that they have yet to learn the very first principles of the Christian religion, to do unto others as they would that others should do unto them. My opinions about this war are perfectly well known, and I am not going to repeat them. What I am going to do is to endeavour to bring before the House of Commons—not before the War Office, but through the House of Commons to the country—the terrible grievance under which the officers and men of the Royal Irish Fusilier Regiments have suffered at the hands of the Government in reference to promotion. The Irish regiments have been practically annihilated; vacancies have been created by deaths, wounds, or disease, and, would it be believed, those
1562
vacancies have been filled not by the gentlemen who fought and bled in the war, but by English importations, gentlemen brought in who were never on the field, but who were War Office favourites. That is a very strong and serious observation to make. If I prove it it will come home to the meanest intelligence that the War Office is simply a hot-bed of favouritism. I will bring before the House the case of one regiment of which I have the honour to know something, namely, the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers. That regiment when it embarked for the war on 5th November was no fewer than 1,135 strong. They wont to the Natal Campaign, and they were placed by Sir Redvers Buller in the forefront, but never mentioned in the dispatches. On the 24th February, after the final crossing of the Tugela, only twenty-five men and one officer answered to their names. The regiment lost no fewer than twelve officers on 10th December at the battle of Colenso, and fourteen out of fifteen at the battle of the Tugela on the 24th February, and the only unwounded officer died of enteric fever at Ladysmith. This very day I casually caught sight of an illustration in one of the illustrated weeklies representing the remnant of the officers of this Irish regiment, and it gives the portraits of a captain, two subalterns, and a quartermaster, the only ones to escape actually unscathed. How have they been rewarded? These vacancies, which ought to have; been filled up by the gentlemen who survived, have been filled up, not by them at all, but from other sources by Lord Wolseley and his Board of Officers, the Board of Officers being creatures of Lord Wolseley's nomination. Colonel Thackeray, the splendid commander of this regiment, fell at Colon so, but the second in command was not given his place. A gentleman from another regiment in India was brought in, and by the course which has been taken two steps have been lost in the promotion of the officers who fought and bled in the campaign. It is quite possible that by these gentlemen being brought in from other regiments without military experience some of these gallant fellows will have to leave the Army because they will not have received the necessary promotion by the time their retirement become necessary under the age limit. These are not isolated instances. I have received letters from military men, but

1563
for obvious reasons I cannot mention names. One says—
"You have done a very great kindness to the officer by questioning Mr. Wyndham with reference to the promotion of officers in the regiment, but I am sorry to see how evasively he replied to your questions. As a matter of fact, one, if not two, of the majors of other regiments have been gazetted to this regiment lieutenant-colonels over the heads of those who fought and bled in the South African war, and neither of them have ever seen a shot fired… I think you will agree with me that this son of back-door influence is most unjust to the officers of the Royal Irish Fusiliers."
I have also received a letter from the mother of one of the officers who fell. She tells me about her son, and then she speaks about the officers brought in from other regiments, and she says she is speaking for the officers who remain, but she can understand their feelings by thinking how hard it would have been for her own boy to have missed his captaincy by this treatment. Then my informant goes on to say—
"I would not mind my name being published, but for the fact that I have a nephew in the service, and if they knew? had been in communication with you, they would wreak their vengeance on him."
[Ministerial laughter.] I notice that hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh, but I do not think that they actually realise the gravity of the matter. Now I come to the Highland Brigade. In reply to questions which I put to him the Under Secretary of State for War told mo that he would deal with the subject on the discussion of the War Office Vote. I will now leave the subject of that shameful act on the Tugela, and I wish to allude to the 78th Highlanders, now known as the Sea forths, who were practically decimated at Magersfontoin. There they lost eight officers killed and twelve wounded, while 385 men were disabled, of whom 112 wore killed. Again I ask the Under Secretary of State for War, as I have asked him before by questions in the House, to state who gave the order to the three Highland regiments — of which the Seaforths wore one—to march in quarter-column in the dark without scouts? On a previous occasion when I mentioned this question I could not give the name of my informant, but since then I have received from him a most assuring letter, in which he says he will gladly give me any information he has. Sir G. Lockhart was the man who gave me that information. These men
1564
at Magersfontein lost their lives through the disastrous incompetence of the War Office, who are now shielding those who were responsible for the disaster. The War Office is simply a hot-bed of favourites. We know the cruel way in which the name of Colonel Long, who was supposed to have lost the guns at the Tugola, was paraded before the public in this country. We also know how other disastrous transactions in other parts of South Africa have been shielded. We do not know a word about the officer who is responsible for the loss of the convoy at Koorn Spruit. That convoy must have been lost through the negligence of the officer who was second in command, and the name of that officer has not yet been given. Evidently he is not a mere man of the ordinary Inniskilling regiment, or a mere hard - working soldier, and perhaps he is one of the Guards. Why is this officer not punished? I am not asking for this from any personal motive, for I do not care whose name it happens to be. I am not asking it simply out of curiosity. will now give the House a few extracts from the columns of The Times which have appeared in no fewer than three loading articles asking for the name of the culprit. On the 12th of April last a leading article appeared in The Times, from which the following is a quotation—
"What is the explanation of the Boer success at Koorn Spruit? Why did nobody fire a rifle to alarm that portion of the convoy with their guns behind even at the sacrifice of his life? Why did those who were first captured think they had nothing to do but to obey the Boer orders, and so facilitate the defeat of their comrades? There are other particulars about this officer which need elucidation. We have yet to hear the name of the escort officer who, personally, is the man wholly responsible for the surprise. Why has it been held back, and why have we not been furnished with his explanation?"
On the 30th of April, The Times again referred to this question, and stated—
"Olivier's plan was clever and it was well executed, but it succeeded only because somebody, whose name has not yet been given to the public—though it must be known to thousands at Bloemfontem—was guilty of gross and culpable carelessness. Explanations of this officer's conduct may be forthcoming, but on the facts as at present known, they are very sorely needed."
On the 2nd of May last, the writer in The Times says—
"When Mr. Balfour was asked whether he proposed to discuss the Koorn Spruit incident

1565
on Friday, his reply was that there is no published despatch upon it. This despatch will have to he published and adequate reasons will have to be given for any delay in its publication that may have occurred. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, with a true front bench mind, would be satisfied apparently by a further discussion towards the end of the session. The public will not be satisfied with this."
I have received a letter from a gentleman who is one of the most distinguished men in the Army. I will read one extract, and one only, from his letter. With reference to the Koorn Spruit incident he says—
"Did you see that the Duke of Teck lost all his outfit in the capture of the convoy? Would it be legitimate for you to inquire whether this is the case, and if he has received compensation; whether the officer responsible would be required to reimburse his Serene Highness for the loss of his outfit?"
These are questions which I want to put to the First Lord of the Treasury in reference to this war, but I am afraid it would not be legitimate of me to put such questions of the Paper, for they would hardly pass the Chief Clerk. There is one thing which has not been discussed, and upon which the hon. Gentleman has not given me any information. I allude to the relations which existed between Mr. Cecil Rhodes and the officers and men who wore defending Kimberley. I think my contention is a fair one. I should like to know whether it is true that Lord Methuen was ordered to take Kimberley at all costs simply because Mr. Cecil Rhodes was there.
SIR E. ASHMEAI) - BARTLETT: There were 45,000 people at Kimberley.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether the military commander, Colonel Kekewich, had not on the 10th of February given the Diamond Fields Advertiser a warning in reference to Mr. Rhodes' conduct, and he told mo that he had no published information about it. I have now got the incriminating paper itself which, is Mr. Rhodes' journal. Nothing is mentioned in the despatches about these matters, and nothing but praise of Mr. Rhodes appears in them. Mr. Rhodes went up to Kimberley in order that he might control the campaign, and he did control it through the help of his creatures in the War Office. Is it true that during the siege Mr. Rhodes ordered Colonel Keke-
1566
wich, the commander, out of his room, and treated other English officers with the same disrespect? Not one word of these transactions has been told to the British public. Every drop of blood which was shed in this northern campaign was shed, not in the interest of the country but in the interest of Mr. Rhodes. I wish to say that nothing I have said in the course of this discussion has been dictated by any personal feeling towards the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War. I draw the greatest possible distinction between the hon. Gentleman and some of the clerks at the War Office, who have dictated the answers to be given in this House. A minister has, no doubt, a perfect right to refuse to answer a question; but that minister has no right to allow himself to be made the conduit pipe for false information supplied by the War office clerks. If the hon. Gentleman will say that the information was false, and that he has been guilty, quite unintentionally, of conveying a false impression, I shall be the first to withdraw my accusation. I asked the Under Secretary for War twice a question in regard to Lord Methuen's despatch in reference to the battle of Magersfontein, and he replied that it was the form, and not the substance, of Lord Methuen's despatch which was taken exception to.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE NOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I say so now.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do ask the hon. Gentleman not to be too previous by repeating that, for I wish to protect him against himself. To say that the difference between the original despatch and the one which was substituted was only one of form and not of substance is untrue. The private telegrams which passed between the War Office and Lord Roberts in regard to Spion Kop have been laid before the public. There is one telegram furnished by the Commander-in-Chief on the 10th of February, 1900, in reference to Lord Methuen's despatch. The idea was that the despatches with reference to Spion Kop should be revised or edited after the plan of Lord Methuen's despatch. I say that matters of the utmost importance were kept out of a revised despatch—matters which it is said would have given important informa-

1567
tion to the enemy if published. How can the hon. Gentleman state to me in the face of these facts that the difference between these despatches is simply one of form and not of substance? I think there ought to be some standard of truth and accuracy even amongst War Office officials, and the hon. Gentleman should take care not to make himself the conduit pipe of false information. I say that there has been during this war an improper suppression of despatches, and I will give some instances. Sir William Butler, the late Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, made a statement in reference to the fortifications of Natal, and that despatch has never been published, although Sir William Butler has been covered with obloquy, and has been made a target for all sorts of charges. That despatch, which would have cleared Sir William Butler of blame, is still in the archives of the War Office. Even Colonel Long has never had an opportunity of giving his account of the transaction of Colenso, though he has stated that he acted under orders from Sir Redvers Buller himself. Of course, he is only one of the ordinary class, and he must lie under this serious charge while the hero of Koorn Spruit is to be protected. It is a well-known fact that three or four days before the battle of Magersfontoin, Colonel Gough refused to obey orders. He was sent home, but his conduct was never investigated, because such an investigation could not take place without inquiries into Lord Methuen's conduct taking place at the same time. I see that Colonel Gough has just been offered an appointment, and why? Simply to shut his mouth as to what has been going on. I put a question to the hon. Gentleman asking what explanation the War Office had to make in regard to the statement made by Sir George White on the 6th of March that he was on the point of being dismissed by the War Office, but that Sir Eedvers Buller prevented his dismissal. That statement was also made by Mr. Winston Churchill and it appeared in the Morning Post. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something about that point. The system adopted by the War Office appears to be to expose the poor and needy and to protect the highly paid. At Paardeberg our troops were marched out without proper ambulances or medical staff. A large number of our men were
1568
killed and wounded. The wounded men amounted to some 800, and they were put into wagons and Capo carts and were rolled about for hours over the boulders. But because Lord Kitchener was in command no investigation was made, and we have not heard one single word about Lord Kitchener's conduct in this matter. I accuse the War Office of being harsh and heartless in its treatment of the poor, and of running the whole business in the interests of a very few persons who have influence in society and who exercise great influence at the War Office. I have shown that the Government have treated the Irish regiments in a manner which is an insult to the memory of every Irish officer who has lost his life. Men who have earned reward have been passed over. At the time of the Crimean War the then Secretary for War wrote a letter to the commander of the forces, which was read in the House of Commons, asking him to take care of poor Dunne. The Dunnes of the War Office are now being protected also by the "Lansdowneising" of these despatches. I would ask the hon. Gentleman's specific attention to the manner in which the Irish officers have boon passed over, and also to the shameful way in which the Scotch brigade and General Wauchope were sacrificed. The fathers, the mothers, and the sisters of the men who fell require an explanation for the blood of those dear to them, and the explanation that Rhodes had to be protected and that the interests of German Jews had to be safeguarded will not be sufficient.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. TANNER, Cork County, Mid). House counted, and forty Members being found present—

MILITIA OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS.
MAJOR RASCH: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for South Donegal in his survey of South Africa from the Zambesi to the Cape, although I agree with almost everything he said. I hope that the Department in Pall Mall will take advantage of the holidays by making terms with the enemy while they are in the way with him, and that we shall see something of the War Office reforms which we heard of on Friday last. Of course, I do not

1569
blame the hon. Gentlemen who represent the War Office in this House, because I know perfectly well that they do the best they can; but I do blame the permanent officials of the War Office, whom I respect very little indeed. I am, however, not much inclined to expect or to hope much in the direction of reform after reading the report of Friday night's debate in another place. I never saw anything more extraordinary than the incurable and invincible optimism exhibited on that occasion; but some of us think that the speech delivered lately by a very high authority was not more satisfactory when he said that the defence of the country was not the business of the War Office but of the Primrose League. My purpose in rising, however, was to ventilate the grievances of certain young men whose career may be blasted by the action of the War Office. Two-thirds of the officers in the British Army come through the Militia to the Line. They pass a preliminary examination on joining the Militia, then serve in a Militia battalion one month in each of two years, and finally pass another examination before obtaining a commission in the Line. Now all these young officers were some months ago with their "crammers, "endeavouring to assimilate as much knowledge as they could previous to their final examination; but the War Office issued an edict, very properly, by which all the Militia battalions were embodied, and these young officers were taken from their studies and sent to do duty with their regiments, some in this country, some at Malta, and some in South Africa. A. month ago the War Office decided that these young officers, instead of getting commissions direct, should go through their examinations as usual. In other words, they were asked to make bricks without straw. It was absolutely impossible for them to pursue their studies when on duty in South Africa, Malta, or even at home, and, therefore, to pass the competitive examination in the autumn. The edict of the War Office was, therefore, extremely unfair and foolish. A great many commissions have been scattered broadcast within the last few weeks. Hundreds have been given to young men on the other side of the world, others have been given to the sons of South African Jews, but not one to the sons of country gentlemen at home. I have often said before that I would not be surprised at anything which
1570
the Department in Pall Mall would do. The other day they issued a rescript under which no officer unless of a certain weight could get into the service; in other words, instead of looking to the survival of the fittest they swore by the survival of the fattest. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the War Office in this House will do his best to prevent the wrecking and ruining of hundreds of lives of these young Militia officers, by enabling them to obtain commissions in the Line without the examination which the War Office propose.

PROSPECTS OF A DISSOLUTION.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I have no objections to holidays myself; but at the same time it appears to me somewhat remarkable that we should take longer holidays this year at Easter and Whitsuntide than we ordinarily do. Engaged as we are in a most expensive war, spending two millions a week, I would have thought that it would be undesirable that the House of Commons, unless under great necessity, should adjourn for so long a period at Whitsuntide. I do not see the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, but there is the Secretary of State for India, and I want him to explain to me what we are going to do in the immediate future. I trust he will take the House into his confidence, because there are rumours abroad that the time of our usefulness will be cut short very soon. We had a speech from that eminent Member of the Conservative party the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he told us what the settlement was to be after the war in South Africa was over, and that if we said one word against that settlement in any sort of way we were to be punished by a penal dissolution. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] It may be that the war will come to a very speedy end, and that the dissolution may come in July instead of in August or September. Now, there are a great many Bills before the House which we have been told will be passed. Some have passed their Second Reading, and others have not. I have heard from members of the Standing Committees that they will have very great difficulty, even if the session lasts the ordinary time, to report on all these Bills. Under these circumstances, unless we have some clear

1571
understanding that this session is not to be cut short prematurely, we ought not to have these holidays extended, and we ought to allow hon. Gentlemen upstairs to carry on without interruption their very useful labours. I think there was a pledge distinctly given that the session would not be cut short by a dissolution. We were told at the commencement of the war that it was our patriotic duty not to criticise what was going on, and not to dwell on the blunders that were supposed to be made by Ministers, but to wait until the war was over. It may be said that we, who had strong opinions as to the war being unnecessary, accepted that patriotic duty, and did not raise discussions. We saw time and again blunder's made, but we thought that while the soldiers were in the field, they were not responsible, and although we disapproved of the war itself, we were anxious not to do anything to weaken the feeling of the soldiers that, so far as the fighting is concerned, the country is behind them. We are told that our opportunity will come at the end of the war; but if we are put out of existence prematurely I want to know when that opportunity is to come. Ministers and their supporters have had an opportunity of stating their case to the country; but we have held our tongues. In fact, many Gentlemen on this side of the House have elected to hold their tongues because the Government assured us that our opportunity is to come after the war is over. Now, where should the country learn what our case is? Surely in this House, where there is the grand inquest of the nation. The nation looks to the House to see what parties do, and from the action of parties here they to a very great extent take their views. There ought to be an interval between the termination of the war and the actual settlement of South Africa. We are as patriotic on this side of the House as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we are not such fools as to believe that after the war things can be put back in the same way as before. What we want is to give peace and 'concord to South Africa and to secure us against the possibility of a future war. The right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies told us what the settlement was to be. We may or may not agree to that; we may or may not have a better way; but we are absolutely told that if
1572
we do not accept that settlement as a mandate from on high, if we venture to discuss it, there is to be a dissolution. I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is in the Cabinet and knows its secrets, to be good enough to say whether the declarations of his colleague the Secretary of State for the Colonies are to be regarded as the mere irresponsible utterances of a private individual, or whether they bear the imprimatur of the Cabinet as enunciating their deliberate policy. We ought seriously to consider whether we should take a holiday or not when we are told that the session of Parliament is to come prematurely to an end. We have had discussions about Protestantism, and about Lord Mayors' sons being sent into the Army, but the practical question, it seems i to me at the present moment, is, when is the dissolution going to take place?

INDIAN FAMINE.
MR. MACLEAN: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would almost amount to a breach of faith on the part of the Government if they dissolved this Parliament without giving the House an opportunity of pronouncing our verdict on the policy of the war, and the terms of settlement of the South African problem. I do not think that there need be any immediate alarm about a dissolution, because in answer to a question the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury said that it was quite premature to discuss when we shall take the Indian Budget. Now, that is a subject which is put off to the last days of the session, and therefore I am confident that we are not within sight of the last days of the session. I know it is very difficult in these days to attract people's attention to anything that is not connected with military promotions or to. the conduct of the war in South Africa I want, however, to direct the attention of the House to what I consider a matter of great national importance—namely,, the very serious state of affairs that prevails in India. I want the Government to state plainly to the House and to the country what position they intend to take up in regard to Indian affairs. My reason for putting this question is that I consider the Indian famine now prevailing is incomparably the worst evil that has fallen on India within my recollection. By its wide-spread character and intensity

1573
this famine has outgrown the capacity of the Government of India to deal with it. The Government of India has not the administrative staff nor the means of effectually dealing with the famine. Moreover, fodder not being obtainable, the cattle have died in millions over large tracts of India, and it will take many years to replace them; and in the meantime the country will be permanently impoverished. One did think that human life would be protected in that country. We have always been assured by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India that the Government in India took upon itself the duty of saving life when famine afflicted that country, and that we might thoroughly rely on the Indian Government saving human life. I am sorry to say that that is not the case. Some time ago I put a question to the noble Lord about a letter in the Times, signed by a military gentleman of a very well-known name, which pointed out that the population of the Bhil country was on the point of extermination by famine; and the only answer the noble Lord gave was that the Government had no official information on the matter, and he seemed to consider it a grievance that the Bills should go and die in the secret recesses of the country, and so bring discredit on the Government of India. There have been other letters which show a very serious loss of life from famine. I receive constantly letters telling what is going on in that way. By the last mail I find in the newspapers of Bombay a letter signed by Mr. F. C. Aldrich, which describes a visit which he himself made to the so-called famine relief camps, which are often nothing but human shambles, where people are tortured slowly to death by starvation. He goes on to say—
"We had never thought that such a state of affairs ever existed in India. On every hand were the dead and dying. Sometimes it was an aged person, sometimes a youth, or an infant. The sun beat down at an almost unbearable rate. The wind carried the sand in hurricane style. There was scarcely any noise, though there were many people. They sat and lay quietly in groups of from live to fifty beneath trees and by the roadside. Often one had fallen alone, and was left there to die as he had fallen. The living. the dying, and the dead were all together, if the spirit of an individual left the body in the very centre of a group of these unfortunates, no one attempted its removal. Why should they? All have sat or lain down there to die, and one by one they meet death—they all wait for it. They are helpless and they say there is no one who will
1574
give, so resigning themselves to their awful fate, they lay down and die."
That is the experience of one who has actually visited these famine relief camps. It may not have been the experience of many hon. Members of the House to sea, as I have seen, one of these famine-relief camps. To anyone who has seen such a spectacle the ghastly recollection of it will not leave him to his dying day. It is far worse than a battlefield to see such awful suffering. But that is not all. What is worse is that I find a very serious accusation made against the Government by a very competent witness, who declares that the so-called relief the Government is providing for the people is insufficient to keep body and soul together, and that the poor people are left in that way to become victims of disease. I am quoting from the correspondent of a Manchester newspaper, a capable journalist well known in London, Mr. Vaughan Nash, who went out for the purpose of seeing the course of this famine for himself and reporting the facts to the people of this country. The correspondent devotes a portion of his letter to the penal minimum of relief. He says —
"The wages throughout the relief works, as I told my readers, are paid in money, and based on a hypothetical ration of so much grain, salt, vegetables, condiments, and oil, a maximum and a minimum ration being fixed, and the whole adjusted to the prices of grain in the bazaar. A circular had been issued decreeing that all gangs performing less than half the maximum task—an imaginary standard, by the way, which no single gang had accomplished during the week in question —should be paid 25 per cent. below the minimum. So that instead of ten and a half annas, the former weekly minimum, the men and women in the defaulting gangs were getting seven and a half, and the working children four and a half annas."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): What is the locality?
MR. MACLEAN: I cannot give the locality. The report goes on—
"Whether the people could subsist on this penal allowance without ripening for cholera-and other famine diseases was a question which the correspondent decided in the negative, and he urged it as an ominous fact that whilst the minimum was being cut down by a quarter—a minimum which assumed that only fifteen ounces of solid food a day go into the stomachs of people who must work nine hours ' between the rising and the setting of an Indian sun'—cholera is on the march in

1575
Khandeish, and God help India if cholera attacks the famine camps."
Since then cholera has attacked the famine camps, and has made sad ravages there, and the last confession from the Government of India is to the effect that the people on famine relief works have been reduced in numbers because a large number of people have fled on account of the cholera raging in their midst. Those unfortunate people have gone away without any means of subsistence, or any prospect of help from any human being, and the Government does not even tell us that they have made any inquiries as to where those people have gone to.
DR. TANNER: Where is Bhownaggree?
MR. MACLEAN: This gentleman has no motive whatever but to state what is absolutely true, and the picture he gives of the state of India at the present moment is one that revolts every man's sense of humanity. The Government of India has not the capacity in any way to deal with a famine of this kind. The high officials are men of great intelligence and a keen sense of honour, and no doubt they work as hard as any human being possible can; but necessarily a great deal of the work is left to subordinate officials, who perform it in a perfunctory way, and who have very little sympathy with the people. We rely upon the Government of India entirely in this matter. The noble Lord told the House that when the Government of India was in any difficulty that this country would come forward to its assistance. What is the Government of India doing? We know that we have at the head of affairs in India an active-minded and an enterprising Viceroy, who has a keen sense of his duties and responsibilities. He has given lavishly out of his own purse to relieve the famine, and he has done his best to stimulate and instil energy and resource among his officials. But he might have done something more; he might have done something to put a sense of hope into the hearts of the people," which would have contributed to make the management of this famine more easy to the officers of the administration. He might have come down from the mountain heights of Simla, and travelled throughout the length and breadth of the land to see these famine camps for himself, and
1576
watch the operations of the relief given by the Government. If the Viceroy had done that he would have endeared himself to the people of India, and he would have been able to make a report to the Secretary of State which would have convinced even him that it was time for England to come to the rescue. I think it is quite time for England to do something in this matter. India has failed to accomplish the task committed to her, and I think England might now outstretch a helping hand to these patient and gentle people who lie down to die by the wayside without uttering a word or making a sign.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman has made a very remarkable speech. India has been visited by a terrible famine, the worst famine of the century. It has attacked areas which have not hitherto been affected by drought in the memory of man. It has affected a large area of the native States, and has taxed both their organisation and financial resources. I protest against the speech of my hon. friend. The hon. Gentleman selected one or two isolated scraps from newspapers in association with places, he does not know where, and he has given to the House the distress and the misery which might have been seen in those places as a specimen of the class of relief and the famine administration of the British Government. I say that is a gross libel on the British Government. Only yesterday I received a report from America, where a great interest is shown in the sufferings of the Indian people. In America they are endeavouring to obtain funds from private individuals for the purpose of supplementing the action of the Government. A great meeting was held in New York the other day by Indian missionaries who had visited the spot, and the substance of their report comes very opportunely. They were devising a plan for raising a fund to relieve distress in India, and to make a general appeal to the American people. Here is the substance of their appeal to the American people, taken from the New York Times of 25th April—
"It is right we should hear our witness that the British Government in India is doing all that any Government on earth could do to save the lives of its distressed subjects in relieving 5,500,000 of persons by direct Government aid. It is achieving a greater work of rescue than any Government has ever

1577
in the world's history undertaken before. With a skill derived from the carefully-garnered experience of previous famine campaigns, with an unstinted expenditure of money and an heroic outlay of British energy and lives, it is doing all that an Administration can do. But alongside of its efforts, there is a vast area in which private munificence can effect what Governmental interference cannot, usefully attempt, and there is here a call to every human heart the wide world over."
DR. TANNER: Can the noble Lord tell us who subsidised this report? (Loud cries of "Order.")
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon.
Member makes these interruptions I shall have to call the attention of the House to his disorderly conduct.
MR. MACLEAN: I said nothing whatever against the Indian Government, and I frankly and gladly acknowledge that they are doing their utmost with the means and the staff at their command, but they ought to be supplemented by aid from England.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I think that my hon. friend went a little further, because he gave the House to understand that the famine camps were human shambles where persons were slowly tortured to death. Considering that there are some 5,500,000 persons in these famine camps, it is obvious that this is a gross and an unpardonable exaggeration. The matter is really so serious that I ask the House to allow me for a very few moments, as succinctly as possible, to tell it what is the state of affairs. The great difficulty we have to contend with is that not only is the famine more intense in its operation, not only does it cover a larger area than any famine recorded in the present century, but it has affected a large number of areas and districts where famine and drought have been absolutely unknown. In 1896–97, when we had no experience for twenty years of famine, I was nervous as to how far the machinery of the Indian Government would respond to the strain then thrown upon it. I am glad to say that, on the whole, it responded well, and the result of the exertions of the Indian Government is that, although there was a considerable loss of life, yet the effects of famine wore averted more effectually than in any previous struggle in which the Government had been engaged. The machinery was
1578
carefully supervised. A Commission was appointed; it went from district to district after the famine was over making suggestions and taking evidence as to how the famine administration Code could be improved and strengthened. When the famine broke out I had the satisfaction of knowing that, at any rate, there would be applied to it machinery which two years before had stood a great stress. But in those districts where famine had never occurred before there has been very great difficulty in getting the people to come soon enough into the famine camps. There was a deplorable loss of life— at Ahmedabad 166 died, not of starvation, but of inanition, or of having arrived at the camp so emaciated and in such a deplorable condition that they could not stand the efforts made to revive them. Lord Northcote personally enquired into these cases, and found 163 of them came from native States, many of them a considerable distance from the camp of relief. The Government has lent officers to these native States, as well as large sums of money, and I do not know what more we could do than we have done. The advances which have been made to the native States amount to 63 lakhs, and this is independent of a very large loan to be made to the State of Haiderabad amounting to two crores. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the Bhils. Nothing could induce the people of that tribe to come into the famine camps. They will not submit to discipline and organisation, and, if they come into camp, as soon as they obtain subsistence they go off again. Of course, such a deplorable visitation as the present must hit a race of this kind terribly hard; and I have no doubt; there will be, in spite of all that the Government can do, very considerable mortality amongst them. As to th.3 cholera, Lord Northcote has been all through the famine stricken districts. Lord Curzon visited them last autumn and winter, and he paid a visit again in spring. Lord Northcote reported that the disease had broken out on account of unripe fruit, bad water, and the intense heat. The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the food is insufficient. As to that I should take the opinion of men who have a life-long experience of the Indian coolie even before that of Mr. Nash, straightforward and honest as I know that Gentleman to

1579
be. There is no question that has been more carefully inquired into than this matter of food. There is a minimum and a maximum, and the Government has been careful not to put the maximum above the level of the normal wage which may be earned in the district. If they did not take that precaution, they would have not only the people suffering from want, but the entire native population to deal with. My hon. friend says that England should come to the rescue. Is there a lack of funds? As to assistance to India from the Imperial Treasury, I have already declared that the whole financial resources and the whole administrative machinery of India shall be devoted to combating this famine. I have said distinctly that if there were any lack of funds, or any temporary difficulties in the way of raising the ways and means, the Indian Government will receive assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But let me ask the House for a single moment to look at the other side of the question. I am one of those who have always been taught to believe with respect to the financial administration of India, that it should, as far as possible, be made self-supporting. There is an annual sum devoted to making provision against famine in India; and in India and here there is a strong tendency to push and increase expenditure in all sorts of ways. Here the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the taxpayer behind him; but in India the Finance Minister has not that safeguard; and if his inducement to balance his income and expenditure is taken away, he is made powerless to resist demands for new expenditure. The House may accept it from me that at present the Indian Government has sufficient funds to meet this terrible calamity. On what ground, then, ought a claim to be made on the Imperial Exchequer? It is true that there are 6,000,000 of people now receiving famine relief, and that there is terrible suffering, and in some districts, a heavy mortality. But in the districts where famine previously prevailed, where there is knowledge of the system of relief, and where the people have come in freely and early, the rate of mortality is very little above that of normal years. Of course, no comparison can be drawn between ordinary pauperism and the distress caused by famine; but the six millions now receiving relief,
1580
compared with the 300 millions in India, is not so large a proportion as the normal number of persons receiving poor relief, to the total population in this country. In such conditions how can the Imperial Exchequer be asked for assistance? An appeal has been made to the charitable and benevolent because there is a large amount of work in coping with the famine which can only be discharged or overtaken by means of charitable contributions. Special food and clothing can be distributed, and a house-to-house visitation can be conducted by private effort in a way which would be quite beyond the scope of Government. Let us combine as far as possible these two agencies; but it would be a fatal mistake to attempt now, when there is no lack of funds at the disposal of the Indian Government, to get the House of Commons to contribute a large sum for the purpose, not of carrying out the Government's task, but of supplementing charitable contributions. The danger is that if this policy is once pursued, it will dry up and freeze all charitable and benevolent contributions; and while the charge which is put on the Indian Government would remain, India would be deprived of that relief on which she can always depend now from charitable sources. I can assure the House that the Government are watching with the closest scrutiny and attention the progress of the famine. In the course of the next two or three days the normal rainfall may be expected to begin; and then in the next few weeks there will be a steady diminution of those now receiving relief in the famine camps. If we find at any time that there is any difficulty in supplying the necessary number of officers, doctors, and nurses, we shall not hesitate to draw to the utmost of our power on the reserves available in this country; and, in the same way, if we find at any time that there is any lack of financial resources, I shall not hesitate to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the Indian Government the assistance which, as I have more than once informed the House, he is ready to give. I have only one other word to say, and it is to the hon. Member for Northampton. He is exceedingly anxious to know when the dissolution is to take place. I am afraid I cannot inform him, though I notice a certain alarm and perturbation on his part. When I first entered the

1581
House Radical Members always declared themselves glad to go back to their constituencies, where they were supposed to draw fresh force and vitality. But now the one thing they dread and the one terror before them is that they should have to go to their constituents. I can only say to hon. Members opposite, let them pluck up their courage. I can recollect in the past, when we were in a small minority, we fought our way on until we became a majority. The hon. Member should not let himself give way to alarm. Let him have the courage to stick to his guns, and whether he is beaten or not his constituents will think the better of him.
DR. TANNER: The "hungry Hamiltons."
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to apologise for that expression.
DR. TANNER: What expression?
MR. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. Member instantly apologises I shall have to call the attention of the House to his conduct.
DR. TANNER: Of course I apologise.

MILITIA OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS.
MR. WYNDHAM: I rise only to interpose for one or two minutes in the debate. I see my hon. and gallant friend the Member for South-east Essex is in his place, and therefore I rise to give an answer to the question he asked some time ago. I must first take exception to one part of his speech. He said he was in the habit of calling a spade a spade. I must respectfully decline to be divided from the office which I have the honour of representing; and I wish to take my share of the blows which the hon. and gallant Member has dealt at the Gentlemen, military and civil, with whom I have the honour of working. I am not here as a conventional whipping-boy, and I consider it a privilege indeed to be allowed to represent men who have laboured so strenuously for their country as my colleagues have done at the War Office during the last seven months. As to the examination of Militia candidates next September, it is impossible to regard the Militia merely as a preparatory school for the Army. It is one of the
1582
most important forces in the country, and the War Office cannot treat the colonels of Militia battalions as if they were schoolmasters preparing candidates for commissions. We cannot order colonels to give no officers leave, or to give all officers leave, in order that they may prepare for an examination. That would be to interfere unduly with their discretion. If all the officers who intend to enter the Army are given leave, then officers who are needed, especially in the summer, would be withdrawn. If we held that no officers should have leave, we would be depriving some young candidates who are in commission of the opportunity of studying subjects which we wish them to study. We must, therefore, leave to the discretion of the Militia colonel what should be done, and I wish to state in reply to my hon. and gallant friend we shall try to devise some plan by which marks shall be given for the good soldiering they have done to those Militia officers who have been serving during the whole summer, which will make the handicapping more fair than it would otherwise be. I think I should say one word as to the speech of the hon. Member opposite. I do not feel called upon to inflict the pain on the House of replying to questions he has asked again and again. I can spare the House, and I intend to spare it, the useless penalty of listening to my remarks.

THE WAR—GENERAL QUESTIONS.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I think the discussion we have had on the Indian famine has thrown a wonderful light on the effects of the war. Here we have had a description of what our Indian fellow-subjects are suffering. I regret that instead cf spending money to save the lives of the starving people in India, we are spending it to kill Boers in South Africa. I think I may be allowed to say a few words on this occasion, for we are going to break up for one of the longest holidays ever enjoyed by this House at Whitsuntide. We are to be away for something like three weeks, and it is desirable to know what the policy of the Government is, and how they intend to act in connection with the great war going on. When this House met we had a division on 6th February, and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House voted that they regretted the want of

1583
knowledge, foresight, and judgment displayed by the Government in their conduct of South African affairs since 1895, That was our opinion on this side of the House. On the other side hon. Gentlemen were satisfied with the manner in which South African affairs had been conducted. [Hear, hear.] I hear hon. Members say " Hear, hear," and they are perfectly satisfied now with the way the war is being carried on. I should like to know what the policy is. So far, the war policy does not seem to have brought any very great blessings with it. I myself voted against Supply for this war, because, as far as I can understand it, it is a most unjust and wicked war.—[An HON. MEMBER: No!] —Well, that is my opinion. I may have my opinion. I voted against Supply for carrying it on, and I think the policy of those gentlemen who voted Supply because, although they thought the war was unjust, they would see it through, was one of the most immoral policies ever advocated in this House or anywhere else. Let us see what the results of this policy are so far. You have spent, I suppose, nearly a hundred millions, you have got a 1s. income tax, and, worse than that, according to the latest Returns we have lost 20,000 men killed, wounded, prisoners, and missing. Of that number over 6,000 have been killed or have died from disease. Just think of that. Think of the desolated homes, the broken hearts, and the blighted lives you have caused by all this. That is what has happened with regard to the Army. What has the war policy done for us at home? The war has imperilled free speech, the foundation of our liberty, and it has established throughout the country in very many places mob law. The right hon. Gentleman called it the limit of endurance of human nature. I call it mob law. You have postponed all social legislation. You never have any beneficial legislation while you have a war going on, and what does that mean? It means that you will not do anything for the hundreds and thousands of our fellow countrymen in this country whose sufferings are such that the sufferings of the Uitlanders are nothing as compared with them. You have shown a grand spectacle to the world. You have shown two Christian nations cutting each other's throats while the heathen are looking on. I never can
1584
understand the outcry against the natives being allowed to take part in the war. If the war is right surely the natives should be called upon to take part in it also as a grand Christian exercise. I think that this state of things is disastrous at home and abroad, and shows that the policy of the Government with regard to South Africa has turned out as we voted in February—wanting in knowledge, foresight, and judgment. I think the result more horrible and heartrending—to use an expression of Lord Derby in connection with the Crimean War—than anything one can conceive of. But do not suppose that I wish to blame the Government too much in this matter. Governments in this country are exactly what the people make them, and if one condemns the Government one condemns the people. Why, in my mind the Colonial Secretary is a splendid representative of the nation—a splendid representative of the bunkum, bosh, and swagger of the people of this country. He reflects most truly the tone and temper, and the standard of political morality, of the country at this time. The signs of the times show that the Government, I am sorry to say, truly represent the people. Take the press; it urges them on day by day to more and more destruction. Take the pulpit; it glorifies, nay, deifies war, which The Times once called ornamental murder. I never understood until this war broke out what was exactly meant by "professing Christian." I now know what it is. A professing Christian is one who professes Christianity and practices heathenism. An hon. Member asked the Leader of the House the other day whether we could not have a day of thanksgiving. Thanksgiving for having murdered so many men in South Africa! S Can anything be more horrible? I do hope the Leader of the House will consider rather whether we should not have a day of humiliation for our astounding work. I see that most of the Members of the House of Commons support the Government, and what is more important than all, whatever the Government do "the man in the street " supports them. The man in the street is at present the supreme arbiter of political action. He certainly rejoices in this war, and dances with delirious delight at every fresh day of massacre, murder and misery. You do not find fault with that. What does Herbert Spencer say?

1585
He says you have brought about the re-barbarisation of the nation. I think what he says is perfectly true. I am not saying that the war is not popular. You could not carry it on if it was not. Let me read the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose just before the war began. At an immense meeting in the north of England he said—
"You may carry fire and sword into the midst of peace and industry—such a war of the strongest Government in the world against this weak little Republic—and the strongest Government in the world, with untold wealth and inexhaustible resources, will bring you no glory. It will bring you no profit, but mischief, and it will be wrong. You will make thousands of women widows and thousands of children fatherless. It will be wrong. You may add a new province to your Empire. It will still be wrong. You may give greater buoyancy to the South African stock and share market. You may create South African booms. You may send the price of Mr. Rhodes's Chartereds to a point beyond the dream of avarice. Yes, even then it will be wrong."
All that has been done. The Colonial Secretary has succeeded, as Sir Edward Clarke when a Member of this House told him distinctly—or rather I think it was my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin who told him that it was his war. Let him have all the honour and credit of this war. All I can say is that for my part, I would not have on my hands the blood that he has for all the glory that this world could give me. Now we are going to separate for throe weeks; and perhaps for a few days, when we take up the newspapers, we shall find fresh tales of forty or fifty killed here, and twenty or thirty there—of brave men dying far away from their homes. We will have all that to read, and of course the illustrated papers will come out again and again with those horrid and loathsome pictures we see every week—pretty things for our children to take up and read. Why are those men killed? Why are they butchered to make a in go holiday? What is it all for? That is why I rise to-night. I want the Government to tell us what is gained by this slaughter. It is not defence now. Now we are the invaders. Why are we invading this country? You say you are going to Pretoria. What are you going to do when you get there? I ask any man in this House—statesman or politician, or Radical, or even Irish Member, even the man in the street. There is
1586
no human being can toll what you are going to do when you get to Pretoria, or how you are going to settle this matter. All that appears on the face of it is a nation, which used to be proud of freedom and generosity, trying to crush out two republics. I say it is one of the sorriest sights this world has ever seen. Is there no hope for the voice of reason and humanity being heard in this matter? I am not pleading for the Boers. Oh, no. The Boers are hopeless. They are weak; crush them out. [An HON. MEMBER: You are not against, them.] Well, nobody comes to my help. I am not afraid so much for them, I am afraid for this country. I say we are in deadly peril that this sordid militarism will blight and blast all that is best in our own national life, and for these reasons I think we are entitled to ask the Government whether there is not some statesmanship left in them, and if they are, at any rate, trying to settle this dispute without further bloodshed, instead of going on in this insistence on brute force. I ask them if they will at least stop the horrors of this war.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not rise to reply to the hon. Baronet. He has made a bitter attack upon my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary, who is precluded by illness from being present—
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I was not aware of that.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite sure the hon. Baronet would not deliberately or by preference attack a man in his absence. However he may be mistaken in his opinions, nobody has a higher courage or more generous instincts than the hon. Baronet. But I am not going to argue with him; he is perfectly consistent with the professions of a life-time. I think he is profoundly mistaken in the views he has expressed to-night, as he has often been before. I will only ask him to reflect when thinking over the substance of his speech, after expressing the views he has expressed of the criminal folly of the nation, whether he still retains his old views about the infallibility of democracy or even of the local veto. But what I really rose for was to make an appeal to the House to remember that the adjournment is the subject of debate, and that it was with a view to meeting the con-

1587
venience of Members and sparing them a sitting to-morrow that I made this arrangement for taking the motion before proceeding with the Railway Accidents Bill. Under those circumstances I would venture to make an appeal to the House, and to ask hon. Members whether they have not discussed miscellaneous subjects on this motion for a sufficient length of time, and whether it is not time to get to the business we still have to pass before the evening comes to an end.

ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY BRITISH TROOPS.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): I have no desire to prolong the debate, but I venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that this House has been practically muzzled on all questions relating to the war, and I think it is not unreasonable that we should avail ourselves of the only opportunity afforded us by the motion for the adjournment. I do not wish to go into the question, but I wish to draw attention to one matter, and to express the hope that we will receive from the Government some more satisfactory explanation than has been given to the allegations, serious and responsible allegations, made in the public press with respect to the methods of destruction by which the war has been carried on in the Free State, especially as regards the ravages made on private property. I put a question last week to the Under Secretary of State for War upon this very point, and received a very unsatisfactory answer; in fact, the only answer I received was from the Financial Secretary, who simply stated that he did not believe the allegation that was made. What I wish to point out is that we have a series of allegations of a serious nature made by responsible special correspondents of responsible papers. A gentleman who is well known makes a statement of information conveyed to him by the very officers engaged in the operations. I say when that is the case it is absurd to try to airily pass it over, or to say that we are not to believe it. In a letter from Bloomfontein, dated 29th April last, and published on 21st May, the correspondent says—
"The column commanded by General French, with General Pole-Carew at the head of the Guards and 18th Brigade, is marching in, burning practically everything on the road. It is followed by about 3,500 head of loot cattle
1588
and sheep. Hundreds of tons of corn and forage have been destroyed. The troops engaged in the work were Roberts's Horse, the Eastern Province Horse, the Canadians, and the Australians. They have seized over 1,000 rifles at various farmsteads and destroyed thousand of rounds of cartridges. I hear, too, that General Rundle burnt his way up to Dewetsdorp. Some painful stories are told of the march of the devastating armies by officers in charge of the execution. At one farm burned yesterday only women were left at work upon it. The troops were told that the owner had been captured with Cronje. Still, rifles were found hidden under the mattress of the bed. So the place had to go. Orders were inexorable in all cases where arms came to light. The woman who swore that her husband had been in commando for four months threw her arms round the officer's neck and begged that the homestead might be spared. It had to go. When the flames burst from the doomed place the poor woman threw herself on her knees, tore open her bodice, and bared her breasts, screaming: 'Shoot me, shoot me. I've nothing more to live for now that my husband is gone and our farm is burnt and our cattle taken!'"
That is from Mr. E. W. Smith, and I say when we have the statement that he received his information from the officers in charge we are entitled to have some further information, and not an airy denial of the statements that have been made. Do hon. Members say that if there was a French or German invasion of England it would be within the usages of civilisation for our English farmers to have their homesteads burned and cattle looted because they had firearms in their possession? In the case referred to the farm had to go because there were arms found under the mattress. The correspondent further says—
"Another officer told me of a similar case. 'I am a hard-hearted fellow,' he said, ' hut I couldn't stand the women crying, and in one instance I did leave a farm standing that I ought to have destroyed.' A third case has been related to me of a farm where the property was confiscated, while the owner was lying dying in another room. As the soldiers ransacked the place they heard a pitiable voice crying from an inner room: 'What are they doing? What are they doing?' and as the firing parties withdrew from the ruined homesteads they were frequently followed by groups of weeping women and children, who covered them with epithets of bitter complaint and denunciation. I hear that Lord Roberts had given preliminary warning that any burghers not found on their homesteads would be treated as hostile and their property dealt with accordingly."
In the case of an invasion of this country, would the French army be entitled to go to Sir Redvers Buller's house, and for the

1589
same reason, burn the house and all his property? I submit that in view of these facts nothing can justify the attempt made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office to deny what has been done. English generals and English politicians! I say it is a disgrace to the generals who executed the orders, and to the politicians who defend them. There is no possible justification for such outrages. The only excuse made is that there is danger possibly of these persons taking up arms again. If that is the danger apprehended why not take the men prisoners? I say it is a disgrace to civilisation and to England that such things should be permitted. The correspondent goes on to say—
"The execution of a whole district was of course accompanied by strange scenes, some of bloodthirsty violence, others of humour. Typical of the first was the sight of a party of "Tom men" of the Regular Army who got amongst a lot of pigs with the bayonet. They held the squeaking animals pinned to the ground with their weapons, while comrades applied the happy despatch."
This has been done by the invading army. I quite recognise that it has been among the usages of war for a retreating army to burn and to devastate in a country, but this is the reverse of that case. This is an invading army burning and devastating the homes of the people they are driving before them. When we consider the disparity between the contending forces, the discredit is greater still. The invading army is at least five to one as compared with the Boers.
DR. TANNER: Ten to one.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The British nation with their allies in Australia and Canada are 50,000,000, and these small nations are only one-fifth of a million, so the disparity is as 250 to one. To realise what these poor people are struggling against we have to try to picture this nation fighting against a nation with a population of 12,500,000,000. If this country was fighting eight worlds at once, we would then be fighting a foe that was stronger than us only in the same proportion as we are stronger than the Boers. Under these circumstances, instead of straining the rules of war we ought to go to the other extreme, and be more generous than usual.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S GRIEVANCES.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I do not intend to take up more than ten minutes, and I am not going to discuss the war. I am going to discuss a question in regard to which I expect I shall have the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. We are asked to-night to agree to the motion that the House shall adjourn for the holidays until the 14th June. I cannot understand why there should be such a long adjournment when we take into consideration that there are some important measures that might be passed through this House, measures which would give considerable relief to large sections of the working men of the country, and more especially to the seafaring men. In 1887 the Government brought in a measure to give the working men some protection in the shape of a Workmen's Compensation Act. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced that Bill informed the House that it was an experimental measure, and that it was to be applied to the most dangerous trades and occupations. Yet, strange to say, the Act does not apply to the seafaring profession, which is the most dangerous of all the trades in this country. I think a reference to the Board of Trade Returns will satisfy any hon. Gentleman on this point, seeing that it will be found that every year over 1,600 sailors, firemen, and others are killed on board ship or are drowned.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing that question, as there is a motion on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool dealing with the subject of the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act to Seamen.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I thought I would be in order, seeing that the motion before the House is one to adjourn for a long holiday, in complaining that there would be ample time at the disposal of the Government to legislate on such a matter if the Government had the desire to do so. However, if it is out of order to discuss the question of the Workmen's Compensation Act, I can at least bring one or two other matters before the House which directly affect the interests of seamen. I hope I shall have the

1591
support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who very often in their speeches up and down the land praise the seafaring men very much, saying they are a grand body of men and that they ought to have the sympathy of the nation at large. I have on many occasions brought the grievances of the seamen before this House, but they are the very class of working men who can get no justice from the House of Commons. There is only one reason that I know of why the seamen can get no relief from the House of Commons, and that is that they are Uitlanders—they have no votes. If the seafaring men of this country had votes and the opportunity of using those votes at election times, I can just imagine how I should see the hon. Gentlemen opposite fishing around the seamen, asking them for their votes to send them to Parliament. But unfortunately very few of them have votes, and of those who have got them very few have the opportunity of using them at election times; consequently hon. Gentlemen on the other side suppose they can afford to ignore the claims of these men. But I venture to say that that ought to be a stronger reason for having the sympathy and support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fact that these men cannot help themselves politically, I think, entitles them to some consideration from the gentlemen on the other side of the House. I asked the President of the Board of Trade the other day whether he could see his way clear to bring in a Bill to make some alterations in the provisions scale which the seamen get on board ship at the present time. The provisions scale provided for men who sign the articles of agreement on board a British ship is the scale adopted in the year 1852, when provisions were at least 30 per cent. dearer than the present time. There has been no alteration in that provisions scale, and the men who are engaged to-day sign exactly the same scale as they signed fifty years ago. In the United States they look more after the men in that respect. There is a proper scale of provisions provided by Act of Parliament, and that scale gives great satisfaction to the men on board the ships. We have often been told that British seamen desert their ships abroad, and cause a great amount of inconvenience to the owners of British ships. I do not wonder at it, taking into consideration the fact that men will start on. a voyage
1592
with the knowledge that three days in the week they have got to have one and a quarter pounds of salt pork, on the other four days one and a half pounds of salt beef, a pound of biscuits daily, and half a pound of flour three times a week. But what I am amused at is this. The Board of Trade scale provides for twenty-two different things, and yet shipowners give the men only nine out of the twenty-two. No one can be satisfied on board ship with the scale of provisions at present provided for him. Only to-day I saw the crew of a vessel about to be paid off, and they told me that during the voyage they had had a short allowance of beef, a short allowance of flour, no sugar for over five weeks—in fact, they had been short of every kind of provisions during the voyage. Yet there is no redress for those men. I say that it is a perfect crime and a scandal that any ship should leave a foreign port for a four or five months passage without having sufficient provisions on board the vessel to supply the men with full and sufficient food for their wants. The complaint of the men is a daily complaint. It is perfectly true that on the principal liners, such as those on Donald Currie's line, the Castle line, the White Star line, the Cunard line, and the other principal lines, there is no complaint with regard to the food; the men get ample food and the very best of everything. But when we come to the ordinary tramp steamer, I am bound to say that on nine out of every ten the men are literally starved during the whole of the voyage. It is perfectly true that they got what the articles of agreement provide; they get that; they can claim that by law. Having signed the agreement, they get that; but what I complain of is that it is not sufficient, and there ought to be an alteration. I asked the president of the Board of Trade whether he could see his way clear to bring in a Bill to settle this question of seamen's provisions, but I was told by the right hon. Gentleman that he could not see his way to do that. Yet it is the one thing that is driving good men from the sea service; it is the one thing that has created so much desertion of British, seamen abroad, and yet a Conservative Government, with a large majority at its back and ample time at its disposal, has no time to give any relief to the poor unfortunate sea-faring men. Is there any use, I wonder, in making an appeal to-

1593
night? Will the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade tell us when he will introduce some legislation for the benefit of the seamen? The Government has had ample time now; it has been in office for six years. Year after year I have expected to see some measure brought forward for the benefit of the seafaring population of this country, but yet nothing has been done. I do not want to trespass too much on the time of the House, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he will say to-night when we may expect an extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act to seamen. I think it would be worth the while of the Conservative party to extend that Workmen's Compensation Act in the way I have suggested before the dissolution, because you may depend upon it that if the seamen do not get the benefits of that Act before this Parliament dissolves, I, for one, intend to make as much noise about it up and down the country as I can. Yes, I shall do my little bit at the election, and I shall not forget the seamen. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have had many opportunities of legislating for the seamen if they had felt disposed to do so. May I appeal also to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to say when he will bring in a Bill to alter the present scale of provisions which are supplied to the men on board the merchant ships? At the present moment—and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to know
this, because I believe that if I could touch his heart he would be inclined to do something for these men-there are three sailors in Greenwich Hospital brought in there suffering from scurvy caused by the bad provisions supplied to them on board their ship. Surely that ought to touch the right hon. Gentleman's heart if it can be touched at all. The right hon. Gentleman has time to alter this state of things if he likes. All he has got to do is to bring in a Bill. I am quite certain it would be backed by hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House. The only opposition we might expect to such a measure would be from two or three ship-owners-not from the bulk of ship-owners in this House, but from two or three outside. As far as this side of the House is concerned, I think I can guarantee that such a Bill would be supported by every section of the Members here. Now, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, seeing the amount of time there is at the disposal of the Government, can he not hold out some promise that something will be done for the seamen before this session is brought to an end.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 187: Noes, 67. (Division List No. 140.)

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

Lowe, Francis William

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Loyd, Archie Kirkman.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Seton-Karr, Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maclure, Sir John William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Killop, James

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Marks, Henry Hananel

Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Smith, J as Parker(Lanarksh.)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Monckton, Edward Philip

Stephens, Henry Charles

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Strauss, Arthur

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. R. Wm.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Heath, James

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Helder, Augustus

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Thonton. Percy M.

Henderson, Alexander

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Muntz, Philip A.

Tuke, Sir John Bitty

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute)

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)

Hobhouse, Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Holland, William Henry

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

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

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Peel, William Robert Wellesley

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Keswick, William

Penn, John

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Knowles, Lees

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.

Lafone, Alfred

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

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

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wrightson, Thomas

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, George

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.)

Purvis, Robert

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Pym, C. Guy

Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

Rankin, Sir James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Sir William Walrond and

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Mr. Anstruther.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Rentoul, James Alexander

NOES.

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

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Rickett, J. Compton

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hormman, Frederick John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bainbridge. Emerson

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John H.(Denbighsh.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robson, William Snowdon

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Joicey, Sir James

Runciman, Walter

Bolton. Thomas Dolling

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Brigg, John

Lawson. Sir W. (Cumberland)

Schwann, Charles E.

Broadhurst, Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Souttar, Robinson

Caldwell, James

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Steadman, William Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

Maddison, Fred.

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Colville, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Crombie, John William

Nussey, Thomas Williams

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dalziel, James Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dewar, Arthur

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Donelan, Captain A.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Doogan, P. C.

Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Duckworth, James

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Yoxall, James Henry

Fenwick, Charles

Power, Patrick Joseph

Flynn, James Christopher

Price, Robert John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Randell, David

Mr. Kill ride and Mr. Have-

Griffith, Ellis J.

Reckitt, Harold James

lock Wilson.

Hoyden, John Patrick

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

Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
Resolved, That this House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday, 14th June, and
1596
that so soon as Government business is disposed of this day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.

RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon): I propose to move the new clause standing in my name. On consideration it seemed to me that Sub-section 2 was somewhat involved, and therefore I propose to move this substitution—
New Clause:—

(1) Nothing in this Act shall require notice of accidents to be given in cases where such a notice is required to be given under any Act relating to factories or mines.

(2) Where any inspection, inquiry, or investigation for any purpose may be made under this Act by, or by any officer of, a Government Department, and may also be made for the same purpose under any other Act by, or by any officer of another Government Department, the inspection, inquiry, or investigation shall be made as arranged between the Departments concerned, but any such inspection, inquiry, or investigation shall not be made with respect to the same matter for the same purpose by, or by any officer of, more than one Department. —(Mr. Ritchie.)

—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
MR. MADDISON: With respect to this new clause, speaking for myself, I have no objection whatever to it; indeed, I desire that the object of the right hon. Gentleman should be secured, that object being, as I understand, that the owners of these lines should not be put to the trouble and inconvenience and even embarrassment of a double set of inspectors. But there is a doubt in the minds of several hon. Members, and certainly in my own, whether there is not a class of railway which does not come under either the Home Department or the Board of Trade. I refer to the colliery lines which run from the collieries to the wharves or docks. I want to know whether that class of line is inspected by the Home Office, as they are not inspected by the Board of Trade. If they are not inspected by either the Home Office or the Board of Trade I want to know under what category they will come. They are not inspected by the Board of Trade and are not provided for in the
1598
Bill. I want to know under what category they will come. If the Home Office do not inspect them they will escape altogether this inspection, which I am sure we all desire to take place. I hope. therefore, that either the right hon. Gentleman or some Law Officer of the Crown will assure the House on this point, because I am quite certain that no section of the House desires that this class of railway should be left out of the Bill.
MR. RITCHIE: I must ask the indulgence of the House in replying to the criticisms which have been made. When the Bill was before the Committee I promised to consider the question, and I drafted an Amendment to meet the difficulty. I had an Amendment drawn which I thought would have made it perfectly clear that all these lines came under the Home Office. There has been some doubt expressed upon the subject, but I regret to say that the authorities of the House intimated to me when my Amendment appeared that it was out of order because it proposed to amend the Factory Acts, and consequently it was not possible for me to move it. I have endeavoured to adopt another form of words, and I am not without hope that elsewhere I shall be able to find some words to meet the difficulty alluded to by the hon. Member opposite.
MR. BRYCE: This is a matter of very great importance, because accidents are quite as likely to occur on these sidings as on the main lines, and in some respects they are more likely to occur. Of course there is something to be said for putting these lines under the control of the Home Office by bringing them within the Factory Acts, and there is also something to be said for putting them under the Board of Trade in this Act. I should have thought that the inspection of any kind of railway line, being a matter connected with railway appliances, would be better under the Board of Trade inspection and supervision than under the Home Office. The Home Office has nothing to do with locomotion, and I do not think its inspectors have the training which is necessary. I should have thought, prima facie, it would have been better to deal with them under the Board of Trade. Therefore, I am rather disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his

1599
way to do this, and in one way or another, the Bill ought not to leave this House without this provision being made. The Bill ought not to receive the Royal Assent until some provision is made or some means taken to bring these sidings within the purview of this Act.
COLONEL PILKINGTON: I wish to point out that the sidings of a factory are already part and parcel of the factory, and are under the Home Office inspection. If an accident happens upon the lines of the works they come under the Factory Acts, and under Home Office inspection, and the inquiry lies with that Department. Those inspectors have to make examinations in some way with regard to collieries and colliery sidings, which are again under the Home Office through Her Majesty's inspectors of mines, and it is far better that it should continue in that way. To introduce the jurisdiction of another Government Office over those sidings would be very inadvisable and likely to produce confusion. I believe it is perfectly clear that these sidings are now under the Home Office, and I think that to put them under the Board of Trade would be doing something which is likely to lead to much confusion. I trust that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade will insist that this matter shall be left where it is at the present time, under the Board of Trade, and that the factories and mines will be left under the Home Office.
MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking in Committee, in reply to myself, and I should like to make one further appeal to him. We recognise that he has made some effort to meet the difficulties which were brought before the Committee after a somewhat prolonged discussion of this complicated matter. What we have in view, it seems to me, is to secure that there shall be adequate inspection of all these risks wherever they occur, and that that inspection, in the interests of all the parties concerned, should be carried out by one Department. In regard to my right hon. friend's promise to deal with this matter in another place, surely the same Standing Order with regard to the scope of this Bill would govern the procedure in another place as it governs it in this House. I would
1600
venture to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that this question could be most satisfactorily dealt with by introducing a short single - clause Departmental Bill, which would transfer any of these doubtful cases which may arise under the present Bill, and which might, even under this clause, be liable to dual inspection. Then we should get at least one consistent administration for the prevention of accidents which occur on these sidings and branch lines, which need inspection as much as the main lines. My suggestion is that, in order to remove any difficulty as to dual inspection, a short Departmental Bill should be introduced and carried, as it would be, with the consent of both parties. I am sure that such a Bill would be quickly passed through both Houses of Parliament.
COLONEL BLUNDELL: It has been argued by Gentlemen opposite that all these railways should be under one Department of the State, and that that Department should be the Board of Trade. There is no wish on the part of mine owners to have anything to do with any hiatus, but we regard it as a very important thing that mines and their sidings should continue exclusively under the Home Office and should not be interfered with by the Board of Trade.
MR. FENWICK: We had a very considerable amount of discussion upon the Royal Commission on this very point, and from the evidence submitted to us it was perfectly clear that there were accidents on railways which were not inspected either by the Board of Trade officials or by the officials from the Homo Office. It is not so much a question of dual inspection as to secure that inspection does take place, or shall take place, on railways which ought to be affected by this Bill, and which have never been inspected before. In the case of a colliery siding, clearly an accident taking place there ought to be investigated, and the investigation should be under the control of the Home Office. The point raised by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division is intended to elicit some information from the President of the Board of Trade or the Attorney General as to whether this Amendment would be sufficient to cover

1601
such a case. If it does not, it ought to be made to do so.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: It was in reply to a question of mine on the Standing Committee that the President of the Hoard of Trade promised to try in this Bill, on Report, to fill up the hiatus which he admitted existed in the case of factories between lines which are inspected by the Home Office and those which come under the Board of Trade. He said there was no hiatus in the case of collieries. A debate took place on the Standing Committee, after which we became aware of a case which we did not know at the time the discussion took place. A case was decided on the 5th of April which has been fully reported in the Labour Gazette for May, in which it was clearly established that there are a large number of colliery lines with regard to which this hiatus docs exist, because they are not inspected as coming under the mines, nor are they railways under the Board of Trade. I do not know whether we had better discuss that matter on this clause or on Clause 15 on the Definition Clause. The House will notice that as far as factories are concerned— though not in regard to coal mines—the right hon. Gentleman did try to redeem his promise. He put down an Amendment which appeared to redeem that promise, but I understand that it was not in order in the form in which it was put down. But oven then he did not fill up the hiatus as far as collieries are concerned. As it appears to be generally admitted that this hiatus does exist, it is clear that the Government must try to meet that difficulty, and I think we ought to get a definite promise that they will deal with it in the House of Lords.
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has brought in a clause which obviates having two inspectors over one piece of ground. I agree with my hon. and gallant friend opposite that the coal mine owners prefer to be altogether under the Home Office, as they have been for many years; but when we come to that hiatus which has been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, there is no doubt that they are actually railways. They do not include the numerous colliery branches
1602
of lines round the pit upon which the wagons run to and fro; but accidents on these lines have to be reported to the Home Office, but not their arrangements —these are no doubt under the mines inspectors of the Home Office. We have to deal with what are really railways, and not parts of the colliery proper. I think we had better accept this Amendment and leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to bring in a clause which we all agree is required to meet the case.
MR. JOHN BURNS: It is extremely difficult to ascertain the number of accidents which occur on railway lines that are not within the control of the Board of Trade or the Home Office. To ascertain the number of men killed and injured on these lines for which no one seems to be responsible, I was talking the other day to a competent railway manager who expressed to me the opinion that the percentage of accidents upon what has been termed the hiatus lines is very great in proportion to those killed and injured on other lines; and the proportion is as great, if not greater for the same mileage, as upon a well equipped main line. I am informed, that the mileage of this class of lines referred to amounts to 600 or 700 miles. I cannot vouch for that statement, and it can easily be disputed, because there is hardly any reliable information upon it, but I do not think that anyone can authoritatively contradict it. We can agree that these lines which do not come within the curtilage of colliery or factory jurisdiction under the Board of Trade are, from the point of view of equipment and manning, as far as the permanent way is concerned and the gear, admittedly infinitely worse than any local or main lines on which passengers are carried. That being so, it seems to mo that we ought to put those lines definitely either under the Home Office or the Board of Trade. Personally, I am not particular what Department it is, provided that Department brings those lines up to the standard of management in regard to permanent way, signalling, and junctions, and many other points, which the ordinary main lines have to adhere to. As a matter of practical administration, I believe that all the sidings within the curtilage of a colliery can be better inspected by the Home Office than by the Board of

1603
Trade, but that is not a serious matter. All I wish to bring before the House is that these lines are badly constructed, badly manned, and badly equipped, and i they should have inspection applied to them. I believe that nearly all the lines that connect a colliery with the main line are not up to the standard of the lines immediately around them, and certainly they are not up to the same standard and level in regard to maintenance as the main line. But whether they are or not I think we ought to apply to them Recommendation No. 5 of the Royal Commission Report. I venture to say that the appliances on these lines are very much below what they ought to be as provided by Recommendation No. 6. And so on through several other recommendations of the Royal Commission. I am positively convinced by observation and experience in the neighbourhood of mines that the gear and appliances on these lines are far below what they ought to be. The question we have to discuss is how can we remedy this. The Standing Orders of the House do not enable us to amend this Act as we should like to, and it seems to me that we have nothing to do but to trust to the right hon. Gentleman to induce another place to remedy this defect—a place which does not stand so much on Parliamentary etiquette and Standing Orders —where they can insert a necessary and desirable change which is required to bring these lines and sidings up to their proper standard of maintenance. I am not prepared to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman how it is to be done, but that it should be done we are all agreed, and I wish him good luck in his attempt to remedy it.
MR. SETON-KARR: I only rise in order that we may have a perfectly clear understanding from my right hon. friend as to the exact question which is now before the House. I am sure there is some confusion prevailing among hon. Members upon this subject. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to drop Sub-section 2 after Clause 16, and either now or in another place to insert an Amendment substantially containing the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for the Lice Division. Am I right in that contention? I came here this evening prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Ince Division, because I entirely
1604
agree with the view expressed that dual control of these factory sidings would be a most dangerous thing. At present these inspectors are responsible, not to the Board of Trade but to the Home Office, and it seems to me that we had much better, so far as those sidings are concerned, have it perfectly clear that the investigations are to be conducted under the authority of the Home Office only. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright I congratulate him on having adopted that course, and upon having framed an Amendment making it perfectly clear that there is to be no such thing as a dual control, but that the investigation as regards these sidings will take place under the Homo Office.
SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street): As one who has had some practical knowledge of the question under discussion, I may say on behalf of those I represent in the northern part of England, where a larger number of private lines exist than in any other part of the country, that there is not the slightest objection whatever to having Government inspection. My hon. friend the Member for Battersea seems to think that those lines are left entirely uncontrolled. I may say that the owners are just as anxious to have them managed properly as if they were under the inspection of the Government, and when he says that these lines are badly manned, badly constructed and badly equipped, I am in a position to give a direct denial to such an accusation. My hon. friend does not know as much about the private working of these lines as I do. Most of those private lines simply carry small trucks of about 2 tons 13 cwt., but they have recently been so arranged by piling up on the top of them that they can now carry about four tons, and it is not to be expected that lines which are carrying small trucks of 4 tons need to be as heavily weighted in the shape of rails as lines which are to carry 10 tons or even larger tonnage. With regard to the lighting of these private lines I can speak with some experience, and so far as I am acquainted with them, some are lighted up by the electric light, and every care is taken to light them as well as possible, in order to avoid accidents. I am sorry that there are no statistics in regard to these accidents, because I believe they would prove the contrary to what my hon.

1605
friend has argued. I believe the accidents on these lines are considerably less than upon the great railways. That, of course, is a mere matter of opinion, and I regret that I am not in a position to prove it. There is a difficulty with regard to the control. I am acquainted with several lines in the north of England which not only are connected with the collieries in the shape of a private line attached to the collieries, but these private lines join and communicate with the main line. These colliery owners have running powers, and I cannot understand how we are to arrange a question of that kind. If the Home Office is to have control over the line until it joins the main line and then the Board of Trade is to have control over that part of the railway, I cannot understand how the system can be worked. I think hon. Members will see that there is some difficulty in this matter.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a second time, amended, and added.
New clause—
"In the application of this Act to railways in Scotland the following modifications shall be made:—'The expression "Summary Jurisdiction Acts" means the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts. The jurisdiction conferred by this Act shall be exercised solely by the sheriff, and shall be held to be civil within the meaning of the twenty-eighth section of the Summary Procedure Act, 1864. The sheriff shall upon request of any party to the cause take notes of the evidence, and any party, if dissatisfied with the sheriffs judgment as erroneous either in point of law or of fact, may appeal there against to either division of the Court of Session, which appeal shall be heard summarily by the said division, whose judgment shall be final. The Court of Session may, if it thinks lit, by act of sederunt regulate the form and time of presentation of such appeals.' "—(The Lord Advocate.)
—brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: The Bill provides that the Board of Trade may under this section require the use or disuse of any plant or appliance. All appliances which are likely to be recommended by the Board of Trade are certain to be patented. Already there are 600 patents of various kinds in connection with railway couplings, and therefore we may take it that the choice
1606
of the Board of Trade will be practically confined to patented articles. Then we may be in this position: when a patentee finds that the use of his article is made compulsory by the Board of Trade, he will have the railway companies and the traders practically in his hands. We have a good object lesson in the case of the Dunlop tyros, which were the subject of several patents, all of which were acquired by one largo company, which, though it issued some licences at first, has since gained control over all the companies which held them. The consequence is that the tyres cost about 30 per cent. more in this country than abroad, and I believe that at the present moment the price charged for Dunlop tyres is twice or three times what would be a fair price for them. We should be in a very much worse position even than this if the Bill were adopted as it stands, because railway companies would be compelled to provide these patented articles. It is quite true that there is a power of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, but there would be nothing to appeal against. The patentee would profess himself quite willing to supply the article, and when the compulsory order was made the time for appeal would be past and the patentee would be in a position to charge any price he liked. Already, I believe, a very large syndicate has been formed to buy up those patents so as to be ready to take advantage of the high prices which are expected. It may be said that the Board of Trade would not order any particular appliance, but this Bill gives them power to order a particular appliance, and although we have very perfect confidence that the present President of the Board of Trade would not do anything unreasonable, we cannot be certain about future Presidents of the Board of Trade, who might act otherwise. If the Board of Trade takes power to compel the compulsory use of these appliances, it ought to take power also to compel patentees to supply articles on reasonable terms. I beg to move, Sir.
New clause—
"If any company or person interested shall prove to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that their or his reasonable requirements with respect to any patented plant or appliance required by the Board of Trade to be used on any railway are not supplied in a reasonable manner and at a reasonable cost, the Board may order the patentee to grant licence on

1607
such terms as the Board, having regard to the nature of the invention and the circumstances of the case, may deem just; and any such order may be enforced by mandamus."—(Sir Alfred Hickman.)
—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now road a second time."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I hope my hon. friend will not think it necessary to press this clause. The matter is not unprovided for, because even at present in Section 22 of the Patent Act of 1883, it is provided that if on the petition of any person interested it is proved to the Board of Trade that by reason of the default of a patentee the reasonable requirements of the public cannot be supplied, it may order the patentee to grant licences on such terms as the Board may think reasonable. That deals with the matter to which the clause refers, but that matter and many others have been referred to a very strong Committee, of which Sir Edward Fry is chairman, and the present Master of the Rolls is a member, in order to see whether the law requires amendment.
MR. BOUSFIELD: The clause proposed by my hon. friend goes very much further than the section referred to by the Attorney General. Certainly it would not be very easy to say on a mere question of price whether a patentee makes default. He may be willing to supply the patented appliance in as largo a quantity as may be required, but may charge a price so great as to practically prevent the adoption of the article. The clause as it stands in the Patent Act is certainly capable of considerable improvement, and I would suggest that instead of putting a special clause of this kind in this Bill the President of the Board of Trade should really consider whether the clause in the Patent Act should not be amended so as to get rid of some of the defects at present in it.
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out a very considerable difficulty, but after the explanation given by the Attorney General a great deal of what I feared when I first looked at the Bill has passed away. I understood from the right hon. Gentle-
1608
man that he would look a little further into the matter of strengthening the Patent Act in order that patentees should not be allowed to take undue advantage of legislation intended for the public benefit.
MR. RITCHIE: My right hon. friend has already said that one of the reasons why the Committee on the Patent Acts was appointed was to consider whether Section 22 was adequate or satisfactory.
SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: By permission of the House, I beg to withdraw the clause.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. JACKSON: In moving this clause, perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House that this Bill gives to the Board of Trade very largo powers with regard to the making of rules and regulations with reference to matters connected with railway working. I think the House will permit me also to say, and I think my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade will agree, that the railway representatives on the Royal Commission on whose Report this Bill is based were of the greatest assistance in guiding the deliberations of the Committee to a practical result. I think also that my right hon. friend will agree that the railway companies have since the Bill was framed done their best to bring it into practical shape. The clause which I now beg to move is intended to repair what the practical officers connected with the railway companies believe to be a great and important omission in the Bill. The Bill, as the House knows, confers on the President of the Board of Trade great powers and responsibilities. It defines generally what powers the President of the Board of Trade may exercise, and it then prescribes that the Board of Trade may proceed to make draft rules or orders. At that stage of the proceedings it is open to any person who may be affected to make an objection to the proposed draft rules. I think the House will agree that at that stage it may be difficult even for practical railway men to ascertain what would be the full effect and bearing of the proposed rules. There may be objections regarding which the Beard of Trade may perhaps not take quite the same view as the railway companies, and

1609
in the event of the Board of Trade remaining unconvinced that the proposed rules go beyond the requirements of the case or are not calculated to achieve their object, then there is an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners to determine the difficulty. The Commissioners have said in very definite terms that in their opinion with regard to matters of importance with which this Bill deals the Board of Trade ought not to be the ultimate court of appeal, and they have recommended in specific terms that there should be an appeal from the Board of Trade to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. New, Sir, I venture to submit to the House that, although it may be possible to detect some flaws in the proposed rule or order, it is impossible absolutely or accurately to determine until that rule or order has been put into operation whether it is effecting the purpose for which it is desired. The object of this clause which I am moving is to give to the railway companies or the persons concerned an opportunity at a later stage, after having tested the rule which has been made, of appealing to the Railway Commissioners. If they come forward with specific grounds and statements of their objection, and fail to convince the Board of Trade of the reasonableness of their objection, then they shall have the opportunity of going and proving their case before the Railway Commissioners. I venture to think that the House must consider that some provision of this kind is necessary in a matter of this importance. It is one, let me repeat, which affects not only the safety of railway servants, but the safety of the travelling public, and although the Board of Trade—and let me press this point upon my right hon. friend—is taking upon itself an enormous increase of responsibility as compared with anything it has had before, nevertheless that will not relieve the practical railway officers from the great responsibility which will still rest upon them. If, therefore, the responsibility is still to continue to rest upon the practical railway officers, and if in any case they come forward honestly believing that a rule which has been made has been found either to be inoperative for the purpose for which it was devised or to be impracticable in working, there should be some means of making their views known. Let me take a case,
1610
A rule or order may affect particular appliances; it may affect particular plant. I think all of us who have had any experience of the practical working of these matters know that it is almost a certainty that in the case of any plant or mechanical appliances year by year there are improvements being brought forward which supersede the existing plant. I think, therefore, that I am not asking the House too much if I ask them to assent to this clause which the practical railway men of this country believe to be indispensable to the safe working of their railways, and I would venture to make this appeal to my right hon. friend to accept the clause. He has steadfastly in the conduct of this Bill through the House taken his stand upon the Report of the Royal Commission. He has signally declared more than once to both sides of the House that he is not prepared to accept Amendments which carry the Bill beyond the recommendations of the Commission, nor is he pro-pared to accept Amendments which would make the Bill stop short of the recommendations of the Royal Commission; and I venture to say that I am asking him in this case only to give effect at the later stage of the proceedings to the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, which he has given effect to in every other part of the Bill. In my humble judgment this is one of the most important provisions, or it may be the most important provision, of the Bill. We are in this difficulty: that circumstances of traffic, circumstances of speed, and the regulation of railways are constantly changing, and everyone knows who is collected with them that the very regulations which are made by the railway officers themselves for the control of the service have from time to time been altered and revised. If that is the effect within the service itself, it is not unreasonable to expect that it may be the result even in the case of the Board of Trade; and I therefore make this appeal to my right hon. friend, that he will assent to this clause, and so give in its completeness to the Bill that power of appeal which the Royal Commission considered ought to have been given in the recommendations which they made. I beg to move.
New clause:—
"(1) Any person affected by any rule, order, or direction made under this Act, which has

1611
been in operation for a period exceeding six months, may apply to the Board of Trade to rescind or vary the same. Such application shall be made in writing, and shall be accompanied by a statement of the grounds upon which it is made.
"(2) If the Board of Trade shall decline to entertain such application, or if the person making the application is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Trade thereon, the Board of Trade shall at the request of such person refer the application to the Railway and Canal Commission as if it were an objection to a proposed rule under this Act."—Mr. Jackson.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: My right hon. friend the Member for North Leeds in recommending this new clause to the House made—no doubt unintentionally—a mis-description of its effect. He said that his clause would give "an opportunity" to the railway companies to ask for the revision of a rule already made. Now, the clause would give not an opportunity but an indefinite number of opportunities. The clause as it stands would have this effect: If a rule was made which the railway companies found to be objectionable they could appeal to the Railway Commissioners through the Board of Trade against that rule. If their appeal were disallowed they could appeal again, and so on from time to time. No doubt it may be answered that there would be discretion in the Railway Commissioners to east in costs any railway company that continued and reiterated its appeal against a rule which had been made by the Board of Trade and been renewed on one appeal by the Railway Commissioners. Therefore, while at first sight it seemed to me when the matter was under discussion in the Standing Committee, and when the Amendment was put upon the Paper, that the proposed clause might have that construction, I have, after listening to the speech of my right hon. friend and considering the matter more fully, come to the conclusion that, for all practical purposes, there would be a measure of justice and precaution and fairness to the companies in such a clause as this, and that it would not have in practice; the objection of reiteration that there might appear to be at first sight.
MR. FENWICK: I candidly admit that there is a great deal to be said for the principle of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds, but I do not think that the Amendment in the form in which it stands on the Paper can be acceptable, having regard to what took place in the Commission itself. That Commission completed its labours in a comparatively short period — a fact due in a great measure to the ability and tact and experience in dealing with social questions which the noble chairman Lord James possessed, and also to the great fairness of the men who represented the railway associations on that Commission. We did not arrive at our conclusion without much give and take on both sides, and I hope that it is not now to be attempted to go behind the Report of the Commission and to give the railway companies by a clause of this kind an opportunity to fight rule by rule which the Board of Trade in its judgment may seek to impose upon them. I fully admit, as I have said, the fairness of the principle that when a rule is made by the Board of Trade, and it is found by experience—and that experience ought in my judgment to extend over a longer period than six months, the period stated in the Amendment—when it is found that the operation of that rule is too rigid, or, on the other hand, that it is too lax, the parties affected ought to have the power to appeal for some modification of the rule. The Board of Trade, in other words, ought to have the power to vary or modify, according to the circumstances of the case, the rule which they have made. But I do sincerely trust that this House will not go behind the back of the Commission and give to the railway companies the power to whittle away the advantages which we thought we had secured to the railway servants by the unanimous Report of that Commission. I do not know what line the President of the Beard of Trade intends to take in reference to this Amendment; but while I admit that the principle is a fair one, I certainly think that the clause cannot and ought not to be accepted in the form in which it appears on the Paper.
MR. RENSHAW: I desire to say one word in support of the Amendment moved by the right hon.

1613
Member for North Leeds, and I should like, in reply to the remarks that have been just addressed to the House by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, to say that I do not understand that the proposal of my right hon. friend in this Amendment seeks either to go behind the Report of the Commission or to whittle away any advantages that were intended to be secured by the Report. No, Sir. The Royal Commission reported in favour of a very general right of appeal against the rules made by the Board of Trade. I should like to say on this point that everyone who is conversant with the general administration of the railway affairs of the United Kingdom knows that the rules under which the railways work at the present time are subject to annual review by the collective officers of those companies. That in itself I think ought to satisfy the House that on the point which the right hon. Member for North Leeds has brought before us now for our consideration we ought to accept the clause that he has proposed. It is perfectly obvious that, if not in respect of the general rule, in respect of specific orders to which this clause will equally apply, in a very short time working experience will show that a change is desirable, not only, perhaps, in the interests of the railway companies, but in the interests of the servants of the railway companies, and in the interests of the public at large. Changes might take place which would make it essentially desirable that new rules should be made, and it is for that reason that I strongly urge on the House that they should assent to the clause proposed by the right hon. Member for North Leeds.
MR. BRYCE: It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds has certainly made out a case for allowing an appeal to the Railway Commissioners after a rule made by the Board of Trade has been in operation for a certain length of time, but he has not shown that the length of time that he suggests, six months, is enough to allow a complete experience to be arrived at to test sufficiently the effect and working of the rule.
MR. JACKSON: It is "At least six months "
MR. BRYCE: It may well be that six months may be found too short and that
1614
a longer time may be needed before the effect of the rule could be tested. Further, the right hon. Gentleman I think puts no limitation on this power of appeal; it may be repeated afresh from time to time; and to suppose that that could be done is to credit the Board of Trade with a want of good sense and practical knowledge which it is hardly fair to attribute to them. It is perfectly plain that in a case of this kind the Board of Trade can have no object except to subserve the general well-being both of the companies and the travelling public, and of the servants of the companies, and I do not see why it should be suggested that the Board of Trade should be so extremely unlikely to be alive to those considerations that it is necessary to hang over their heads a perpetual power of appeal such as is now proposed. Therefore, while I admit that there is a grievance raised by the Amendment, and that some provision of this kind might, perhaps, be an advantage, I would suggest whether it ought- not to be limited much more than it is in this Amendment, and whether the time ought not to be changed, and whether there ought not to be a provision that no further appeal should be allowed, at any rate, until the lapse of a considerable period after the hearing of the last appeal.
MR. MADDISON: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will have some due regard to the attitude which many Members on this side of the House—certainly the Labour Members— have taken with regard to this Bill. We considered candidly that this Bill was not all we wanted, but it was very much what we did want and what the railway men certainly needed. With that object in view we accepted the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine of the infallibility of Royal Commissions—at any rate that was accepted by those of us who believed in the infallibility of anything, which I, for one, do not. I would say right off that in my feeble way I am able to appreciate what the right hon. Member for North Leeds said about the complications of railway work, and consciously I have never tried to make more difficult the task which I know under the best of conditions is a very onerous one for the officers and staff who have to carry out these rules. But I do hope that, whether

1615
the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of this clause or not, he will not accept the clause as it stands, and I will very briefly try to give my reasons for that. In the first place the right hon. Member for North Leeds based all his arguments on the old fallacious assumption which hon. Gentlemen sitting behind the President of the Board of Trade are never weary of trotting out—namely, that a rule enforced under this Bill means the enforcement of some particular appliance. That is the underlying fallacy of this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman's, because with all his exhaustive knowledge as chairman of one of the great trunk lines, he did not give us a single concrete illustration of how the Bill as it stands would operate badly for the railway companies. We are always told that this House is a practical assembly—I do not subscribe to that doctrine entirely, but that is a doctrine generally entertained; but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman might have given us an instance of that. If the House will allow me, I should like to call attention to some of the things that rules are likely to be made about. We will take the first in the schedule—brake levers on both sides of wagons. Suppose the Board of Trade make an order for brake levers on both sides of wagons; they will not say what sort of brakes, they will not tie the companies to a particular patent or a particular appliance. Their rule will call upon the companies to do certain things in the interests of safety, and it will absolutely leave them to carry out that rule in the way that they think best, so long as the principle of the rule is secured. This is nothing new. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, some of the companies have the Westinghouse brake, and some have the vacuum brake, and I believe there is even another brake which conforms to the Board of Trade conditions. Therefore, the House must not be led away by the very ingenious appeal which the right hon. Gentleman made to hon. Members sitting around him not to embarrass or make more difficult the work of the railway companies. As a matter of fact, the Act will do nothing of the sort. Take another case. There is a provision in the schedule for the efficient lighting of goods yards. The Department would not say that good yards must be lit by electric light—above all things they would not say that it
1616
must be by a particular system of electric lighting. The Great Northern may light their goods yards by electricity—I believe, in fact, they would —some other lines may light theirs by gas; both would conform to the rule put into operation with respect to that great safeguard. Then take the matter of automatic couplings—those are familiar friends of ours. Although the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade last year was constantly charged in the most foolish manner with trying to force on railway companies some particular sort of automatic couplings, the fact is he never did anything of the sort, nor does he in this Bill. Suppose a rule were enforced for automatic couplings; would that mean one inventor's automatic couplings? Not at all. All you would have to do would be somehow to couple your vehicles automatically.
MR. JACKSON: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but suppose there was only one automatic coupling which would satisfy the Board of Trade, the companies would be obliged to give that one; and the enforcement of brake levers on both sides of wagons would be unnecessary if continuous brakes were required.
MR. MADDISON: I think the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman is only waste of time, if he will allow me to say so, because I never referred to continuous brakes with regard to goods wagons—I only wish they were in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be more cautious—that is one of the very things that we thought ought to be in the Bill. He will find that the Bill is not by any means so advanced as it might be With regard to automatic couplings, does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the present President or any other President, or any other responsible Minister who has experience and who has worth to justify him for that high post, would ever enforce a rule where the company simply had one patent or one invention to depend upon? Really this is, at any rate, not practical politics at all, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that very well. Then I come to the right of appeal. Apart from the Railway and Canal Commissioners, while I am not infatuated with Government Departments, I would have thought that hon. Members would, at

1617
any rate, have given the Board of Trade credit for a little common sense. Supposing a rule was working badly—supposing some appliance was making railway work more dangerous both for railway employees and for the travelling public; does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that there would be any real difficulty if that was put before the Board of Trade in getting the Department to give serious attention to the matter? Remember, they have machinery for doing that which I venture to submit is not possessed by the Railway and Canal Commission. Who are the Railway and Canal Commission? They are a very eminent body I believe, but nobody knows very much about them. They know nothing about railway work. We have always complained of this tribunal, but, in order to get this Bill, we have refused to embarrass the right hon. Gentlemen with criticism on this point, so careful were we that we should not delay the passing of the Bill. But are we to understand that what the inspecting staff' of the Board of Trade (including, remember, Royal Engineer officers, and practical railway men) have considered as a good working rule, is in fact likely to be improved upon by three judges, three lawyers, who may or may not know a good deal about law, but who nobody would pretend know anything about the practical working of a railway? That leads me to another point in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I hope the House will examine this point. What we are asked to do in this Amendment is to give the right of appeal for the purpose of rescinding or varying a rule, but on what ground? If hon. Members will examine the Amendment they will find that the ground of objection may be the ground of cost alone. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman I say that there is not a single word in his Amendment, so far as I can sec (of course, if he can correct me, I shall be very glad), which gives a right to appeal against rules which prove to be dangerous in their working. As a matter of fact, the great railway companies, possessing enormous wealth, can constantly under this Amendment simply appeal not because the rule is proved to be dangerous, not because it has made railway work any less safe for the men, which I admit might under certain cir-
1618
cumstances happen, but simply because they did not like the rule—because their traffic manager said it delayed the traffic, or because certain departmental objections were taken to it purely of a commercial character, and those objections would be sufficient to give a right of appeal. Now is the House prepared to subject a Bill of this sort to that process? I venture to say that it would be wrong, and I very earnestly appeal to the President of the Board of Trade not to accept this Amendment as it stands. If the right hon. Gentlemen's intention is merely to protect himself against a rule which may instead of making the work more safe make it more dangerous, then his clause does not meet that, but it meets other things which never ought to have entered into it, and if this is not his intention then this clause is not necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade determines to accept the Amendment, I hope he will give us a promise that first of all he will take care that on the same rule there shall not be second appeals, and that the period shall be extended, and generally that the appeal should be given only when the reason of the objection is really a question of safety and not merely a question of cost in the working of the railway.
MR. RITCHIE: Whatever may be the opinion of the House with respect to the proposal of my right hon. friend, I think everyone will agree that he stated his case with extreme moderation and great clearness, and with the ability which we should all expect of him. I need hardly say that an Amendment coming from him would naturally commend itself to me as being an Amendment dictated not by any desire to defeat the ends of the Bill, but dictated by an earnest desire on his part to do what he could to see that the Bill would work as we expect it to work without friction and with the assistance of all concerned. Now, so far as regards the first portion of this new clause which proposes to give a right of appeal at any time after six months to the Board of Trade against any rule which they have made, I have no objection to raise to that. I think it is right that both the railway companies and the railway servants should have an opportunity at any time to come to the Board of Trade and make to them representations to the effect that the rule which has been

1619
passed by them and assented to by the Railway Commissioners does not quite work in the way that was anticipated, and should be reconsidered. That portion of the Amendment is one which I am sure must commend itself to the whole House. With regard to the second portion, however, while I recognise the justice of some of the remarks of my right hon. friend, I think he is unduly apprehensive of the action of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last has said truly that the action of the Board of Trade has not been to lay down to the railway companies any particular invention which they are to adopt in order to carry out a particular end, and he has said truly that with regard to continuous brakes, with regard to interlocking signals and matters of that kind, the Board of Trade have never called upon the railway companies to adopt any particular invention; they have left it to the companies themselves to adopt the particular invention which should carry out the end which it was desired to effect. Therefore, so far as that portion of my right hon. friend's argument is concerned — namely, the portion in which he said that it would be very prejudicial to the public interest if railway companies were not able to avail themselves of new inventions or alterations of patents or appliances of their own accord—it falls to the ground. It is not the intention of the Board of Trade to lay down any particular mode of carrying out any order that they may make, and the railway companies will be at perfect liberty to adopt any patent or method which may seem to them best in order to carry out the object in view. Then my right hon. friend spoke of the changes which take place in the ordinary every-day work of the yards, and said that it would be very prejudicial if the railway companies were not able to make changes. It cannot be supposed for a moment that a Department which has specially under its care the railway interests of this country would not readily lend itself to any proposal of a railway company for the purpose of improving the working of their lines. The Department over which I preside is responsible to the House of Commons, and not only would the Board of Trade be unworthy of the trust placed upon it if it refused to do anything of the kind, but the Minister responsible for taking such action would not long enjoy the confidence of the House of Com-
1620
mons. Then my right hon. friend came to that paint in his argument which was to the effect that some of the appliances or methods of applying the rules proposed by the Board of Trade might in operation prove to be unworkable, and not such as to secure the end in view, and that, therefore, some appeal even from the Board of Trade was desirable in that particular case. I am prepared to say that I think there is something in that argument, but I do think that the words of my right hon. friend's clause are open to the objection that appeals might be made incessantly to the Railway Commissioners, which would greatly hamper the operation of the Act in the hands of the Board of Trade. It would be unfortunate if that would be the result of my right hon. friend's Amendment. I am prepared to accept the first part of the clause, and to amend the second part, to the effect that within twelve months, not after, of the making of a rule there should be an appeal. There is, first, the making of the rule and then time is given before the rule comes into force. After the rule comes into force and the appliance is at work, I would propose that within twelve months after that a railway company, if dissatisfied, might appeal to the Board of Trade upon that particular point, with the further power of appealing to the Railway Commissioners. That, I believe, would protect the railway companies to the full, and we should prevent the difficulty of frequent appeals, which I think would be detrimental to the operation of the Act. I hope my right hon. friend will be able to accept my Amendment, which is as follows—
"If any such application be made within twelve months after the date on which the rule in respect to which the application is made has come into operation and the Board of Trade declines to entertain the application the Board of Trade shall, if required by the person making the application refer it to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and the Commissioners shall consider and decide whether the application is reasonable or not, as if it were an objection to a rule under this Act, and if they decide that the application is reasonable the Board of Trade shall propose a rule to meet it."
I hope my right hon. friend will recognise that I desire to meet the objection he has raised, and that he will consider the proposal which I now make as a reasonable one, and as likely to meet his point.
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the President of the Board of Trade, I just wish to point out that the clause as moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds is a clause which appeals to every railwayman who desires an improvement in the working of railways. The clause has in my opinion been too much discussed as if it were drawn for the protection of the railway companies. It is, I submit, a clause which railway employees can put into force just as well as the railway companies. This has been discussed very ably by my hon. friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield; but, after all, these clauses are to meet not the good but the bad and not required inventions. The President of the Board of Trade says that the Board of Trade has only this intention and that intention, but— alas for this country—my right hon. friend will not exist for ever, and all that we desire is that a clause should be put into the Act which will meet all the possible circumstances of the day, and keep the rules up to the mark. There is a proverb in the railway world that good intentions form a very doubtful pavement in a very doubtful country. Acts of Parliament are not drawn to meet good intentions, but to meet bad ones, and I think that if it is found in three months that a thing is working badly, it ought not to be allowed to go on for twelve months.
MR. RITCHIE: Oh no; there can be an appeal any time within the twelve months.
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I take this clause as a very important one for railway servants. I do not know any persons more likely to put it into operation than the men themselves when they see that a thing is not working well. They are far better judges, and can express themselves quite as clearly as any board of directors, and I feel that it is in their interest quite as much as in the interest of the country.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause—
"To leave out Sub-section 2 in order to insert the following words—' If any such application is made within eighteen months after
1622
the date on which the rule in respect of which the application is made has come into operation, and the Board of Trade declines to entertain the application, the Board of Trade shall, if requested by the person making the application, refer it to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and the Commissioners shall consider and decide whether the application is reasonable or not, as if it was an objection to a rule under this Act, and if they decide that the application is reasonable, the Board of Trade shall propose a rule to meet it.' "—(Mr. Ritchie.)
MR. JACKSON: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to meet what at all events he believes to be the practical difficulty of this case. I confess that to my mind the Amendment does not meet what I honestly feel may become a great difficulty, even at the expiration of eighteen months. I would like to say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that there is no desire on the part of the railway companies to use the power of appeal in the direction of defeating the objects of the Bill. The hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield would be the first to desire that if a rule made by the Board of Trade were found by the practical officers of a railway company to be ineffective for the purpose for which it was designed, there should be power to the railway company either to obtain its revision or to be allowed to state their appeal before the tribunal—which, I venture to remind the Labour Members, they themselves selected and recommended—the Railway Commissioners. What the railway companies feel is that they should be allowed to go to the Court of Appeal and state their objections to the rule that has been made. I feel that my right hon. friend has placed me in a difficulty, and in a position of great responsibility. I spoke on behalf of the railway companies when I moved the clause that stood in my name, I expressed, probably feebly, but as well as I could, what was their strong objection to the proposal of my right hon. friend. I have decided to accept the alteration my right hon. friend has made, but I accept it in the hope that we shall be able, by the powers of appeal granted, to at all events prevent the adoption of a rule which may be injurious to the working of the railway in the sense of the safe and good working both as regards the servants and the public.
MR. MADDISON: There are one or two points I wish to be clear about. It

1623
is difficult for some of us to follow Amendments that are not on the Paper, but now I must try to make the best of it. As I understand the Amendment, there is the right of appeal within eighteen months after the rule is in operation. I want to know how long the rule must be in operation before an appeal may be made.
MR. JACKSON: Not before six months.
MR. MADDISON: Well, that is one of the points. I do not think the Amendment states that the minimum is six months.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, in the first subsection.
MR. MADDISON: Well, thin, that is settled. In the next place I want it to be clear what happens if an appeal is upset on a particular rule. I gather that the right of appeal on that particular rule would then cease.
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, added.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I must disclaim all opposition to the principle of the Bill. No one has a greater desire than I have to see some moans adopted, if those means are practicable, to prevent any of the railway accidents that take place from day to day. Whether this Bill will affect the object it has in view remains to be seen. I hope it may, but I look upon it altogether as an experiment, which may have good results or the contrary. This Bill is intended, as I understand it, to apply to public railways, because before the Commission which was appointed to inquire into these matters, I think the chief evidence given was in regard to accidents which occurred on the public railways of the country. The Commission thought fit, I presume, not to include the private railways within the scope of the Bill. Unfortunately my Amendment deals with a subject which was not brought before the Commission. No one was appointed to give evidence on this particular question, and therefore I think I am at rather a disadvantage. The effect of my Amendment would be to limit the operation of the Bill entirely to those we know as railway servants.
1624
The term "railway service" is unknown, I believe, to the law courts, and I confess that the absence of a clear definition may lead to considerable litigation and difficulty hereafter. My object in moving this Amendment is to deal with certain railways which exist in the north of England. Private railways in the north of England are connected chiefly with collieries. They have their own locomotives and wagons, which are of a particular kind, averaging something like four tons each. Whether in the future the provisions of the Bill may be extended to private railways or not I cannot tell. Probably that may be the ultimate result, but if so I presume that all private railways will come under its operation. On private railways, I believe, there are very few accidents which would be dealt with by any rules or regulations which may be made by the Board of Trade under this Bill. The traffic carried is of an altogether different character from that which is generally carried on large railways. There we have not the largo shunting yards which are the chief place? of danger on largo railways. On most of the wagons in connection with those private railways there are dead buffers. The wagons of the private railways to which I refer are obliged to touch in certain instance? public railways, and when they touch public railways they are brought within the operation of the Bill. These wagons are manipulated by simple chains. They are extremely small compared with ordinary railway wagons, and there is no difficulty in managing the couplings without going in between them. Some of these railways are connected with shipping places, which are constructed simply for this particular class of wagon, and if you put another kind of wagon on to the ''drop" it is useless altogether. I wish to point out that in the event of this rule being applied to this particular class of wagons which pass over a short portion of a public railway, it will be necessary to alter the whole of the wagons employed, and in many cases not only the wagons but the shipping places. This would lead to enormous cost, which, in my view, is really not justified. I am not quite sure whether the House will be prepared to accept this Amendment or not. I submit the Amendment with some degree of hesitation. I feel sure if I could take Members of the House to these lines and

1625
let them see the working of the traffic, they would not hesitate to give exemption in such cases, for, after all, what is the use of putting enormous expense on private undertakings of this kind when there is no evidence to show that any large number of accidents take place? In the interests of my constituents and those whom I represent in the north of England, I feel bound to put this before the House in order to show what is the feeling of Her Majesty's Government and the House of Commons on reasonable questions of this kind which are put before them.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'railway service,' and insert the words ' employment of persons on any railway by any railway company' instead thereof."—(Sir James Joiccy.)
Question proposed, "That the words ' railway service ' stand part of the Bill."
MR. RITCHIE: I cannot advise the House to accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be that if any wagons were run across a railway, and the persons employed in the wagons were not railway servants, but the servants of the colliery owners, the wagons would not come under the Act. I am certain that is not what is desired. As to the hon. Gentleman's wagons, I can assure him they would be in exactly the same position as those of anybody else. We do not wish to interfere with sidings wagons at all; we simply wish to ensure that wagons which are run upon a railway conform to the Orders issued under the Bill. To except wagons such as those suggested by the hon. Member would, I think, be extremely impolitic on the part of the Government.
MR. BRYCE: If I understand this Amendment aright, it would absolutely prevent the President of the Board of Trade carrying out the undertaking he gave earlier in the evening. That alone, I think, is a reason why it cannot be accepted.
MR. JOHN BURNS: The hon. Baronet made a statement which I think ought to be corrected. He said that the private sidings to which he referred employed in the main dead-buffers that were not dangerous, and that in many respects they ought not to be put under the same
1626
conditions of inspection and examination as ordinary railway wagons. I may answer that by reading a sentence from the evidence of Mr. Constantine, the assistant manager of the Midland Railway—
"How many wagons are there?—Sir Ernest Paget says about 6,000. I think that is about it.
"If you had your way on the Midland you would put those wagons to death, would you? —Yes I would, without mercy.
"Without shrift?—Yes, for the sake of humanity, I would."
This Amendment, if carried, will exclude all dead-buffer wagons that are now worked on private sidings and at collieries. When we have the assistant manager of the Midland Railway saying he would put all those dead-buffer wagons to death in the interests of humanity, it is indeed a clinching argument why the Amendment should not be accepted.
COLONEL BLUNDELL: If the hon. Gentleman had read the evidence which follows that of Mr. Constantine—that of Mr. Harrison, the general manager of the London and North Western Railway—he would have found a very different opinion as to the danger of these dead-buffer wagons.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I prefer Con-stantine.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: I will not press the Amendment, as I find it is impossible to pass it. I have stated my case and have obtained no sympathy, but I think it is entirely due to the ignorance of the House of the conditions of the question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RENSHAW: I do not propose to move the first Amendment I have on the paper, but I do the second, which is to omit the words "to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade." My reason for doing so is this: The clause we are now discussing deals with three different matters in respect of which the Board of Trade are entitled to make rules. The Board of Trade are to have the power, in the first place, to make rules in regard to the scheduled subjects; in the second place, in regard to avoidable danger to persons employed on any railway arising from operations of railway service; and in the third place, in the sub-section we are

1627
now dealing with, in regard to the use or disuse of plant and appliances. It is an extremely important power the Board of Trade are taking upon their shoulders in this respect. It is a great departure from the position in which responsibility exists at the present moment— namely, upon the railway companies themselves, and I want to ask the House to consider whether the words I propose to omit are not likely seriously to embarrass those who have to discuss these matters before the Railway Commissioners in arriving at a definite conclusion as to what is or is not reasonable in regard to the rules proposed under this sub-section. Clause 3 gives reference in regard to objections to the Railway Commission. The second sub-section provides that the Commissioners should consider whether any objections so referred are reasonable or not, and if they determine the objection to be reasonable the rule against which the objection is urged should not be made. What I want to put before the House with regard to this point is that it is proposed with regard to plant and appliances not merely to put before the Railway Commissioners for their consideration the question of fact as to whether the plant or appliances are suitable or not, but as to whether or not the Board of Trade are satisfied that the plant or appliances ought to be used or disused. That is not a question of fact, but a question of whether or not the Board of Trade are satisfied. That is not a question which ought to be submitted to the Railway Commissioners, and I do not think their powers of dealing with the question of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a Rule ought to be limited in that direction. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the omission of the words, I would point out that the wish that I have to provide that the issue should be clearly placed before the Railway Commissioners would equally be met if he would agree to insert after the words "to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade" the words "or on appeal the Railway Commissioners." That would make it clear that if the Board of Trade had decided the matter as satisfactory, and the Railway Commissioners on appeal regarded the proposed rule as unsatisfactory, they would have full power to deal with the matter on the facts brought before them. I beg to move the omission of the words.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word ' shown,' to leave out the words, ' to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade.' "—(Mr. Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I understand the apprehension of the hon. Member to be that the only question would be whether the Board of Trade had been satisfied that the appliance was calculated to reduce danger, and that on appeal it might not be open to the Railway Commissioners to consider the question on its merits. I do not think that is the effect of the Bill as it stands. It is perfectly clear that on the appeal the Railway Commissioners would be entitled to go into the facts and decide whether the Board of Trade were properly satisfied on the point. But we have not the slightest objection, as some Members appear rather anxious on the point, to insert words making it perfectly clear that on appeal as to matters in the discretion of the Board of Trade, that discretion may be reviewed by the Railway Commissioners, and the words I propose for that purpose —not really by way of altering the Bill in any way, but to make the point quite clear—are these—
"On page 2, line 18, to insert 'including all objections relating to any matter within the discretion of the Board of Trade.' "
I think that would meet my hon. friend's view.
MR. RENSHAW: That quite meets the objection I have made, and I there-fore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I beg to move the Amendment I have just referred to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 18, after the word ' objection,' to insert the words "including objections relating to any matters within the discretion of the Board of Trade.'" — (Mr. Attorney General.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RENSHAW: The intention of the Amendment I now propose to move is to provide, in the first place, that

1629
single objectors should be entitled to ask to go before a referee and not before the Railway Commissioners if they so wished. As the clause stands at present, it would seem to imply that the power of appearing before the referee is limited to cases in which there is more than one objector. The second point is that in this matter the Board of Trade has to be satisfied that it is the general desire of the objectors. It seems to me it ought to be merely the consent of the objectors; possibly it ought to be the consent of the majority; but it ought not to be a question within the discretion of the Board of Trade, who themselves are to appoint the referee, as to whether it is the general desire or not. We might have cases whore one particular objector was affected in a different way from any other objector by a particular rule, and it might be a matter of urgent importance to him to have a special inquiry in regard to the particular way in which the particular rule affects him. It is for these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to alter this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Clause 6:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 4, to leave out from the word 'trade' to the word 'objectors' in line 5, and insert the words, " may, with the con-sent of the objector or."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. RITCHIE: My hon. friend's first objection is that there may be one single objector, and he thinks the words of the clause will not operate in that case. It is quite clear that my hon. friend is wrong, because if there is only one objector, and he desires to go before the special tribunal, it is plain that it is " the general desire of the objectors " if there be only one. If we were to accept this Amendment it might happen that there would be a dozen objectors who desired to go before this special tribunal, and there might be one objector to the same rule who could prevent those who desired so to do taking advantage of this tribunal. There might be one objector who might prevent the others taking advantage of this rule. I am sure that is not what my hon. friend desires, and I believe the
1630
general desire is that objections should be referred to a special inquiry.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I have put down two alternative amendments to provide that the Board of Trade should not be the judge where the objectors wish to go before a referee. In connection with the rest of the provisions in this clause, they enable the Board of Trade not only to satisfy itself whether a referee is preferable to an appeal to the arbitrators, but it allows the Board of Trade to decide the matter between itself and the litigant.
MR. RENSHAW: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words ' satisfied that it is the general desire,' and insert the words ' required so to do by a majority.' "—(Mr. Stuart- Wortley.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. RITCHIE: I do not see any particular objection to the words of my right hon. friend, but I think our own words are better. It might be taken that we were bound to make this reference, and it would be taken as an instruction to us to take the will of the more majority. I think it ought to be something more, and it ought to be a general desire.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I only wish for abstract justice, and the Board of Trade should not be allowed to form an opinion upon its own conduct. I should be willing to take the general desire of the objectors. I do not, however, desire to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I cannot see why the Board of Trade should be allowed, when it is one of the litigants, to appoint the arbitrators to decide between them. I cannot see what objection there can be to this Amendment, and I venture to suggest that it is only fair that the arbitrator should be appointed by some outside body.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 6, to leave out the words ' Board of Trade,' and insert the words ' Railway and Canal Commissioners ' instead thereof."—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)
Question proposed, "That the words ' Board of Trade ' stand part of the Bill."
MR. RITCHIE: My objection is that the Railway and Canal Commissioners have not come into the Bill, and they are not invested with any duty at this particular stage. So far as the appointment being made by the Board of Trade is concerned, I may point out that it can only be done by consent, and I have no doubt that it will be with the general consent of the parties that the referee will be appointed.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Then why not say so?
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, to leave out the words ' and thereupon,' and insert the words ' in the same manner as they may make a rule under this Act, and subject to the same provisions and."—[Mr. Ritchie.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. BANBURY: The Amendment which stands in my name raises a very important question of great interest to the general public, and more especially to that deserving class who have invested the savings of their life in railway debentures. This clause proposes that the Board of Trade may authorise a railway company to raise money in priority to existing debenture stock, and it may be said that there is already an Act which authorises this procedure. The fact remains that the majority of the people of this country have been under the impression that if they invested their money in debenture stock, returning about 2½ or 2¾ per cent. they were investing in an absolute security which was a first charge upon the funds of the railway, and which would not be affected unless the railway went into bankruptcy and into the hands of the Receiver. No doubt it will be said that there is a precedent for this clause. In the year 1889, when the Railway Regulations Acts were introduced, on the 6th
1632
of August the hon. Member then sitting for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin introduced a similar clause which was passed without any discussion. The House is pretty much in the same condition to-night as it was in 1889, and I hope hon. Members will seriously consider this proposal, which is a very serious departure from the usual practice, and an alteration of the security in the investments of the country. The trustees of widows and orphans who have been left a little money have put it into railway debenture stock, and if this principle is once admitted that their security may be altered according to the ideas of the Board of Trade or of certain railway directors, then a very serious injustice will be done to a very deserving class of people. I believe that one of the arguments against my proposal is that this provision in the Bill does not affect the large railway companies, but only the poor companies, and that if some such clause is not introduced the poor railway companies cannot be compelled to apply this provision. I venture to say that is a very fallacious argument. Take a small railway company called upon to carry out certain requirements. Suppose it is unable to raise the money in the ordinary way. As these requirements are compulsory, that company would have to go into the hands of the Receiver. Everybody who invests money in those railways knows that if the company is unable to carry out its obligations it must go into the hands of the Receiver. Therefore the Board of Trade would not in any way be affected, and the safety of the workmen would not be affected, but what would remain would be that the debenture is the first charge upon the railway, and the bargain made between the railway company and the investor would not be injured if my proposal is carried. I propose to allow the debentures to be raised reckoning after existing debenture stock. Up to the present time debenture stock has not been allowed to be established under the particular Act unless ordinary stock has been issued, and then I believe a second debenture stock has been authorised. I would point out that as the Bill is drawn some extraordinary results will follow, because under the Act of 1889 the money raised under that Act will be put as a prior charge upon any existing railway. The people who invested their money in

1633
1889 invested it under the impression that they had a prior charge upon every-thing. Now you are going to have another Bill with no such regulations, and providing for something which is to be a prior charge to this Act of 1889. You might have another Bill with another set of regulations and another prior charge upon this. It only shows that the clause in the Bill of 1889 was an unwise one, and did not carry out what it was designed to do. Therefore, I hope my right hon. friend will reconsider this clause, and will accept my Amendments. These Amendments are not moved in the interests of directors or of shareholders, hut simply in the interests of the public. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 31, to leave out the words ' in priority to or.' "—[Mr. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. RITCHIE: It is quite clear that if we pass this Bill it will probably entail, in certain contingencies, considerable expenditure upon railway companies, and we must provide some means of raising the money. In nine cases out of ten there will be no difficulty at all. Perhaps in the tenth case it may be necessary to issue debentures as provided for in this Bill to rank before the debentures which are now issued. I quite admit

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Colville, John

Gurdon Sir William Brampton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Curzon, Viscount

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

Dewar, Arthur

Hanbur, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hayne, Rt. Hon Charles Seale-

Barlow, John Emmott

Doogan, P. C.

Henderson, Alexander

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

Doughty George

Holland, William Henry

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alter

Horniman, Frederick John

Boscawen Arthur Griffith-

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bousfield, William Robert

Duckworth, James

Humphreys Owen, Arthur

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Faber, George Denison

John William (Carnarvonsh.)

Bryce Rt. Hon. James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Keswick, William

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fenwick, Charles

Lafone Alfred

Burns, John

Finch, George H.

Lawrence, Sir E. During-(Corn

Caldwell, James

Finalay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lloyd-George, David

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Flower, Ernest

Lough, Thomas

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lowles John

Cecil Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macartney W G Ellison

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc' r)

Graham, Henry Robert

Macdona, John Cumming

Cunning Francis Allston

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Killop James

Chaplin,Rt. Hon. Henry

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Maddison, Fred.

Carrigton, Spencer

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W F

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Milward, (Colonel Victor

that this is a principle which ought to be very carefully safeguarded and very rarely used, but it has been used once before in connection with the Act of 1889, and I am not aware that that has, in any degree, affected the debenture stock of any railway which has been empowered to raise these debentures. My hon. friend said that by the words of this Bill a priority would be given over the debentures of 1889. As the debentures were issued for a special purpose, I think we might so amend the words as to make the debentures raised under this Bill run pari passu with the debentures raised under the Act of 1889. If my hon. friend will accept that I am quite willing to make the alteration.
MR. BANBURY: The effect of the Amendment will be that the now debentures will rank equally with debentures which exist under the Act of 1889. I hope my right hon. friend will agree that that is a reasonable proposal.
MR. RITCHIE: If we were to leave out the words "in priority to, or" the effect would be that the railway companies which had issued debentures under the Act of 1889 would not be able to issue debentures taking priority over the existing debentures.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 35. (Division List No. 141.)

Monckton, Edward Philip

Rentoul, James Alexander

Willox, Sir John Archibald

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

Paulton, James Mellor

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Schwann, Charles E.

Wrightson, Thomas

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)

Souttar, Robinson

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Steadman, William Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Purvis, Robert

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Sir William Walrond and

Benshaw, Charles Bine

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Reckitt, Harold James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bill, Charles

Joicey, Sir James

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

Bond, Edward

Maclure, Sir John William

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Brassey, Albert

Morrell, George Herbert

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Brigg, John

Nicholson, William Graham

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Denny, Colonel

Penn, John

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Heath, James

Pretyman, Ernest George

Mr. Banbury and Sir Bar-

Helder, Augustus

Pym, C. Guy

rington Simeon.

Other Amendments made.
MR. RENSHAW: The Amendment which stands in my name is to omit Subsection 4. That sub-section provides that where the Board of Trade holds an inquiry under the Act in reference to an objection to a proposed rule, or when any objection is referred to a referee instead of to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, Section 3 of the Board of Trade (Arbitration, etc.) Act, 1874, shall apply. We argued this question in Committee, and I think my right hon. friend will agree that opinion was very evenly divided in regard to it. The Act of 1874 provides that, where an arbitrator is appointed by the Board of Trade as between two persons, the Board shall be entitled in the first place to ask for a deposit to cover the cost of the arbitration, and in the second place that the arbitrator shall decide as to the payment of costs by one or other of the parties concerned. In this case the Board of Trade will be one party to the arbitration, the objector to the rule being the other party, and what I wish to point out is that it is not right in the first place to allow the Board of Trade power to insist on a deposit, and in the second place to practically decide whether or not the objector is to be cast in costs. It seems to me that expenses ought to be borne out of money voted by Parliament. The sub-section would
1636
hamper the objector, and for that reason I beg to move its omission.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 13, to leave out Subsection (4), of Clause 14."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
Question proposed, " That the word ' where ' stand part of the Bill."
MR. RITCHIE: This was a matter of discussion in the Grand Committee, and I promised that when the Bill came before the House I would be prepared to consider the views of my hon. friend in connection with Sub-section 4, which deals with two classes of inquiries. One clause refers to cases where the parties objecting to a rule, instead of availing themselves of the tribunal under the Bill, the Railway and Canal Commissioners, desire to go before a referee. In that case I think it is perfectly right and fair that the parties should pay the cost of that arbitration, because we provide under the Bill for a tribunal free of cost. If the parties prefer, instead of going before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, to go before an arbiter appointed by the Board of Trade, in that case the provisions of the Act of 1884 would apply, and the parties would have to pay the costs. I do not think it is any hardship on the parties who desire a new and distinct tribunal which would cost money, that they should have to pay the cost of the reference. But

1637
when it comes to another question which was discussed—namely, the question of special inquiry with regard to the objections to a proposed rule, there we provide by the Amendment I have introduced that unless the arbiter or referee finds that the application for a special inquiry was really, obviously, and completely unfounded and unnecessary, the cost of that inquiry will be paid by the State. That, I think, is perfectly fair. In the ordinary course of things there would be no special inquiry. Therefore, in order to carry out the proposal I have made I wish to point out to the House that Sub-section 4 has been so amended that in cases where objections to a rule are referred to a referee instead of to the Railway and Canal Commissioners section 3 of the Board of Trade (Arbitrations) Act of 1884 will apply.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 20, at the end, to insert the words—' (5) Where the Board of Trade hold a special inquiry with reference to an objection to a proposed rule on the application of the objector, the person appointed to hold the inquiry may, if on the inquiry it appears to him that the circumstances were not such as to render a special inquiry necessary, order the objector to pay the whole or any part of the costs certified by the Board to have been incurred by them in holding the special inquiry, and any amount so ordered to be paid may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.' "—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked what was meant by the term " special inquiry."
MR. RITCHIE: I do not know that "special" is a particularly good word, but I think it is sufficient. It means that a special and individual inquiry should be held for a special purpose instead of going to the Board of Trade in the ordinary way. There is no particular virtue in the word "special," and if my hem. friend desires it I will leave it out.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: It may not be until the inquiry has been held that the discovery is made that perhaps it was not necessary to hold it. This is an appealable provision, and the costs ought not to be given against the applicants unless the application was frivolously and vexatiously made. I beg to propose an Amendment to meet that.
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment—
"In line 4, to leave out from the word ' the' to the word 'necessary,' both inclusive, and insert the words 'such application was frivolously or vexatiously made ' instead thereof." —(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
Question proposed, "That the words to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. RITCHIE: If an application were obviously frivolous or vexatious, the Board of Trade would not be justified in granting the application, but until the evidence has been gone into it would be impossible to say whether the application was justified or not. It is for the referee after hearing the evidence to say what he considers to be justified or not. The Treasury ought to be protected by some such words as those suggested, and I think the words of my hon. friend would give adequate protection.
Question put and agreed to.
Words inserted.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I think the Amendment which I now propose to move involves a principle that must be affirmed before this Bill is passed by the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told the House that he would be able perhaps in another place and in another way to put sidings which are now not under the Home Office or the Board of Trade under either of those two Departments, or probably divide them up and put them under each Department. That only relates to sidings. I wish that this Bill should not only deal with sidings, but with wagons, and all the other gear and appliances necessary for the safety of the railwaymen and the efficient working of the railways. I therefore think that can best be secured by striking out the word "public" so as to prevent for the purpose of safety any differentiation between an ordinary railway that carries passengers and goods, and colliery sidings, local lines, or something which in the broad sense cannot be interpreted as public. Why do I protest against the differentiation of treatment between what is known as a public railway and an industrial or manufacturing railway? There are, roughly, a million wagons owned in

1639
England by public and private interests, and of that number 550,000 are owned by 4,000 private owners. That means that more than half of the total wagons of this country can be considered as employed by private interests or private railways, as distinct from "public" mentioned in the Bill. We have it on the evidence of managers, goods guards, and other competent witnesses that many of the wagons and appliances and junctions and sidings are not within the Factory Act, and not under the Home Office or the Board of Trade, except where a railway servant happens to be killed. We also have it on the evidence that the curves are bad, the gradients are sharp, more so than in America, and that is certified by Mr. Foster Browne, one of the representatives of the Coalowners' Association. What is more important is that the bulk of these private lines and railways and sidings are worked at night-time, after the miners have got their coal, after the steel and iron workers have done their work. That means that at night-time the chances of accidents are increased through lack of light and so forth. That, to my mind, indicates that these railways should be specially brought within the purview of this Bill, and not excluded, as I believe they are by the insertion of the word " public." We have been told by the hon. Baronet that the dead-buffer wagons do not lend themselves to accidents, and are comparatively safe. I hold the very opposite view, and there is not a Member here who represents a railway constituency who has not received during three or four weeks representations from railway servants against the particular danger that dead-buffer wagons entail on the men engaged.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not quite see how this is relevant to the 15th Clause, which is merely a definition of the word "railway."
MR. JOHN BURNS: As denned by Clause 15 this Bill is to apply only to public traffic. What I want to point out-is that it is very difficult to determine when private traffic becomes public and when public traffic becomes private, because if you load up a train of coal at point A it is private until it gets to the junction with the main line at point B. My contention is that there ought to be
1640
no difference with regard to safety conditions whether it is a main line, a local line, or a line to a dock or colliery. It seems to me if "public" is left in we should find that the private lines will be thereby excluded, and the only way I can prevent that is by moving the elimination of the word "public."
MR. SPEAKER: I follow quite what the hon. Member says, and I did not say anything to the contrary; but the hon. Member was entering into a discussion about dead-buffer wagons, which is a different thing.
MR. JOHN BURNS: The dead-buffer wagons as a rule are employed on private lines, and they go from the private lines on to the public lines. If the word "public" remains in we shall have no control over the dead-buffer wagons on private lines until they got on the main railway. It is to avoid that that I want the word "public" eliminated. I have only one final word. The Home Office have been able to give us some Returns, and I find that 183 men were killed and 500 injured, according to one Return, and on another Return 38 men were killed and 8,830 injured, either in or about collieries, factories, or private sidings, or railways abutting thereon. The application of these figures to the hiatus lines is of course very difficult, through lack of data, but I believe the proportion of killed and injured thereon will be quite as large as for those lines to which these Returns apply. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has conducted this Bill with great tact and conciliation to nearly all the interests concerned, , having decided to got sidings introduced in the House of Lords, to complete the offer he has made by eliminating the word "public." The Bill will then be applicable to private sidings and colliery sidings; but if the word is insisted upon 700 miles of railway will be without the protection of this measure, and one of the most dangerous sections of railway traffic will still be open to injure and kill the railway servants engaged there on. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 22, to leave out the word ' public' "—(Mr. John Burns.)
Question put, "That the word 'public' stand part of the Bill,"
MR. RITCHIE: I earnestly hope the House will not accept this Amendment. I do not dispute the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman, but I desire to impress as strongly as I can this one consideration which I think is all-important. This Bill is the outcome of a Royal Commission, and we have endeavoured to carry out in this Bill the recommendations of that Royal Commission. There was no recommendation whatever that the Board of Trade should take over the management of all the sidings which are now under the control of the Home Office, and it has boon upon this footing and understanding the Bill has been prepared. I have endeavoured as far as I could to try and bring together conflicting interests so as to enable us to pass this very considerable measure. If we had attempted to deal not only with railways and railway servants, but also with sidings, and to take out of the hands of the Home Office the control over those sidings and to vest it in the Board of Trade, we should have raised up an amount of opposition which would have done a great deal to have defeated our efforts to pass this Bill. I would therefore appeal to the House, while recognising the force of many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, not to press upon the Government the acceptance of an Amendment which would absolutely alter the whole character of the Bill, and which, if we had originally acted upon, would have placed many obstacles in the way of our being able to pass so useful a measure.
MR. BRYCE: It does not appear to me that the Amendment proposed by my hon. friend would have the result the right hon. Gentleman contemplates. The hon. Gentleman does not propose to transfer the management of these sidings or private lines to the Board of Trade, but to make this Bill extend to all private lines and sidings in whomsoever the control may be vested. He says the word "public" will prevent these private lines or sidings coming within the compass of the Bill. He is right; that will be the effect of the insertion of the word "public," and therefore, if the word stands, the very pledge which the right hon. Gentleman has given to endeavour to secure in another place the insertion of words which will bring those lines under some kind of public control will be
1642
nullified. The Amendment is necessary to enable the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the very promise he has given us. What we desire is not that these lines should be under the control of the Board of Trade or of the Home Office; as far as I am concerned that is a matter of complete indifference; it is a matter of detail under which office they should be. What we want is that there should be some control, and that the beneficial provisions of this Bill should be applied so as to secure safety upon all kinds of lines. I therefore hope my hon. friend will endeavour to obtain the opinion of the House upon the Amendment.
MR. MADDISON: I am really utterly unable to understand the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on this Amendment. It will be within the recollection of the House that I raised this very point on the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment at the beginning of this debate, and there we made it perfectly plain that so far as dual inspection was concerned we did not wish it. We went further, and said that as to whether the Homo Office or the Board of Trade should be the Department we should not make that a vital point at all. But we said there was a class of line which came under neither the Home Office nor the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that. I think the discussion which took place upon the first Amendment should really have taken place upon this 15th Clause. If it had, and the right hon. Gentleman had made the same statement now as he made then, it would have been utterly impossible for him to have made the speech to which we have just listened. What is the situation? We were told that the right hon. Gentleman would try to meet the objection with regard to these hiatus lines in the House of Lords. What we wish is that the right hon. Gentleman should provide that remedy here by the simple omission of this word. The right hon. Gentleman has again proved his adherence to his doctrine of the infallibility of Royal Commissions. He is faithful to it to the end. But like all dogmas, it will not admit of general application; it has to be given up sometimes. In this case the right hon. Gentleman will have to revise his favourite doctrine, because the very concluding

1643
paragraphs in this Report are as follows—
"Our attention was directed to the fact that when servants of railway companies were killed or injured on colliery sidings or lines not belonging to the railway companies, there is no duty on the part of any person to report the fact to a Department of State."
That is the first thing we have to remedy. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed to that up to a certain point in the previous discussion—
"The colliery owners do not report because the men are not their servants, and the railway companies are under no obligation to report, because the accident has not happened on their railway. We think this anomaly should be removed by an obligation to report to the Board of Trade all accidents to railway servants incurred in the course of their duty on private lines or sidings by the railway companies whose servants they are, and that such accidents should he inquired into by the Board of Trade."
I quite admit that the right hon. Gentleman could say, if he wished to make a mere debating point, which I am sure he does not, that this really applies to accidents to railway employees who go on colliery sidings, but I would ask the House to mark this point. The Royal Commission say that there is an anomaly. That anomaly is, that an accident happening upon the line is inquired into, while in the case of an accident on a colliery siding there is no inquiry. I put it to the House as business men, and as persons desirous of really making this Bill effective, should we not follow the spirit, and even the letter, of this recommendation of the Royal Commission, which distinctly says that there is an anomaly, and that this anomaly should be removed? Now, you cannot remove this anomaly or get anything like uniformity in the protection of the lives of railway men unless you adopt such an Amendment as this. The hon. Baronet, who is largely interested in this sort of railway, said himself that he should raise no objection to every inch of his colliery lines, which extend some considerable distance, being brought within the four corners of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, unless he accepts this Amendment, is absolutely robbing this Bill of that completeness and uniformity in the protection of the lives of railway men, whether upon colliery sidings or ordinary railways, which the acceptance of this Amendment would
1644
bring about. I just want to say one word with respect to the practical effect of the deletion of this word. Some considerable discussion has taken place already as to the equipment of these lines which by the word "public" remaining in the clause are excluded from its operation. I am bound to admit that I am no great slave to statistics, for they can be made to show almost anything, although they have their value. I have in my hand a letter which comes from a goods guard on one of the great lines of this country, which is probably one of the greatest goods carrying lines in this kingdom. He has been for a quarter of a century a trusted employee of this company, and he holds a responsible position in a certain connection which I need not mention. I spoke to him about these solid - buffered wagons that are used on these lines almost exclusively. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no.] Surely the hon. and gallant Member will admit that of the total number of solid-buffered wagons in use an overwhelming majority of them are employed upon the lines to which we refer. If he does deny it, then I hope he will get up and make good his denial. But the House may take it that the question of solid-buffered wagons is a question of private wagon owners, and this is the kind of railway that will be excluded unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment. My friend the goods guard goes into detail to assure me that these wagons are the gravest source of mischief, of accidents, and of death, and, believe me, that the deletion of this word "public" is no mere drafting Amendment. It means the greater safety and a large saving of the lives and the limbs of men who are just as worthy of receiving the protection of this House as those who may be called technically railway men. I hope my hon. friend will press his motion to a division. I even yet venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. We are not trying to go outside the scope of the Bill, and we who have held strong view from the first upon this question have endeavoured to restrain ourselves. Having regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of this debate, and his assurance that he would rectify what he admits is a flaw in this Bill in reference to this hiatus which exists, and having regard to the

1645
whole intention of this Bill, which is not merely to save the life of the man who wears the company's uniform, but also to safeguard the man who works the railway traffic, what does it matter whether it is a colliery wagon, a dead-buffered wagon, or the splendidly equipped wagon of the London and South Western Railway with which a man meets his fate, probably by a mere slip? I think we are reasonable, and I am certain we are right, and I hope if we do not meet with an acceptance of this Amendment my hon. friend will take a division.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I rise to say a word with reference to a misconception. My right hon. friend said he would be very glad in another place to insert words for bringing under effective supervision portions of lines not belonging to public railways which, at the present time, escape the attention both of the Board of Trade and the Home Office. What is the proposal now before the House? It is by striking out the word "public" to bring under the superintendence of the Board of Trade all lines, whether now under the supervision of the Home Office or not, and whether they are used for public traffic or purely for private traffic That would bring under the supervision of the Board of Trade not merely those lines which escape supervision, but the whole system and the whole network of our railways. The greater part of these lines are now under the supervision of the Home Office, and with regard to the portion which escapes supervision my right hon. friend has said that means will be found to bring them under the supervision of the Home Office.
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: When my hon. friend the Member for Battersea moved this Amendment I think he was carrying out a principle which we all agreed would have the effect of saving life. We have had that principle in front of us in everything we have done in regard to this Bill. Therefore whether the inspection of the railway is in the hands of the Board of Trade or the Home Office makes very little difference to us in that respect. So far as I am personally concerned, my desire is that all the actual travelling railways should be under the same supervision as the public lines, and I cannot follow the line of argument adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General against this proposal.
MR. JACKSON: I should like to say a word or two in opposition to the statement of the hon. Member for the Bright side Division that dead buffers are used almost entirely on private lines. I think my hon. friend who has just sat down would be able to tell him that there is some confusion in his mind in the way he has spoken of private owners' wagons. Private owners' wagons does not moan that they are wagons which are run only on private lines. My hon. friend the Member for Battersea spoke of there being 500,000 dead-buffered wagons.
MR. JOHN BURNS: We had bettor not have any misunderstanding on this point. What I said was that out of 1,000,000 wagons on the railways some 550,000 wore owned by private owners. It is impossible for me to name the precise number of these wagons that have dead buffers as distinguished from those owned by the public railways, but they must form an enormous proportion.
MR. JACKSON: I am very glad that we have got that explanation, because I rather gathered that the number of accidents which the hon. Member for Battersea quoted were attributed to accidents on the private lines. A very large number of those dead-buffered wagons are laden with coal, and most of the private owners' wagons travel over the public railway. Therefore it will be seen that they are in no sense confined to the private lines. I think the hon. Member for the Brightside Division is a little hard upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in the quotation he made from the Royal Commission Report, which does not apply to the particular wade for which the hon. Member was arguing. The quotation which he made from the Report of the Royal Commission applies to accidents to railway servants. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade undertook at the beginning of this discussion to try and remedy this defect and to take care that these accidents are reported. That is a very different thing to what my hon. friend who has just sat down has boon contending for, and I think he must have been entirely under a misapprehension. What the Royal Commission said with regard to injuries to railway servants and to injuries on colliery sidings and lines belonging to the railway company was that a considerable number of accidents did

1647
occur, and that those accidents were never reported to the Home Office or to the Board of Trade, and they recommended that this difficulty should be removed by an obligation to report all accidents occurring on private railways or sidings owned by the railway companies. I think I have clearly stated what my right hon. friend undertook to do. In any case, I think it would be extremely unwise for him to alter the definitions. The Bill is framed in such a way that the provisions are applicable to railways, and if you alter the, definitions you upset the foundations of the Bill. I do not think that my right hon, friend would at this stage be justified in making such an alteration in the Bill.
MR. CHANNING: The Attorney General seems to indicate that some change will be made in another place which will bring those parts of private railways which are not now inspected at all under the purview of the Home Office, but he did not explain why that cannot be done during the progress of the Bill through this House. If the President of the Board of Trade contemplates taking the course which I ventured to suggest at an earlier stage— namely, to deal with the question of the Home Office connection with these railways by means of a Departmental Bill— that is intelligible, but I cannot understand the explanation of the Attorney General, that this is to be dealt with in another place in connection with this Bill. Why cannot we have this Amendment before us now, making it perfectly clear how these railways are to be dealt with? The Attorney General seems to use as an argument against the acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. friend that it would mean an overlapping of jurisdiction; but we have already accepted the second sub-section of the Clause of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, which expressly provides machinery for avoiding the difficulty of dual administration. Logically and scientifically these railways ought to be under the control of the Board of Trade, and I am bound to say I see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
MR. FENWICK: I certainly thought at an earlier stage, when we were discussing an Amendment of the right hon.
1648
Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the difficulty was not one of dual administration but of inspection. There are several cases in my own constituency where mineral traffic is carried over a public line for a distance of twenty-five or thirty miles, and is there diverted to a private line to the docks, where it has to be shunted and manipulated, and where it is most dangerous. The Board of Trade has power to make certain rules affecting traffic over the comparatively safe main lines, but when the traffic comes to the dangerous part the Board loses all control over it, and there is no inspection where shunting and other dangerous operations have to be carried on. If the President of the Board of Trade wishes to make the measure effective, he will accept the Amendment. It would be ridiculous, in my judgment, to pass a Bill giving power to the Board of Trade or any other Government Department to make rules for regulating traffic passing over main lines, and then when the traffic comes to the most dangerous part that all control of it should be lost. I certainly think the right hon. Gentleman would be acting wisely in accepting the Amendment.
MR. WRIGHTSON: I hope the Government will not give way on this question. I do not think the House quite understands that if this Amendment were accepted it would seriously interfere with works in this country. Of course where railway trucks are moving at a rapid speed over main lines it is proper that there should be protection, but it would be an immense tax on manufacturers if they had to put appliances on all the trucks used in their own works for moving materials about at | slow speeds from one workshop to another, and not going upon the main public line. I trust the Government will not give way in the matter. If the Amendment were accepted it would really reopen the whole controversy as regards this Bill.
MR. J. A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside): I feel strongly in favour of this Amendment. I admit that the owners of railway sidings will be put to some inconvenience if the regulations now asked for are carried out, but they are necessary in the interests of the workers. A great number of wagons which have been condemned by the railway com-

1649
panies are used in these sidings, and they imperil the lives and limbs of the workers. Again, I should like to point out with regard to these railway sidings that many of them are actually contributed to by the railway companies. The plans and levels are submitted to the railway companies for approval, and they are practically part and parcel of the railway system of this country. Because one railway happens to be owned by a company and another privately is no justification, in my opinion, for refusing this Amendment.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: It is perfectly true that there are extensive systems of lines running from the main railways, and it is equally true that on them a very large proportion of accidents take place. The Report of the Railway Commission states with reference to dead butters, which are principally used on these lines, that "it is desirable that a period should be fixed after which no dead buffer wagons should be allowed to be used on any railway. "The Commission recommended that dead-buffer

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Charles I. (Coventry)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Flower, Ernest

Nicholson, William Graham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Penn, John

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pilkington, R. (Lanes. Newt'n)

Banbury, Frederick George

Graham, Henry Robert

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bill, Charles

Hanbury, Rt. Hon Robert Wm.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Heath, James

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Bond, Edward

Helder, Augustus

Rentoul, James Alexander

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Henderson, Alexander

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Brassey, Albert

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

Joicey, Sir James

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby)

Keswick, William

Smith, Abel H.(Christchnrch)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lafone, Alfred

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r)

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

Charrington, Spencer

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)

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

Curzon, Viscount

Lowles, Jones

Wrightson, Thomas

Doughty, George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Maclure, Sir J. William

Faber, George Denison

M'Killop, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fellowes, Hon. Allwyn Edw.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Sir William Walrond and

Finch, George H.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Mr. Anstruther.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrell, George Herbert

NOES.

Barlow, John Emmott

Channing, Francis Allston

Fenwick, Charles

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Colville, John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dewar, Arthur

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Brigg, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Doogan, P. C.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Caldwell, James

Duckworth, James

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

wagons were so dangerous that they should be entirely done away with. I appeal to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider his decision on this matter. I venture to think that the Amendment is an extension in a perfectly safe direction, and that it would make the Bill more beneficial.
MR. COLVILLE: From the point of view of the many thousands of men engaged on sidings in large works, I think this Amendment is a very vital one. From many years experience I am convinced that many accidents take place on these sidings, even when wagons are not moved at any great speed. I sincerely hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to accept the Amendment; otherwise the advantage of the Bill to the workers will be considerably diminished.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 142.)

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Steadman, William (Charles

Hayne, Rt. Hn Charles Seale-

Paulton, lames Mellor

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Horniman, Frederick John

Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Purvis. Robert

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Reckitt, Harold lames

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Lloyd-George, David

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

TELLERS FOR; THE NOES —

Lough, Thomas

Schwann, Charles E.

Mr. John Burns and Mr.

Maddison, Fred.

Souttar, Robinson

Joseph A. Pease.

Another Amendment made.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 6, line 14, at the end, to add the words ' beyond the limits of stations or shunting sidings.' "—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment of my right hon. friend. Although I recognise as a general principle that the Amendment which my right hon. friend moves ought to be carried out under any rule adopted under this Bill, at the same time there are several large places or stations where there are shunting sidings divided for a. considerable distance by the public line—by the ordinary running line—and it would be clearly right that the provisions of the Bill should be applied to them, while, on the other hand, it would not be right that those provisions should be applied within ordinary station bounds or shunting places connected with the station. If the Board of Trade were to make any unreasonable rule with regard to this particular question they would certainly be overruled by the Railway Commissioners. I hope my right hon. friend will not press this Amendment.
MR. JACKSONwas sorry his right hon. friend had spoken so strongly about this, because it was distinctly recommended by the Royal Commission.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment made.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday, 18th June.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear (lays before
1652
the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Rill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.— (Mr. Hanbury.)

SUPPLY [25TH MAY].
Resolutions reported:—

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
CLASS II.
1. "That a sum, not, exceeding £10,480, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin and London, and of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums."
CLASS III.
2. "That a sum not exceeding £81,681 be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
Resolutions agreed to.
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of this instant May, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes before Three of the clock till Thursday, 14th June.

ERRATUM.
The following Question and Answer, on the 28th May, have been omitted in the text:—

CARDIFF BREWSTER SESSIONS.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Justices of the Peace for the county borough of Cardiff, held on the 11th August, 1899, for the purpose of electing the licensing committee for the then forthcoming brewster sessions, Mr. T. W. Lewis, the stipendiary magistrate, read section 60 of the Licensing.Act, 1872, and stated that he did so in accordance with his previous practice in order to remind the Justices of the existing law; and, whether, seeing that after that statement certain Justices for the said county borough interested in the sale of intoxicating liquors took part in the subsequent voting for the election of the licensing committee, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): I have made inquiry, and understand that a correspondence took place last autumn between the stipendiary magistrate and the Lord Chancellor on this subject. Under these circumstances I do not propose to take any action.