CLASS II.

HC Deb 13 June 1901 vol 95 cc331-75

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £132,328, be granted to His 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, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including a Grant-in-Aid."

*DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said he desired to move the reduction which stood in his name in order to stimulate the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided into a little greater activity in respect to the important matter of workmen's trains. This was a thrice told tale in the House, and his apology for repeating it must be the extreme urgency and importance of the matter. Under the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, it became incumbent upon railway companies to make suitable and adequate provision for supplying work- men's tickets at reasonable fares, and in consideration of that they were to receive the remission of the whole passenger duty on fares up to a penny a mile, and a substantial portion of the passenger duty at a lower rate. The Act made it obligatory that all companies should provide sufficient workmen's trains for working men going to and from their work at such fares and such times after six o'clock in the evening and before eight o'clock in the morning as appeared to be reasonable. He did not suggest that the Cheap Trains Act of 1883 had failed, because the contrary was the fact. He found that there arrived at the London termini of the various railway companies in the year before the passing of the Cheap Trains Act about 8,000,000 working people using workmen's tickets. In the year 1896 that total had increased to 31,000,000. Therefore the Act has been a substantial boon to the working classes. There had, however, been no uniformity in the practice of the great railway companies in issuing workmen's tickets. The Great Eastern Railway Company in the year 1882 issued 2,500,000 workmen's tickets or their equivalent. In 1896 that total had increased by 100 per cent., for in that year they issued no less than 5,000,000 workmen's tickets. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, about which the House heard something on Tuesday last, issued 1,200,000 workmen's tickets in 1882, but in 1896 that total had only increased to 1,700,000. The companies themselves appeared to have made a very good thing out of the Cheap Trains Act. He gathered from The Times report of 28th January, 1891, that the then chairman of the Great Eastern Railway Company frankly admitted that the workmen's trains were a source of considerable profit to the company if they could run them at all full. He said that if they could carry 500 workmen in a train they could do very well by the process, and in consideration of these cheap tickets they also got a remission of the passenger duty. Since the year 1883 that remission of passenger duty had meant to the railway companies a new income of not less than £10,000,000, and so far as the railways which had their termini in London were concerned they had actually received £8,000,000 in remission of passenger duty.

He had two complaints to make upon this Vote, and he would confine himself absolutely to this question of cheap trains. His first complaint was that the Board of Trade was not active enough in keeping the companies up to the mark in their supply of cheap trains, and the Royal Commission upon the Housing of the Working Classes which sat in 1885 was strongly of that opinion. They urged that the Board of Trade should take the initiative, and not wait for complaints. That was two years after the passing of the Act, and a great many things had happened since. He thought hon. Members would agree with him that the housing question was very closely connected with the subject of cheap trains in great industrial centres like London. At the present time, eighteen years after the passing of the Cheap Trains Act, the Midland Railway Company only gave the people five workmen's trains per day, the London and North Western eleven, and the Great Northern eleven; but the Great Eastern provided no fewer than 104 workmen's trains. The immediate result of this differentiation of policy on the part of the Great Eastern Company was to create a new overcrowding problem in the districts on its lines. The eleven workmen's trains per day given by the London and North Western and the Great Northern Railway Companies, when contrasted with the 104 trains per day given by the Great Eastern Company, did not suggest to him that the Board of Trade was doing all that it ought to do to stimulate railway companies to carry out their obligations. The Royal Commission to which he had alluded found that it was the duty of the Board of Trade to see that the fullest benefits were secured to the working classes under the Cheap Trains Act.

Another important feature of this question was the fares which were exacted from the working classes, more particularly in London. For a return journey of 10¾ miles each way, the Great Eastern Company charged a fare of 2d. the North London Company 2d. for a return journey of eight miles, and the Metropolitan and Central Electric Railway seven miles each way for 2d. But the London and North Western, the Midland, the Great Northern, the London and South Western, and the Great. Western charged workmen from two to four times the fares levied by the other companies. He would give them a specific instance. A man could travel 10¾ miles out from London on the Great. Eastern Railway and it would cost him 1s. per week, or 2d. per day. If that man wanted to go the same distance on the London and South Western Railway it would cost him 4s. per week for the same journey. That difference meant a great, deal to a man earning a small wage. Another point was with regard to the time of running workmen's trains. The Board of Trade should be more active in causing the railway companies to carry out their obligations. He knew the difficulties on account of the smallness of the number of London termini. The Great Eastern Company had done much to meet their obligations, but if the Board of Trade would put pressure on the other companies relief would be given. Surely the Midland could do more than run five or ten, and surely the others could do more than run eleven trains per day. In the case of the Midland Company the latest workmen's train to arrive at their terminus was twelve minutes past seven in the morning. There were many young men and young women engaged in business places in the city who did not want to be at their places of employment until half-past eight or nine o'clock. Why should they be compelled to get to London at 7.12, to hang about for a couple of hours? At Liverpool Street' Station of the Great Eastern Railway they were obliged to come by trains arriving an hour or two before it was necessary to reach their places of employment. The churches of All Hallows, London Wall, and St. Katherine Coleman, Fenchurch Street, were thrown open from 6.30 until 8.30 a.m. to provide warmth and shelter for these young people. All honour to the clergy of those churches for what they did. Meanwhile the present Cheap Trains Act was eighteen years old. Since then the hours and other conditions of many employments had altered, more young women and girls went out to work than formerly, and a new Act was wanted. In any event, he suggested that there should be an inquiry by a Committee of Members of both sides of the House as to how far it might be practicable and expedient to do more in the administration of the Cheap Trains Act of 1883 to meet the wants of the working classes. Let them have cheap trains which would bring them to their work at a reasonable hour instead of their being landed in London an hour or two before it was necessary and having to wait about railway stations on cold winter mornings before they could begin work. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the President of the Board of Trade."—(Dr. Macnamara.)

CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

supported the hon. Member for North Camberwell in the appeal he had made to the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman could solve this problem with the greatest ease by adopting a Bill which he himself had before the House. A society had, in the interests of the workpeople, attempted to bring pressure to bear on the railway companies to provide more suitable cheap trains. But the railway companies had the right of appeal to the Railway Commission. The procedure of that Commission was most expensive, and this fact had debarred the society from taking one course which might be open to them. The railway companies complained of the difficulty of distinguishing those who were working people from those who were not. In Belgium, on the State railways, workingmen could travel to and fro for distances up to twenty-five miles for 1s. 8d. per week. This privilege was open to all who were engaged in manual labour and under the orders of others. That was a proviso which the railway companies might be prepared to accept in making a certain diminution of their fares. It would be said that in Belgium the majority of the railways were State railways, but he found that the private railways gave practically the same concessions. The light railways and the tramways also gave facilities at certain hours. In France the difficulty as to who were workingmen and who were not had been overcome by limiting the reduced fares to persons who came under a certain taxation of, say, 2,000 fr., or £80 per year. Owing to an Act passed in 1883 certain remissions of Government taxation were given to the railway companies. During the past twenty years taxation had been remitted to the amount of £10,000,000, and in return for this the railway companies were to provide a certain number of trains up to 8 a.m. daily for carrying the working-classes. A large number of those powerful companies had failed to carry out their portion of the contract. There would be no difficulty, even without further legislation, in getting something done if the President of the Board of Trade would place a certain amount of pressure on the railway companies to do what was being done in other countries. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring pressure to bear on the companies he could, under the powers of the Act of 1883, do much to solve the great problem of housing in London. He had no desire to press unduly or unfairly on the railway companies. They were entitled to as much consideration as the public whom they conveyed; but his contention was that, while the public had held to their part of the bargain, the companies had not held to theirs.

MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)

supported the claim put forward by the hon. Members for West Newington and North Camberwell for more travelling facilities for workpeople, and reminded the President of the Board of Trade that in all our larger towns there was the same difficulty as was found in London. People crowded to the large factories. In the northern counties there were outlying villages now almost deserted in which formerly work was carried on by hand; and it would be a great advantage to them if workpeople could travel night and morning a few miles to and from their work on such a system as that by which, in Belgium, weekly tickets for an eight-miles journey were issued for a franc. There were also special facilities given in Belgium to working-men who used bicycles. He thought that in some parts of the country a formal inquiry should be held in order to ascertain the facilities that should be given.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

said he was probably the only Member now in the House who was on the Royal Commission which had been referred to. The Commission attached very great importance to its recommendations, as calculated to solve the great and growing problem of overcrowding in towns. Many people who at present used the trains provided for the working class came to London at seven o'clock in the morning, though their work did not commence till half-past eight or nine. The spectacle of these young men and women hanging about for hours was one to be deplored. To take the people a few miles out of town by cheap and convenient trains was the means of solving the overcrowding problem. The Great Eastern Company had almost reached the limit of accommodation, and that company had much difficulty to contend with in the access to its London terminus. Other companies must take their share of the burden, and he felt sure the President of the Board of Trade would give a sympathetic reply to this appeal. He felt certain that they were going to have a sympathetic reply, if not a pledge from the President of the Board of Trade that he would stir up his Department and see whether something more could not be done to meet those complaints. He knew that the Royal Commission depended largely upon the increased activity of the Board of Trade to assist them out of the difficulty. Might he make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should consider seriously the question of the purchase of the railways surrounding this great metropolis for the purpose of the transport of workmen from their employment to healthy homes. He knew that there were railway systems that could be attached without any great risk, and that the Government would be putting their hands on almost the only means of settling the housing problem. There was another point to which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention during the autumn. Why did not the inspectors under the Weights and Measures Acts enter breweries for the purpose of ascertaining the accuracy of the weights and measures of the goods sent out to their customers, in the same way as they entered the shop of every little village dealer? He had raised this question both in the House and the country before, and had never been able clearly to ascertain whether the inspectors were legally entitled to enter breweries. He believed in some parts of the country it was done, in great doubt and under considerable difficulty, but in other parts of the country it was not done.

*MR. DAVID MORGAN (Essex, Walthamstow)

said he wished to join with the hon. Member for West Newington and the hon. Member for North Camberwell in their appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to grant an inquiry as to whether or not the railway companies were doing all that was required of them in the matter of cheap trains. A great deal had been said regarding the Great Eastern Railway, and as one who had lived on the Great Eastern Railway all his life, and had held a season ticket for forty years, he might be allowed to speak as to what that railway had done. They had done, it was true, an enormous deal, but still an enormous deal remained to be done, knowing as he did what took place in the early hours of the morning at Walthamstow. He believed that the Great Eastern Railway would do more if they could, but he thought he was right in saying that they could not run any more trains between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. than they did at present. Something had been said in the debate about working girls and women congregating in very large numbers at Liverpool Street station at an early hour, because they had to travel before 8 o'clock in order to have the advantage of a cheap ticket, whereas their work oftentimes did not commence before 9.30 or 10.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—

*MR. DAVID MORGAN (continuing)

said that the question of working girls and women, in the position to which he had referred, was one which certainly demanded the attention of the Board of Trade, although the directors of the company had opened all their waiting rooms except one for their accommodation. He had asked the company for certain facilities for working women and girls. He had asked that cheap tickets should be issued to them after eight o'clock, but he was met with the reply that such special facilities could not be given to women and girls over and above men. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state if that were the case. If such special facilities could be given it would relieve working women and girls from a great deal of trouble and difficulty. It might be all very well in the summer, but he asked the Committee to consider what it meant in the depth of winter, when girls had to wait at Liverpool Street Station from perhaps 7.30 to 9.30. If the Board of Trade would grant an inquiry as to the extent to which the railway companies had met their obligations regarding cheap trains, he was sure that good would result. There was also another class which deserved consideration. He referred to lawyers' clerks, and others, in receipt of small salaries, who had to keep up a different appearance from that of the ordinary working man, although they often received less wages than a skilled artisan. Their case was excessively hard. He was quite sure that if the Board of Trade would only grant an inquiry, something might be done to help the working women and children, and also the other class to which he had referred, and that a great boon would be conferred on a very humble but very deserving class of workers.

MR. WILLIAM ALLAN (Gateshead)

said that while agreeing with his hon. friends in their demand for better railway facilities he desired to direct the attention of the Committee to one matter which had not yet been mentioned. The Board of Trade was the most important Department in the Government of the country. All the knowledge of the trade of the world was practically centred in it. He called attention to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade was the lowest paid head of any Department of the Government. The main point to which he wished to call attention was the salary of the senior Director of Railways, which was put down at £1,400 per annum, but there was a footnote with regard to that item, from which he noted that this gentleman, in addition, received £450 a year for retired Army pay.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The reduction has been moved on the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to that.

MR. WILLIAM ALLAN

said he was under the impression he was dealing with Vote A, but having regard to the remarks of the Chairman, he would not proceed with his remarks in that direction, but deal with that matter later on In conclusion, he would only say that, in his opinion, the miserable pittance which the President of the Board of Trade received was not sufficient, and if he had been in order he would have been inclined to move an increase, but, unfortunately, he was not.

MR. HALSEY (Hertfordshire, Watford)

said that he could not but agree as to the desirability of promoting in every possible way cheaper trains for the benefit of the working classes, and further legislation, as had been suggested, might be necessary. He thought the mover of the reduction had been a little hard on the President of the Board of Trade, and he testified to the assistance he had received, not only from that gentleman, but also from his predecessor, when he was engaged in obtaining cheaper trains for working classes in his constituency. He had met with every consideration. No impediment was put in his way, and the success with which his efforts had been met was entirely due to the assistance he had received from the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor. The hon. Member for West Newington was perfectly right when he said the real difficulty was the appeal to the Railway Commissioners. He thought it was right that there should be an impartial tribunal, but he thought the cost of that appeal should be somewhat cheapened. The parties who went before the Railway Commissioners were not equally matched. On the one hand, there was a rich railway company, and on the other a party of workmen with little money to spare. The hon. Member for West Newington quoted the practice in Belgium, but he did not think it would be wise to adopt any such definition of workpeople in this country, as it would cut out from all benefit those most deserving women and girls who were employed at restaurants.

CAPTAIN NORTON

said he only pointed out that if any difficulty arose it could he dealt with in the same manner as in France, where the rate of wages was the basis.

MR. HALSEY

said he was glad to hear the explanation of the hon Member, as it would save much misapprehension. It had been said that the congestion on the Great Eastern Railway would be met if the other railways were to increase their workmen's trains, but one must be just, and people could hardly expect railway companies to issue cheap tickets to desolate places in the country in the hopes of a workmen's colony growing up there; but when such a demand arose, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to get that demand granted.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central)

I have no reason to complain of the tone which the debate has taken on this occasion. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead, not that my salary should be reduced by £100, but that it was a miserable pittance. My hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury is not present. I wish he had been, and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the hon. Member for Gateshead made those generous remarks. He will, perhaps, take some opportunity, public or private, of pressing his views upon those gentlemen, who have the power to increase my salary, as I must admit it is not a subject which I could argue in my own favour at the present time. I now turn to the question of cheap trains. The hon. Member for North Camberwell has made two more or less definite suggestions. He proposes that the Board of Trade shall take the initiative of in- quiring whether there is or not on any given railway sufficient accommodation.

Dr. MACNAMARA

That is not my proposal. That is a recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1885, which I merely reiterated to-night.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Well, I do not think it would be a convenient procedure, nor the procedure contemplated by the Act. The wording of the Act clearly shows that it was never contemplated that the Board of Trade should, independently of any suggestions from outside, inquire into the accommodation provided. Nor would such procedure be desirable. What has happened ever since the Cheap Trains Act came into force is that representations have been made either by persons immediately interested or by bodies of persons representing such people. Those representations have been taken into full consideration by the Board of Trade, and I can assure the hon. Member if any definite representations are made to us from any quarter we shall be only too happy to thoroughly investigate the facts and if necessary make representations to the railway company. The hon. Member for Watford has spoken of a particular case with which he was intimately connected. Representations were made to the Board of Trade, which investigated them and then negotiated with the railway company and succeeded in obtaining a substantial concession. It is by far the most convenient procedure, that before the Board of Trade makes any inquiries it should be set in motion.

The second point which the hon. Member for North Camberwell pressed upon me was the desirability of making the fares and accommodation on different railways more uniform than they are at present. I think the remark made by the hon. Member for Watford, that railway companies could not be expected to run trains for the purpose, not of serving but of creating a traffic, answers that point. Every case must be treated on its merits, and as conditions differ, so they require different consideration. In some districts there are large colonies of workmen, and a large traffic can be made to pay at very low rates. Reference has been made to the Great Eastern Railway, and the idea seems to be that the very low fares charged by that railway should be charged by other companies; but I may say that the low fares on the Great Eastern Railway are the result of a Parliamentary bargain made upon a private Bill, and it would not be fair to the other companies to suggest that the fares on the Great Eastern Railway should be made the standard by which their fares should be measured. It is inevitable that in a discussion of this sort arguments should be used pointing not so much to the administration of the Act by the Board of Trade as to questions of policy, and the desirability of introducing fresh legislation; but I venture to think that it is neither right nor convenient to enter into such matters upon this Vote. The point in my mind is this, that while railways can and, I think, do contribute considerably to the solution of the problem of the housing of the working classes, the solution of that problem is not so much a system of cheap train fares as cheap tramways, and until we see how far that problem is dealt with in other directions it would be undesirable to enter further into legislation for the extension of the Cheap Trains Act which the hon. Member proposes. That Act has worked admirably for the object desired, and I think that the hon. Member will find that if certain facilities have not been given, it is because they have not been asked for. The Railway Commission is undoubtedly an expensive tribunal, and where a grievance as to a particular company has been brought to the attention of the Board of Trade, it has frequently settled it in a cheaper manner. At the same time, I think we could not leave the railway companies altogether without the right of appeal. I have now dealt with most of the points raised in discussion. The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to the case of women and girls. I did not quite follow what his suggestion was.

*MR. DAVID MORGAN

said that his point was that he understood, when he pressed the Great Eastern Railway to give better facilities for women and girls employed in London, that they could not do so, as it would be against the law.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

It is not for me to give an opinion, but I am ready to consider that point if the hon. Gentleman will put his views fully before me. Another suggestion has been made that the time of these cheap trains shall be extended to nine o'clock and ten o'clock The first reply to be made to that is that it would require legislation, but the hon. Member who makes a suggestion of that kind hardly sufficiently remembers, perhaps, that the working classes are not the only classes for whose benefit railways exist. And if the time were extended, I do not think the companies would be able to cope with the traffic. To come back to what I have already said, I do not think that a full and final solution of the problem of the housing of the working classes can be expected from the railway companies.

CAPTAIN NORTON

pointed out that the granting of preferential rates to women and girls, or special facilities as to time, would not be contrary to the law in any way.

MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)

said he desired to call attention to the lack of communication between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty when inquiries took place with regard to wrecks, in consequence of which considerable amounts of public money were wasted in inquiries which served little or no purpose. When one desired to ascertain the truth with regard to a wreck, one was referred from the Board of Trade to the Admiralty and back again in a most bewildering manner. In the case of a particular wreck off the coast of Devon four lives were lost. It was plain from the appearance of one of the bodies when found that the unfortunate man had made a desperate attempt to climb the cliffs and had died of exhaustion; he was found fifty yards above high-water-mark, he was still warm, and blood was oozing from his wounds. Another fine young seaman had actually climbed the cliff, and had died also from exhaustion on land; one was found below high-water-mark and one just above high-water-mark. The first question that arose on those facts was, Did the coastguards do their duty, and was the number on that part of the coast adequate? Inquests were held on the bodies, and the jury expressed a hope that an inquiry would be held in the matter in order to ascertain whether the coastguard service on that part of the coast was adequate. He put a question to the President of the Board of Trade on the subject on the 15th of February, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that he would put the matter before the Admiralty. Thereupon he put a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty, and elicited the reply that, when the report of the inquiry had been received, the matter would be inquired into. But when the inquiry was held, this question was excluded from the scope of the inquiry. If matters were allowed to remain as they were the consequences would be most serious. It had been said that these lives might have been saved had assistance been at hand. He had been told that the coastguard kept good watch, but not one of the bodies was found by the coastguard, nor did they observe any signals of distress, and it was admitted that no patrol was kept along this dangerous coast during the night. That would seem to show that the adequacy of the coastguard on that coast was a doubtful question. He hoped something would be done before the winter set in, otherwise many lives would be lost. The Elder Brethren of Trinity House were also involved in this matter, on the subject of the bar buoy. He had been told that that matter should be considered when the Report of the inquiry was received, but that matter had been also excluded from the inquiry.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

called attention to the question of manning in the merchant service. He said deliberately that owing to the bad arrangements of the Board of Trade numbers of valuable lives were from time to time lost at sea through ships being allowed to leave this country on long voyages without properly qualified sailors on board. At present the Board of Trade had the power of inquiring, before they were shipped, whether the men were qualified to be rated as able seamen, but they apparently had not the power of preventing the ships being manned by men who were not able to prove that they were able seamen. That was ah outrageous state of affairs. A man was not allowed to drive an engine or a 'bus or a cab unless he satisfied the authorities that he was qualified to do so In every walk of life, save this one, men had to prove their qualifications; but merchant ships and sometimes emigrant ships were allowed to leave British and Irish ports without a single member of the crew being properly qualified. That was an alarming state of affairs, to which every Member of this House, whether English, Scotch, Welsh, or Irish, ought to have his attention directed. The single example of the "Primrose Hill" would prove his case. The "Primrose Hill," a large ship of over 2,000 tons register, sailed from Liverpool for Vancouver. She was wrecked off Anglesey, and out of a crew of thirty-four thirty-three were drowned. Naturally there, was an exhaustive Board of Trade inquiry, in which the following was one of the conclusions arrived at— The court has found that the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequately manned. The court, before arriving at this conclusion, carefully considered the matter, but bearing in mind that on the present occasion she carried five apprentices and one ordinary seaman who had never been to sea before, that the other ordinary seaman had only been three voyages in a steamer, and that four of the remaining apprentices had not served more than fourteen months at sea— and so on; and it also stated that there was only one certificated officer besides the captain. But the most important part of the whole inquiry, and the conclusion upon which he based his contention that the Board of Trade ought to take fresh powers in order to secure that properly qualified men went to sea, was the following— It should further be noted that none of the A.B.'s had proved their claim to be so rated on account of service. The court were informed, moreover, that this was a very frequent circumstance. That was not a state of things which should be permitted to continue. He did not ask that every man on a ship should be able to prove that he had been long years at sea, but could not some inquiry be made with a view to the Board of Trade taking power to secure in some way that at least a proportion of the men who staffed a ship for a long voyage should be properly qualified sea men? Until that was done vessels would be wrecked and property and lives lost, simply because the Board of Trade did not exercise a power which ought to be one of its very first functions. The Report in the "Primrose Hill" case further stated— Having regard to the number and qualifications of the crew, the court is of opinion that the crew of the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequate for the purposes of her safe navigation. Thirty-three lives were lost, and that was the opinion of the court. Surely that was an appalling Report. The Merchant Service Guild of Liverpool, representing 6,000 or 7,000 merchant captains and merchant officers, had written to the Board of Trade asking whether, as a result of this Report, the Board of Trade would make some fresh inquiries for the purpose of arriving at some rule or regulation whereby it should be insisted upon that properly qualified men should be sent to sea upon merchant ships. That association, no doubt through no fault of the President of the Board of Trade, was treated with very scant courtesy by the Department, being simply informed that the Board did not propose to make the Report the basis of further instructions to their officers with reference to the manning of vessels. That was rather an unsatisfactory reply for a public Department to send to the representatives of a great mercantile association such as this. In view of the appalling state of affairs, the President of the Board of, Trade might at least have held out some hope that, if not by a Committee, by some departmental inquiry, it should be seen whether arrangements might not be made whereby officers of the Board of Trade, besides asking the men to produce their certificates of service and the proof of their qualifications to be rated as A.B., should have the power to say before a ship sailed, "No, we will not allow that ship, with valuable lives and valuable property on board, to sail from the ports of this country until we are satisfied that at least a certain proportion of the crew are thoroughly and satisfactorily qualified seamen, well able to take charge of the vessel." That was the demand put forward by the Merchant Service Guild of Liverpool, because, beyond yea or nay, it was proved up to the hilt that the "Primrose Hill" was lost, and, with one exception, the whole of the crew drowned, simply because the men were not qualified seamen.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

was understood to dissent.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said the Report stated in so many words that the loss of the ship was due largely to the fact that she was not manned by qualified sailors.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Might I just read a paragraph out of the Report which shows that the hon. Member is not quite accurate? It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member has said, that the court considered that the manning of the ship was not adequate, but they went on expressly to say— There is, however, no evidence to satisfy the court that the loss of the vessel was due to such inadequacy.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

was quite aware of that paragraph in the Report, but he contended that, when the court decided that the crew were inadequate, that not one single man of the A.B.'s was a qualified able seaman, that there was only one officer on board besides the captain with a certificate, that some of those on board had never been to sea before, and the ship was lost, it could not be denied that it was a very fair conclusion that the disaster occurred in consequence. The words of the Report were— In answer to the questions, the court has found that the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequately manned…. It should further be noted that none of the A.B.'s had proved their claim to be so rated on account of service. That proved perfectly clearly that the ship was not properly manned. This was not an isolated case, for the court was informed that there were other cases in which men were allowed to navigate vessels and take charge of life and property without being able seamen. Another point was the fact that there was only one other officer beside the captain on this vessel who had a certificate. That was a disgraceful state of affairs. It was disgraceful that a ship of that magnitude, going on a long voyage, should be allowed to leave port without at least three certificated officers on board. If a vessel had only two officers with certificates on board, and the captain or the mate fell sick, one man had day and night to conduct the whole navigation of the ship. It was impossible for him to do it. There certainly ought to be at least three men with certificates on every vessel of this tonnage. It was quite true that a man might sign articles to go on board and not be able to prove at the moment that he was a qualified A.B., but who still had the qualification. There might be such cases, but his argument was that there were a large number of cases the other way—of men who were unable under any circumstances to prove that they were qualified A.B.'s, but who were allowed to go on, with the result that lives were lost, ships wrecked, and property destroyed, as in the case of the "Primrose Hill." Many of these men were long-shore loafers; many were absolutely unfit, and, if the captain knew anything about them, would not be allowed to set foot on the vessel at all. Such men should not be allowed to be smuggled on board to the detriment of properly qualified seamen, many of whom were looking for, but were unable to obtain, employment. He therefore asked the President of the Board of Trade to see if it were not possible for the officials of the Board of Trade to make arrangements by which it should be ensured that every ship leaving this country had at least a fair proportion of qualified men in the crew—men who had proved their qualification. He did not believe there was a single Member of the House who would deny that that was a reasonable and fair demand, and one which ought to receive at least the attention and consideration of the Board of Trade. It was not necessary to go a single step beyond the "Primrose Hill," in regard to which it was found that not a single man of the crew was a proved or qualified seaman.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I do not think that is quite correct. There were 32 A.B.'s shipped as such, but with N.P. marked against their names. It does not follow from that that they were not qualified seamen. ["Oh, oh," and a laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but they really do not know what the facts are. In order to prove that an A.B. seaman is entitled to the rating A.B., he has to show that he has served for four years. He cannot do that unless he has all his discharges for that period. As a matter of fact a large number of A.B.'s do not preserve their discharges. In this particular case it was really proved that one man's service exceeded nine years.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

admitted that probably there were a few such cases on the "Primrose Hill," and he had already referred to the point. But, on the other hand, there was a tremendous number of cases of men who undoubtedly were shipped and who under any circumstances would not be in a position to prove that they were able seamen. They were allowed to take charge of these vessels, and the result was disaster. This question was somewhat akin to the great question raised years ago by the late Mr. Plimsoll. It was a question referring to the safety of British ships, to the safety of property, and to the safety of life, and he appealed to Members of every shade of opinion to forget for the moment that he was one of the much abused Irish Members, and to consider that in this matter at least he was voicing the strong opinion of large masses of English and Scotch, as well as Irish people, and that his object was not to disrupt the British Empire, but to try and save the lives of unfortunate men who were allowed to go to sea and take charge of ships when they were not properly qualified for the duty. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had said that if the Board of Trade put the letters "N.P." after a man's name it did not prove that he was not a properly qualified sailor. That was true. But was it not a perfectly absurd arrangement? The Board of Trade solemnly sent an official down to inquire whether a man was a properly qualified seaman. If the man cannot produce his discharge to prove his service, the agent simply puts "N.P."—not proven—after his name, and allows him to walk on board ship, to become one of the crew, just as if he had proved himself to be an A. B. Where was the sense of that? Besides asking for a man's qualifications, and having the power to put N.P. after his name, the Board of Trade should take to itself power to make such rules and regulations as should prevent a ship leaving port without a certain number of men on board who practically had proved that they were properly qualified to look after the navigation of the vessel.

*COLONEL ROPNER (Stockton)

as a shipowner of many years standing, and President of the Chamber of Shipping, was surprised to hear the hon. Member say that a number of valuable lives were being lost in consequence of the Board of Trade not having sufficient power to see that vessels did not proceed to sea undermanned. This question of manning had occupied the attention of shipowners and the Board of Trade for a good many years. In the year 1894 there was appointed by the Board of Trade a Committee to inquire into the question, and the conclusions of that Committee, arrived at after a long inquiry, resulted in the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1897. Under that Act the Board of Trade had all the powers necessary to stop undermanned ships as unseaworthy. Consequently, he for one could not see what further power the hon. Gentleman wished to confer upon the Board of Trade. Every right thinking man would agree that all should be done to secure the safety of our sailors, but he claimed that, at any rate, in the direction of manning ships, everything had been done, and that nothing more could possibly be done under the circumstances. As to the accident to the "Primrose Hill," at the Board of Trade inquiry there was no proof adduced that the vessel was lost because she had not able seamen on board, or, for that matter, because she was not sufficiently and properly manned. No such allegation was made he believed; at any rate, the Court of Inquiry did not find that that was the case.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the "Primrose Hill" inquiry?

*COLONEL ROPNER

I do, yes.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

thought he had better read two or three lines in the Report— In answer to that question the court has found that the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequately manned. The court, before arriving at this conclusion, carefully considered the matter, bearing in mind that on the present occasion she carried five apprentices and one ordinary seaman who had never been to sea before; another ordinary seaman had only been three voyages on a steamer, four of the remaining apprentices had not served more than fourteen months at sea, and there was no certificated second officer; and it should further be noted that none of the A.B.'s had proved their claim to be so rated on account of service. It further stated— Having regard to the number and the qualification of the crew, the court is of opinion that the crew of the 'Primrose Hill' was not adequate for the purpose of her safe navigation, either on a winter voyage or the voyage in question having regard to the weather encountered. There is, however, no evidence to satisfy the court that the loss of the vessel was due to such inadequacy. But when a vessel manned and described in that way got wrecked and the crew drowned, surely there was some evidence in that.

*COLONEL ROPNER

said the hon. Gentleman confirmed what he had said. He stated that the court did not find that the vessel was lost in consequence of being undermanned. [AN HON. MEMBER: Yes; because dead men tell no tales.] The hon. Member seemed to imagine that the vessels of to-day were all sailing vessels, as they used to be, and that consequently a sailor must be a fully-qualified and a highly-trained man in order to be able to fulfil his duties as a seaman on board a vessel. That might be perfectly true as far as sailing vessels were concerned, but sailing vessels were fast becoming things of the past, and he believed that, in a very short time, they would have only steamers at sea. On board a steamer there was, practically, little qualification required for a sailor. Any ordinary man, if he had his wits about him, could fulfil all the duties required from a sailor on board a steamer after a short training. A knowledge of the working of the sails of a ship and the masts was not now an essential qualification for a sailor, because steamers had few sails, if any. All that was required was a man with common sense, and such a man could in a few voyages—say to Australia and home again, or for that matter in a single voyage—learn to steer a vessel, and as soon as he had acquired that knowledge, then he was practically qualified to act as sailor on board a steamer. Consequently the House would understand that to-day there was absolutely no necessity to have men on board for many years to teach them the use of ropes and management of sails as used to be the case upon sailing vessels. There were no such qualifications required at present, except in the case of the few sailing vessels which were still in existence. He should like to say that he was very much in favour of doing all that could be done in the direction of making sailors more comfortable on board, and by so doing getting the best and the steadiest men. The system of continuous discharge which was instituted last year would, he thought, to a large extent assist shipowners and captains in getting good sailors, and that measure had rendered further legislation unnecessary at the present moment. This continuous discharge system would go a very long way in the direction of providing reliable and steady men such as were required for the mercantile marine service, and until this system had been properly tried and found wanting, there was absolutely no necessity for any further legislation with regard to this matter. Speaking as a shipowner, he thought that it was the desire of shipowners generally to have sober, steady, and reliable crews, who were able to navigate their steamers satisfactorily. Shipowners were doing a good deal in that direction, and were trying to induce sailors to remain in their employ by providing for them better accommodation, better food, and also by paying them a part of their wages when laid up on shore owing to an accident. He believed that in this direction very much more good could still be done. It was a mistake to suppose that the shipowning community were a set of men who did not care for the comfort and the lives of their crews.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I did not say that.

*COLONEL ROPNER

assured the hon. Gentleman opposite and every other hon. Member of the House that the gentlemen who owned the ships of this country were quite as honourable men as could be found anywhere, and they had no desire to do anything but that which was right and proper. But to ask the Board of Trade, on account of a single accident, to introduce fresh legislation, was to his mind a thing which should not for one moment be entertained by this House.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I am certain that he does not wish to misrepresent me. I made no attack whatever upon the shipowners. Naturally, it is to their interest, if not more than to the interest of any other class of the community, that these horrible things, which are lamented by everybody, should cease. I said nothing at all to the effect that the shipowners were not honourable men, because I am sure that these things are regretted not only by the shipowners, but also by the Government and by everybody concerned.

*COLONEL ROPNER

said he was very sorry if he had misunderstood the hon. Member. He believed the hon. Member for East Clare instanced the wreck of the "Primrose Hill" as one of a number of similar accidents. The hon. Member, however, failed to give them any other instances.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I can give the hon. and gallant Member plenty of instances, and I did not give more because I was under the impression that I had spoken too long already. I commenced my speech by pointing to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in answer to a question which I put to him, and in which he informed me that there were more or less connected with this question some fifty-one instances.

*COLONEL ROPNER

said he did not know anything about those fifty-one cases. He only knew what the hon. Gentleman opposite stated in this House. He said that the "Primrose Hill" was one of a number of instances, and he failed entirely to give any other example of the number of such cases which he evidently had in his own mind, and of which he had no knowledge. He was sorry to have taken up the time of the House so long upon this matter, but he felt that it was necessary that a word or two should be said on behalf of the shipowners. He did not think that it was the desire of anybody in this House to unduly interfere with the shipping trade of this country. Hon. Members were aware that at the present moment we were being driven out of markets by foreign competition, and why? Simply because the shipping industry had been interfered with to a far greater extent than had been the case in foreign countries. Regulations had been made which had already been the cause of the sale of a very large number of British steamboats to foreign countries, and this had taken away the employment of a large number of British sailors. That was the consequence of legislative interference with the British shipping industry. Some years ago a load-line on British ships was enforced, and this load-line legislation interfered to a very large extent with the vessels on the north-east coast; and the consequence was that many British steamers had to be sold to the Swedes, Norwegians, and the Danes, and those very vessels were to-day being navigated by these foreigners, and were safely carrying to the extent of from 100 tons to 150 tons more than would have been allowed under British regulations. If such legislation had not taken place those vessels would to-day not only have been earning good money for the men who invested their capital in them, but they would also have been employing British sailors. He hoped the time was gone by for the continual interference which had taken place in the past, for such interference, instead of doing any good, had frequently done a great deal of harm, and instead of making navigation safer, it had in many instances made it more unsafe. He could refer to several instances of this kind, but he would conclude by again urging the House to refrain from any further interference with a class of the community which was anxious to do all that was possible to maintain the pre-eminent position of the British mercantile navy in spite of the competition of the subsidised and bounty-fed foreign vessels.

*MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said that with characteristic courage the hon. Member for East Clare had taken up the cause of the British sailor in a very able and moderate speech, and he had very ably filled the breach caused by the absence from the House of the late Member for Middlesbrough. He sincerely deplored the absence of his friend Mr. Havelock Wilson from the House He did not always agree with him, but he occasionally showed that excess of zeal on behalf of the sailors which, from a mistaken point of view, the hon. Member who had just spoken in support of a wrong cause and a bad case had shown on behalf of the shipowners. Before he came to close quarters upon this subject he wished to deal with one or two of the statements made by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He did not intend to make any insinuations against shipowners, captains, or any other persons, and he was going to deal strictly with the facts. What was the picture which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton had drawn? To listen to him anyone would imagine that the Board of Trade had interfered so vexatiously with the shipping industry that their ships were being driven off every sea, and that the British mercantile marine was a "baseless fabric of a vision, leaving not a wrack behind." Let him go to "Mulhall's Dictionary," let him take up Fairplay, the Shipping Gazette, or the Shipping World, and he would find that to-day Britain built 82 per cent. of the ships and owned 62 per cent. of the shipping of the world. He would also find that their command over the making and owning of ships, both in regard to sailing ships and steamers, was absolutely and relatively as great, and even greater, than it had ever been before at any period of their mercantile history. So much for the hon. Member's exaggerated argument in regard to vexatious interference. He would content himself with giving that fact, which was worth a ton of the hon. Member's theory.

The hon. Member also said that he hoped that the Shipping Federation would, by a system of bonuses, be able to induce men to stay in their ships and so secure a more experienced class of men than they got in the past. In this argument the hon. Member proved his case against himself. The object of this bonus was to make ship life so attractive that men would stick to their ships more permanently and regularly than they now did, and that was the object of giving bonuses. In his opinion bonuses alone were useless to induce men to stay in their ships. Other causes were responsible for the unpopularity of sea life. Their object was to assist in removing these causes by legislation which would cause shipowners to improve the conditions of sea life by not overworking and otherwise ill-treating the men. Under-manning meant over-working sailors, and these bogus bonuses would not induce them to stay in their ships at all. He found from the official organs that shipmasters at their monthly or quarterly meetings, and shipowners in their discussions, were confronted with this tremendous fact that, putting agitators and what was said by interested shipowners on one side, foreign sailors were increasing while British sailors were diminishing and deteriorating. It was admitted that the food of the sailors was bad, that they were overworked, that under-manning still prevailed, and, most significant of all, desertions from British ships were disproportionately increasing, What the hon. Member for East Clare, and what they all wanted, to do was to make sea life so attractive that they would get British sailors in British ships, and to accomplish that over-working, under-feeding, and under-manning should cease. The conditions of sea life ought to be so much improved as to enable it to assume its old-time attractiveness, and then the English sailor would be attracted to that class of work. How could that be done? It could not be done by bonuses. Had the hon. Member opposite made any suggestions by which this could be accomplished? No. He said that everything had been done to prevent under-manning, and he declared that the law was sufficiently strong already to deal with it. He said that sailing vessels were disappearing, and that in a short time most of these difficulties would disappear. He ought to know that sailing vessels had been built to such an extent that generations would elapse before such vessels disappeared. It was a mistake for shipowners to so easily predict the disappearance of the sailing vessel. The sailing vessel was not going to disappear so quickly as many hon. Members seemed to think, and in the meantime the lot of its crew should be improved. He was staggered when he heard the hon. Member say that there was no necessity to have sailors of many years standing at all, and here the hon. Member contradicted himself. What he had stated was directly contrary to the experience of the Shipping Federation, Fairplay, the Shipping Gazette, and the Shipping World. He would not quote the opinion of a shipowner, or the opinion of the former Member for Middlesbrough, but he had in his hand a Report of a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the manning of British merchant ships. This was a document which was not the product of an agitator or a shipowner, but it was the deliberate conclusions of a Committee on which the shipping interest, in my opinion, had a disproportionate amount of representation. And what does this document say? Recommendation 27 says— That at least three fourths of the crew of a sailing ship should be individually effective, i.e., of ratings not lower than that of A.B. That was one recommendation. Recommendation 21 says— That it should be made illegal to withdraw men from the prescribed minimum staff of the stokehold for service in engine room or for other purposes. Why did the Committee make that recommendation? Because, as the hon. Member knew, it was stated before the Committee and proved that in many instances men were withdrawn from the stokehold for service in the engine-room and to do work on deck. Recommendation 24 says— That sailing ships should be manned with some regard to sudden emergencies. Recommendation 30 provides— That a ship is in an unseaworthy state when she leaves port without sufficient officers, or with her responsible officers unfitted for their duty by reason of prolonged overwork, and that no ship of large size or power should be permitted to go to sea without provision having been made that the deck shall always be in charge of some person who has given proof of his qualification, by service or examination, for such a position. Recommendation 31 reads— That not less than two mates should be carried in any sailing ship of 1,000 or more tons under deck, clearing from a port in the United Kingdom. That steamers of 500 tons gross and over should have two mates, and of 2,000 tons gross and over, three mates. Recommendation 32 provides— That the absence of any requirement with regard to certificated masters, officers or engineers in the home trade, except in passenger ships, urgently demands legislation. Recommendation 33 says— That the bridge of a steamer should never be left without an officer when the vessel is under weigh, and that the practice of taking away the look-out man at night to raise ashes, trim lights, etc., or the officer of the watch from the bridge to clear up for cargo, etc., is most reprehensible, as fraught with danger to navigation, and should be prohibited by law. In these recommendations they had the calm, deliberate report of a Committee appointed to consider under manning, and these were some of their recommendations. Now, how did they start their Report? Be asked the hon. Member's attention to this. Paragraph No. 7 reads— On the other hand, the Committee have found that in certain classes of ships there is a tendency to reduce the number of men out of proportion to the adoption of improvements in the rig or labour-saving appliances of the vessels, and that many vessels which have been referred to in evidence, or reported on by courts of inquiry, have not been so manned as to conduce either to the safety or well-being of the crews. There was evidence clear and unmistakable, on the authority of the Manning Committee, supported by the appendices of that Report, that the statements made by the hon. Member for East Clare, and repeated many times in this House by the Member for Middlesbrough, were absolutely true. Hon. Members always wanted them to cite special instances and then qualify the details. He would only give another case. Take paragraph 13, which reads— The 'Deeside' (569 tons gross) is a typical case. That vessel had only two men in a watch, and whilst one of those men was absent from the look-out, trimming a side-light which had become dim, the vessel was run into and sunk, with several of the crew, by the 'Ludgate Hill' (4,063 tons gross). Notwithstanding the strong condemnation pronounced by the Judge of the Admiralty Division of the High Court against the practice of undermanning which led to this fatal collision, the Board of Trade were advised that a prosecution would not be successful, because, whilst there were sufficient men on board who might have been called and stationed on the look-out, it could not be said that the vessel was undermanned. In the case of the 'Cromartyshire,' which the "Wreck Commissioner declared to have been undermanned, the Board of Trade were advised that a prosecution would not be successful, and that the law gave no power of detention for undermanning. Why did the Board of Trade take that view? Because it was a moot point in the mind of the Board of Trade as to whether undermanning was unseaworthiness, and this Committee especially appointed to consider it decided that undermanning should be made a standard of unseaworthiness, and they asked the Board of Trade not only to adopt that view, but to enforce the law dealing with this condition of things. He had defended the hon. Member for East Clare from the charge of exaggeration, and he had also proved that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough had been more than justified in the statements he had made on behalf of the sailors. He ventured to say that if they were to ask the owners of the Cunard Line or the owners of any of the best lines of steamers, whatever their politics, or whatever their views in regard to agitators might be, he believed they would be found ready to agree that the recommendations of this Manning Committee, whose document he had quoted, could without injury to the shipping trade be adopted, and should be adopted in the interests of attracting to the merchant service a more experienced and a steadier class of men who would serve shipowners much better than they did at the present time.

There was another point which he wished to deal with, and it related to a subject which was being discussed in the nautical papers. He referred to the scandalous instances of crimping that had taken place in American and other ports. Two years ago the former Member for Middlesbrough aroused quite a storm of indignation in the House of Commons because he suggested that in this matter some of the British consuls had not done their duty as they should have done in the direction of protecting the British sailor. What has happened since then? They had a Report dated 1899 presented to the House by the Board of Trade upon merchant shipping. It dealt with the engagement of seamen, desertions, and kindred subjects. The Shipping World, which is edited by an ex-Member of this House, who was a man of great ability and studious moderation, published several articles upon this subject, and this was what it said about the lack of discouragement on the part of the consular agents in reference to crimping. The article is headed "Seamen, Crimps, and Consuls":— We print to-day the last of Mr. Stephen's articles on crimping and desertion in American ports. It has been shown that blame for the present condition of things is attributed to a variety of causes, apart from want of laws and treaties, namely: (1) Collusion between crimps and subordinates of H.M.'s consulates; (2) agreements between British shipowners and (or) captains on the one hand and so-callad shipping masters on the other, whereby the crimp or shipping master pays for the privileges of inducing desertion and shipping fresh crews; (3) insufficient and badly cooked food on British ships; and (4) the nefarious work of crimps. We respectfully invite the serious attention of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade to the fact that a taint rests upon more than one of our Consulates abroad; it is criminal to ignore this fact. There is really no doubt of the essential truth of some of the allegations of Mr. Havelock Wilson, made when he represented Middlesbrough in Parliament, and attributable to subordinate consular officers and clerks—that they are in league with crimps and shipping masters. This is a matter which should be carefully inquired into by the departments; and where guilt is discovered then the responsible consul should be dismissed or discharged. He would add no single comment of his own to that statement. He said if the Shipping World be true, and it was backed up by the evidence of the reports of our own consular officers in this particular Parliamentary document, these facts warranted that the Board of Trade, in deference to the wish of good shipowners and good sailors, should at once appoint a small committee of responsible men who would consider the questions of desertion, under-manning, crimping, bad food, and the unattractiveness of mercantile marine life for our sailors, and see if they could not suggest to Parliament some remedy for this deplorable condition of things. On this head he would conclude by quoting one of our own consuls, and he would direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to this document. It was issued in 1899 at the right hon. Gentleman's own instigation, he presumed. At page 43 Mr. Alan Williams made a number of suggestions, and he asked the House respectfully to listen to him, and when they did so to remember that similar charges and suggestions were made by the late Member for Middlesbrough. Mr. Williams said— Briefly, the causes and remedies I should suggest are as follows:—

1. (1) Desire to obtain work on shore; make ships' forecastles more comfortable; cabins for two and four men; abolish open ones with the windlass in the centre.
2. (2) Ill-treatment and poor food; allow a magistrate or consul to grant a discharge if he saw fit to men who have a just reason for complaint; improve the sale of provisions; owners should themselves inspect food.
3. (3) Boarding-house masters and crimps; compel shipmasters to take a certain proportion of their men out of the sailors' homes. (In Capetown the Sailor's Home receives an annual grant of £250 from the Colonial Government); local authorities to give licences to sailors' boarding houses, and withdraw them when not properly conducted. In Cape Town this month a boarding-house master has been convicted for 'illicit drink traffic' on his premises.
4. (4) Driving men out of ships; all forfeited wages to Seamens' Pension Fund. Men sign for slops—this most important, as otherwise there might be no wages to hand over to such a fund.
5. (5) Abolition of present system of discharges, and adoption of German or Scandinavian plan."

Any man who knew what sailors had to do in the middle passage between Madeira and the West Coast of Africa would understand the reasonableness of the recommendation that forecastles should be made more comfortable. If they wanted to attract sailors to their ships they must not have forecastles as he had seen them—narrow, confined, dirty, insanitary, and ill-ventilated places. The consul might have said something also about; the blinding snow and wind and rain coming in at the windlass opening. [AN HON. MEMBER: Snow in tropical climates?] There were passages which included the tropics which could be very uncomfortable in the winter time. If the hon. Member were a seafaring man he would know that it was possible to be uncomfortable during a voyage three-quarters of which was in tropical or semitropical climates, but the hon. Member was not a seafaring person. He would make an excellent pair with that hon. Member who once said that he was not an agricultural labourer. These recommendations which he had quoted were some of the thirty or forty excellent proposals made by consular officers for the improvement of the sailor's condition.

Now he would deal briefly with food. He asked a question in 1894, it is true, but it held good to-day. He asked Mr. Mundella—whose death they all deplored—how many instances he had had of food being rejected because it was bad, and he replied that out of 1,015 inspections of food and provisions there were 391, or 33 per cent., rejected as unfit for use. He believed that the same percentage would obtain to-day. Now, he would give to the Board of Trade a suggestion. Some day we should be at the end of this war, and probably before it was at an end there would be an immense amount, ranging from thousands of tons, of rejected tinned foods, preserved foods and other things. What the Board of Trade, in conjunction with the War Office and the Admiralty, ought to do was, immediately the war was over, to see that all that stuff was put into a dust destructor, or that it was chemically destroyed. If it was not treated in that way, for years after the war was over our mercantile marine would be living on that stuff, which ought to have been condemned at the end of the war. [AN HON. MEMBER: No.] The hon. Member might say it was not so, but he knew something about this, and he asked them, in the face of this percentage of rejection of bad foods, to see that the sailor got better food than he did now. Had not the hon. Member for West Clare been justified? Had not the late hon. Member for Middlesbrough been vindicated? He thought they had, in the two Reports he had quoted from this Parliamentary document. He would conclude by asking the President of the Board of Trade to defer to the request that had been made. He made no attack on shipowners. He had quoted facts. He appealed in this matter to the shipowners, and especially the best shipowners, who inevitably drifted into this House. The worst ones did not come here. When criticism was made against shipowners, many good ones fitted on the cap as though it were intended for them. He appealed to the best shipowners in this House to re-read their mercantile papers Fairplay and the Shipping World, to go through the master seamen's discussions, and to read the pamphlets on crimping, bad food, and the undesirable environments of the sailor's life when in port and also on board ship, and to co-operate with the best friends of the seamen and the mercantile marine in the labour world to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the President of the Board of Trade to at once introduce a short Bill carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of 1896. If these recommendations were embodied in a Bill he considered that they could get it through the House next year. If they were not disposed to embody these recommendations in a Bill next year, let the President of the Board of Trade, in the face of these facts, appoint another Committee with a view to legislate next year, so that the sailor's life might be made more attractive than it was, and that the number of foreigners who were rapidly coming into our ships might be diminished.

One of these days we would deplore this foreign element in our ships—perhaps at a moment when it was too late. Then the much defended lascar would fail us. Next to a crew of British seamen—Scotch firemen, Irish deck hands, an English mate, always with a Scotch skipper, and always Scotch engineers—next to the Anglo-Saxon, he believed the best seamen were those to be found on the West Coast of Africa. But in the hour of emergency, when the rudder was gone, when the engines were done for, when they were face to face with a critical occasion, when they wanted, guts in their men and moral courage in their officers, would the lascar serve them in the face of such emergency in the same manner as the British seaman? When, perhaps, through spread-eagle Imperialism we were at close quarters, and perhaps in death grips, in three or four quarters of the world we wanted men like Nelson's boys to hold the seas, it was not the lascar who would perform that service. It was the Irish or Scotch stoker and the British captain who would best on these occasions stand between us and danger. In that crisis we would want men who had had good food, to give them that strength wherewith to face the elements and withstand climatic difficulties. We had not got these men to-day because we did not pay our men enough. We allowed them to be badly fed, our forecastles were dirty and unsatisfactory, our vessels were too often over-worked and under-manned, and the time had arrived when, if we wished to maintain the maritime supremacy we had now, it must be done by the predominance of Anglo-Saxon sailors. The time had arrived when the President of the Board of Trade should lick these recommendations into the shape of a little Bill, so that these long-standing grievances might be remedied and something done to improve the miserable lot of the sailor.

MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)

said he quite endorsed what the hon. Member had said in regard to the conditions under which the shipping trade was carried on. The British shipowner's business was heavily handicapped, for, by reason of the way he had to meet foreigners, he was placed at a great disadvantage. But if some of the suggestions which had been made were carried out in the British mercantile fleet it would be bad not only for shipowners but also for sailors. It was desirable to increase the sailors' comforts, but he deprecated altogether looking at the matter from only one side. This was not at all the question of shipowner versus sailor, or sailor versus shipowner. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Battersea had imported rather a bitter tone into the debate, and had rather pointed the discussion as against the shipowner. He preferred the tone in which the hon. Member for East Clare addressed himself to the subject. He did not see that it was at all a question between shipowner and sailor, and he would try to look at the matter fairly. It had been said with justice that the sailors had grievances, and, while he regretted their existence, he believed they could not be remedied without casting fresh burdens on the shipowners. There was a sailor's side and a shipowner's side to the question. When we found that foreigners were gradually superseding British seamen and pushing them out of employment, and when we saw by the figures which had been recently given what was going on, he agreed that something should be done. In 1859 there were only eight foreigners to every hundred British persons employed on board our ships. In 1889 there were twenty-one foreigners to every hundred persons, so that we must feel that we were face to face with an alarming state of things. There was another thing to be considered, and it was equally important, namely, the deterioration of the character of our seamen. He did not dwell upon that, because it might be to some extent outside the point. He would deal only with the questions brought before the Committee that night, and he would try to indicate a few of the points which required to be remedied.

In the first place, what we required was a larger supply of qualified seamen. The Board of Trade had done something in that direction, but the boy-sailor scheme had worked badly, because it was complicated with the question of light dues. It would have been better it they had granted a certain payment to every shipowner who carried a certain number of boys with a view to their being enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve. He was glad to be able to confirm what was said by the hon. and gallant Member behind him that shipowners were moving in this way. The shipowners felt that they wanted to be independent. They did not want to be restricted by Government, nor did they want assistance. The Chamber of Shipping had appealed to every shipowner to carry at least two apprentices on board ship, and that, if carried out, no doubt would be a step in the right direction, for what we wanted was a better supply of ordinary and able seamen on board our vessels. The question of manning had been referred to, He thought a Bill framed to include the recommendations of the Committee would be not a little Bill, but a very big Bill. It would be a long time in passing this House, and that would be a very bad thing. But there was one thing he recommended, and that was that training ships should be established throughout the coasts for the purpose of training respectable lads for service at sea. The hon. Member for East Clare had directed attention to the desirability of every ship carrying a certain proportion of properly trained seamen whose competency had been proved. He had a great deal of sympathy with him in the views he had expressed. He had himself drawn attention to the rather remarkable practice that had sprung up (though he did not say it was a culpable practice) that when a man presented himself at a shipping office and could not prove that he was an A.B., he was taken on the rating of an A.B. That was very remarkable. It might be inevitable in the existing circumstances, but it was very undesirable, and he looked forward to the day when it would be possible to require that our seamen should be compelled to prove their qualifications, because, until we did that, and distinguished between properly trained seamen and the rag-tag and bobtail who came on board our ships on the same terms, we would never raise the profession of the seaman to a proper standing. As long as our trained British seamen had to compete on equal terms with the scum of the cities, almost the scum of the world, the tramps and loafers, we could never elevate that trade to a proper standing. He looked forward, in the future at all events, for some such distinction as he had indicated. It was impossible at present, for the reasons he had already given. How could we expect a sailor to show discharges for four years? It was not to be expected that he would keep them, and the result of such a requirement would be to increase the difficulty which captains and shipowners had in getting crews. Reference had been made to the case of the "Primrose Hill." The captain of that vessel, Captain Wilson, before he sailed, wrote a letter to the Liverpool Journal of Commerce in which he said that he had gone to the Board of Trade to supply a crew, and that he had been going about trying to find a crew. At last he had to go out into the river and anchor there, and to take the crew on board. It was due to that that the ship sailed late and encountered the hurricane in which she was lost. The captain did not complain of the crew, or the ship, or the owners, but of the system which compelled him to employ other persons to get a crew for him. The Board of Trade had instituted that very valuable system which dealt with discharges. He believed it had been fully brought before the public. He believed that under that system, if continued, we would be able to work some plan by which the sailor might be required to prove his qualification before he shipped.

One word more as to another remedy, and one which he thought was most important, and that was that we ought to make the service more attractive to our sailors, and the only point which he wished to touch upon in that connection was a pension scheme. He thought we ought to have a pension scheme for our sailors, and one initial way of doing that would be if the sailors were given more encouragement to enter the Royal Naval Reserve, and if a better and more satisfactory pension was attached to the Royal Naval Reserve, It would be a great inducement to respectable men to follow the calling of sailors if some provision was made for them in old age. He could only say that he thought we needed to face this problem. We must deal with it in three ways. We must endeavour to increase the supply of trained seamen, we must endeavour to give a preference to trained men over untrained men, and we must endeavour to make the service more attractive to our sailors.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said this was really a question of great importance. There was no doubt at all, he thought, that the Member for East Clare was quite right in saying that many of our vessels were under-manned, and that in consequence of that under-manning many British fives were lost. There was certainly the impression left upon his mind in perusing a great number of the reports of courts of inquiry, that a large number of vessels did go to sea undermanned, and that it frequently happened when the vessel was lost and the circumstances of the loss were unknown we had every reason to conclude that under-manning was the cause of the loss. There was good reason, he thought, to believe that this dreadful loss of British life, which anyone could establish for himself by reading the Report on Under-manning, was one considerable cause of loss of life at sea. The hon. Member for Battersea called attention to the Report of the Committee which was appointed when Mr. Bryce was at the Board of Trade in 1894, and reported in 1896. He would not say that everything reported by that Committee could be carried out, but he thought some of the recommendations made furnished the basis of legislation. But he was struck with the fact that all our departmental legislation in this House was getting into arrears. It had become a very serious evil. He thought that in all the principal departments there were Bills pigeon-holed from year to year which collectively, if carried, would improve the condition of this country, and especially of the working classes, and the industries of the country, and for which, under the present arrangements, the time could not be found. He would recommend to the Government the desirability of endeavouring to consider whether a greater quantity of this much-needed departmental legislation could not be passed. It was for the most part unconnected with party, and non-controversial, and he thought a great deal more required to be done in that way.

With regard to under-manning, he did not think legislation was needed. As far as he understood, the present state of the law on the subject of under-manning gave quite sufficient power to the Board of Trade to deal with it, and if the Board of Trade were to put in force the power which it had in that matter it would be able to meet the case. He believed that the difficulty was that the Board of Trade officers found themselves scarcely able to work up to the law, and in point of fact their practice did not quite come up to what the law required. He believed the difficulty lay very much in the fact that there was not a sufficient supply of British sailors. That, indeed, was admitted by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool. Then came the enormous difficulty, how we were to increase the number of sailors. Too large a number of sailors came in from foreign countries. It was true that some of these were among the best in the world, such as the Swedes and Norwegians, but a large number were not the best, such as lascars, who were very well in the tropics, but not in cold climates. He thought it was very much to be desired, not only for the safety of our sea-going ships, but also for political considerations, that we should have a larger proportion of British sailors in our ships. The Board of Trade brought forward the boy-sailor scheme a few years ago. He was afraid that scheme had not satisfied the expectations of its promoters. He earnestly hoped that the Board of Trade would be able to bring in some practical measure which would make the profession of seamanship more attractive to good British men. It would be necessary for shipowners in one way or another, by providing more comforts or by paying higher wages, to make the profession of seamanship more attractive to good British men. He did not think, at any rate, it would be possible to go on with the present plan, for it was the case that a captain was frequently obliged to go to sea with a crew which he knew to be unfit. It was not altogether the fault of the shipowner.

Then, he should be glad to hear what was being done to carry out the Act of last year in regard to automatic couplings, and to make the railway companies provide these couplings more speedily. He hoped that prompt and effective action had been taken. Although the Board of Trade had no power over the companies in regard to the accommodation and the heavy rates charged for cycles, they had the power to advise them, and no doubt they could exercise a great deal of influence in that way. Unless the companies bestirred themselves in that matter, they would incur a great deal of unpopularity inside and outside the House. He wished also to ask what was being done under the Act intended to enable the Board of Trade to procure the shortening of the hours of labour of railway servants where the Board of Trade were convinced that the hours of labour were too long for the health of the men and the safety of the public. Something was being done, but he thought less was being done than might be expected, and he wished the Board would do a little more to induce the railway companies to reduce the hours.

He did not think it would be right, on the first occasion the House discussed the Board of Trade Vote since the death of Sir Courtenay Boyle, for him to sit down without paying a tribute to that distinguished public servant. Sir Courtenay Boyle was accomplished in many ways. No man could have been more zealous in the discharge of his public duties. He regarded it a high privilege and honour to serve the best interests of the commerce and industry of the country. No man could have been more perfectly loyal and devoted to the Minister under whom he was placed. He rendered great service as a conciliator and arbitrator in labour disputes. He selected his subordinates in that duty with great care, and when he himself had to deal with difficult questions, his tact and judgment achieved success. He was one of the best Government servants of our generation.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said he joined most heartily in every word which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to the great loss which the Board of Trade and the nation had suffered by the death of Sir Courtenay Boyle. That gentleman's power of work, his vigour, and his ability and judgment could not possibly have been excelled. He need hardly say that having come so recently to the Board of Trade he himself felt a great personal loss in being deprived of the services of so valuable an ally in his Department. With respect to the Act passed last year as to accidents to railway servants, the Board of Trade had issued draft rules, carefully prepared under the powers of the statute, and the proper announcements required by the Act had been made in the London and Dublin Gazettes. A period of six weeks was given within which the companies could make objection. That period had expired, and a very considerable number of objections had been laid; but he did not think they would cause very much difficulty in the administration of the Act. With regard to cycles, the Board of Trade had really no power in the matter. Of course it was possible for the Board of Trade to lend its friendly offices to endeavour to persuade the companies to adopt a different attitude towards the public, and they were always ready to do so, but they had no statutory power to compel the railway companies to do anything.

ME. BRYCE

said that the Board of Trade was at the same time the controller and defender of the railway companies. It had the right not only to give advice to the companies but to put them under terms. The Board of Trade had a good deal of moral influence in that way, and it should warn the companies that if they did not make some concessions in regard to the accommodation and the rates charged for cycles they would not find themselves advantaged in this House.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that was true, but it was a power which they ought to exercise with great discretion. As to complaints which had been lodged against railway companies about long hours, these had been diminishing year by year, which he regarded as satisfactory. The hon. Member for Barn-staple had raised the question of the insufficiency of the coast guards on the west coast of England. The Board of Trade had been in communication with the Admiralty on the subject, and he had since heard that it was proposed to increase the coastguard service at Westward-Ho. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Clare, he had no desire to question the hon. Member's motive, but he might have taken a little more trouble to be accurate. There was not evidence to satisfy the court that the loss of the "Primrose Hill" was due to under manning.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he had quoted from the Report to show that the vessel was not adequately manned, and that only two officers on board held certificates. Where was the inaccuracy in that?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that the master and the mate both held British certificates, and the boatswain, who acted as second mate, held a Norwegian certificate. The hon. Member desired legislation to secure that on all ships a proportion of the crew should be able to prove that they were entitled to the rating of able seamen; but the hon. Member perhaps was not aware that the whole question of under-manning had been investigated by a Committee of the Board of Trade.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said that if the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade referred to Hansard, and to the debates raised by Mr. Havelock Wilson, he would find that he had taken a deep interest in this matter long before the right hon. Gentleman went to the Board of Trade.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that the Manning Committee of 1896 recommended two manning scales—one by the majority and the other by the minority of the Committee—and judged by either of these scales the manning of the "Primrose Hill" could not be declared insufficient. So far as could be judged from the facts, the "Primrose Hill" seemed to have been lost through deficiency in navigation.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 252.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Hammond, John	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	O'Malley, William
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Mara, James
Ambrose, Robert	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Shaughnessey, P. J.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Shee, James John
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Partington, Oswald
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	Pirie, Duncan, V.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bell, Richard	Horniman, Frederick John	Priestley, Arthur
Black, Alexander William	Joicey, Sir James	Reddy, M.
Boland, John	Jones, William (Carnarvons.)	Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Boyle, James	Kennedy, Patrick James	Redmond. William (Clare)
Brigg, John	Lambert, George	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Broadhurst, Henry	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Leamy, Edmund	Roe, Sir Thomas
Burns, John	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Caine, William Sproston	Lewis, John Herbert	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Caldwell, James	Lundon, W.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cawley, Frederick	M'Crae, George	Soares, Ernest J.
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Dermott, Patrick	Strachey, Edward
Clancy, John Joseph	M'Govern, T.	Sullivan, Donal
Cogan, Denis J.	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Mansfield, Horace Rendell	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Crean, Eugene	Minch, Matthew	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Cullinan, J.	Mooney, John J.	Tomkinson, James
Delany, William	Morgan, David J (Walth'mst'w	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dewar, John A (Inverness-shire	Moss, Samuel	Weir, James Galloway
Donelan, Captain A.	Mursaghan, George	White, George (Norfolk)
Doogan, P. C.	Nannetti, Joseph P.	White, Luke, York, E. R.)
Duffy, William J.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	White, Patrick (Meath, N.)
Elibank, Master of	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Field, William	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fuller, J. M. F.	O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.	Dr. Macnamara and Captain Norton.
Gilhooly, James	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	O'Dowd, John
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Carlile, William Walter	Dorington, Sir John Edward
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Doughty, George
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Doxford, Sir William T.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Duke, Henry Edward
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Arrol, Sir William	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bain, Col. James Robert	Chapman, Edward	Finch, George H.
Balcarres, Lord	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Fisher, William Hayes
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Colomb, Sir John Charles R.	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christch'ch)	Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)	Flower, Ernest
Banbury, Frederick George	Cox, Irwin Edward B.	Foster, Henry William
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Cranborne, Viscount	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Blundell, Col. Henry	Crossley, Sir Savile	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn
Bond, Edward	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby (Salop
Bousfield, William Robert	Dalkeith, Earl of	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Brand, Hon. Arthur G.	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnEldon
Brassey, Albert	Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlts, S. Geo.	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Digby, J. K D. Wingfield-	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bull, William James	Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.	Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds	Maconochie, A. W.	Round, James
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Greville, Hon. Ronald	M'Calinont, Col. H L B. (Cambs.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Groves, James Grimble	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Guthrie, Walter Murray	Majendie, James A. H.	Seton-Karr, Henry
Hain, Edward	Malcolm, Ian	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hall, Edward Marshall	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.	Smith, H C (North'mb., T'neside
Hambro, Charles Eric	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)
Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld G (Midd'x.	Milton, Viscount	Spear, John Ward
Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Morgan, Hn Fred (Monm'thsh.)	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford	Morrell, George Herbert	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.	Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Morrison, James Archibald	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley	Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)	Stroyan, John
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.	Mount, William Arthur	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Heaton, John Henniker	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Helder, Augustus	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute	Thomas David A. (Merthyr)
Henderson, Alexander	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Thornton, Percy M.
Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Parkes, Ebenezer	Ure, Alexander
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)	Valentia, Viscount
Johnston, Heywood (Sussex)	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley	Walker, Col. William Hall
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbign)	Penn, John	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Percy, Earl	Webb, Col. Wm. George
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Pierpoint, Robert	Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)
Knowles, Lees	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Plummer, Walter R.	Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne
Law, Andrew Bonar	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)	Pretyman, Ernest George	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Lawson, John Grant	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham	Purvis, Robert	Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Reid, James (Greenock)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Rentoul, James Alexander	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Richards, Henry Charles	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham	Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green	Wylie, Alexander
Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol S.)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Ropner, Colonel Robert	Sir William Walroud and
Macdona, John Cumming	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter	Mr. Anstruther.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after midnight, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair, to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.