Commons Sitting of 14 February 1902

The House met at Three of the Clock.
  PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

    DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD BILL (BY ORDER).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. NANNETTImoved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The powers sought under it, he said, were of so extraordinary a nature that he did not think the Board, as at present constituted, was a proper body to possess them. What were the exceptional powers asked for under this Bill? He would take first the power to borrow the enormous sum of £650,000. According to the Engineer's estimate that amount would not be sufficient to properly equip the port. The Engineer, in fact, estimated that £1,258,000 would be required for the work. What had brought about the state of affairs which rendered it necessary in the twentieth century to spend over a million of money in order to bring the port of Dublin into a proper condition? The Port and Docks Board had, from time to time, obtained power from Parliament to borrow money. What had become of this money? He had been member of the Board for the last three years, and his opinion was that the business of the Board had been mismanaged and the money squandered by those who, he was sorry to say, were still members. This mismanagement would go on unless steps were taken to alter the constitution of the Board, and he did not think that that would be done until the citizens
    6
    of Dublin had a voice in the selection of members. He held that Parliament had no right to give the Board power to borrow such an enormous sum as £650,000, which he honestly believed would be wasted, and then there would be another application to Parliament for further borrowing powers. The Bill also asked for power to levy rates on goods entering and leaving the port. Dublin had had the reputation in the past of being a free port, but he was sorry to say that, owing to the negligence of the Board, it was not a free port in the sense it should be because while all manufactured articles from England and the Continent came into the port free, balks of wood and pieces of marble in a raw state were taxed, and the consequence was that the artisans of Dublin were prevented having the opportunity of manufacturing articles. There had been no desire or effort on the part of the Board to remove that grievance. Last year a Bill for the purpose of repealing that pernicious clause was brought forward, but the measure was dropped. If the revenue of the port required that taxes should be placed on goods coming in he had no objection, but he did assert that it was neither right nor just to impose these taxes without giving the people who had to pay them a voice in the election of the authority which imposes them. Under this Bill it was also proposed to revise the register of electors every three years. That would be all very well if the members of the Board were to be elected every third year, but, under the present system of election, a certain number went out of office each year and consequently in some years the register would tail to contain the names of a large number who had a right to be upon it. He therefore thought that that provision ought to be amended. There was another provision with regard to the leasing and the charging of rates on those who used the Custom House Docks. That was a new idea, and it had been done in direct opposition to the promise given when the Bill was under the consideration of the Board. That promise was that the representations and protests should be taken into consideration when the matter came before the Parliamentary Committee, and in consequence of it a number of Members who would not otherwise have done so

    7
    voted for the Bill. It had not been done, and this he submitted amounted to a breach of faith. It might be urged that it was not right he should take exception to the constitution of the Board, but he thought he could give good reasons for his present action. His experience of the last three years as a member of the Board was that it did not take into consideration the interests of the general community of Dublin, but rather the private interests of members who managed to get themselves elected, and who occupied the greater part of the time of the Board with matters affecting their business interests. The object of the Bill of 1898 was to secure that persons interested in the commerce and trade of Dublin should have seats on the Board. Had that been attained? He would ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was a voter for the City of Dublin, if he had a voice in the election of the Board.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have.
    *MR. NANNETTIsaid the hon. Gentleman was one of the lucky ones, for he had no hesitation in saying that the majority of the citizens of Dublin had no voice at all in the election of the Board. The representation of the Board consisted of 12 traders, i.e., men engaged in trade or manufacture, and for whom up to six votes could be cast; nine members specially elected to represent the shipping interest, and for whom up to ten votes could be cast; and six chosen by the Corporation. That was in accordance with the provisions of the Bill of 1898 which was brought forward in consequence of the state of public feeling at the time in regard to the scandalous manner in which the business of the Board was being managed. He would like to point out that although the Corporation had six representatives on the Board, they had no real power, because the traders and shippers formed the majority, and therefore the representatives of the people were not in a position to remedy any abuses that might exist. Under the present system of election the trader, who was in a small way of business in the City, and who was as deeply interested in the public welfare as the biggest merchant or manufacturer, had his vote nullified every time he went to the ballot-box,
    8
    and he would like to know how in the name of common sense it was possib'e to have a popular or properly elected body under present conditions. It was to his mind impossible. The same class of men got appointed year after year, thanks to the plurality system of voting. and they were enabled to keep off the Board persons who were equally interested in the welfare of the port of Dublin. Recently a gentleman sought election who knew more about the work of the Port of Dublin than many members of the Board, and yet, specially qualified as he was, he failed to secure election. Now, he himself had a seat on the Board, as he had already stated. He was a tax-payer of the City and he had to pay poor rates, yet, although he was entitled to sit on the Board, he had no vote and no share in electing it. The Lord Mayor of Dublin also, he believed, had no vote, and he knew for a fact that some of the wealthiest citizens were in a similar position.
    He did suggest that the House ought not to confer on a Board constituted in this manner the power of raising and expending enormous sums of money, unless it was prepared at the same time to secure to the citizens of Dublin some voice in the management of its affairs. He had no hesitation in asserting that as a result of the present constitution of the Board, its funds would be absolutely squandered. He thought the best evidence of mismanagement was to be found in the fact that, although the Board obtained extensive borrowing powers four years ago, it had had again to come to Parliament for more money. Extensive works were contemplated under this Bill, but he would like to point out that although, in 1887, when powers were asked in another place to borrow money in order to provide a second graving dock and were granted, from that day until this the dock had not been constructed, the shipbuilding industry had been ruined, and hundreds of men had been deprived of employment which would otherwise have been open to them. Complaints had been made to him by Dublin merchants that they were compelled to send their ships out of Dublin for repairs, owing to the manner in which they were treated for graving

    9
    dock accommodation by this Board. He instanced a case where a large ship put into Dublin for repairs, which would have taken over three months to carry out, and which would have given large numbers of men work, but again the work was sent away because the dock was required by one of those who at that time was a member of the Board for the repair of his companies' vessels. The citizens of Dublin knew him too well to believe that he would be a part, to anything which would prevent money being spent to the advantage of the working-men of Dublin; but he objected to money being spent by a Board which had neglected to carry out their duties. Owing to the mismanagement of the Board this graving dock which could have been built for £50,000 when the money was borrowed would now cost £120,000, and he had little confidence in the Board, which had not the character of dealing generously with the workers. What would be the result if the Bill passed? The Board would obtain the money they required, which would enable them to perpetuate the present system for 20 or 30 years longer; and the citizens of Dublin would not be afforded any opportunity of reforming it. It might be said that he had no right to give the character to the Board which he had given. Personally he believed that the members were the most estimable gentlemen in the City of Dublin. He was not referring to them individually, but was referring to them in their representative capacity. On three different occasions, whole the Bill was under consideration, attempts had been made to alter the existing state of affairs, but without effect. Consequently, if the Bill were lost, the responsibility would be on the gentlemen who ruled the roost, and who wereactuated by narrow-minded ideas.
    In his opposition to the Bill he was merely discharging his duty and endeavouring to carry out a principle. Charges had been brought against him because of his opposition, but he could afford to pass them by. He maintained that the method of election to the Board was obsolete and ought to be swept away. The voice of the people ought to prevail, but he did not even ask for that to its fullest extent as he had been willing
    10
    to accept a compromise. One of the arguments used by gentlemen who were canvassing in favour of the Bill was that if the multiple vote was abolished not a single Protestant would be elected to the Board. Such an idea never entered his mind. He would sooner cut his hand off than be a party to depriving his Protestant fellow countrymen of their right to representation. The history of Dublin showed that such a thing was impossible. The Board knew that if multiple voting were abolished the popular party in Dublin would get the management of the affairs of the Board meetings into their own hands, that was not wanted by the Board. It was stated that the object of the Bill was to provide employment for the working classes in Dublin, but he took issue on that statement. He was satisfied that the greater part of the money would not go into the pockets of the working men of Dublin. Many of the contracts would have to be given to Dutch and German firms, who would send over their own men. If he thought that the Bill would be the means of providing employment in Dublin it would modify his opposition, but he did not believe it would. He was satisfied that in order to bring the port of Dublin into a proper state of efficiency money was necessary, but he wanted the citizens to have a voice in the spending of it. If the Corporation members had put their backs to the wall and insisted on their rights, they would have got them; but when the Board found that the Corporation members were not united on one point, they refused every compromise. The Board in the past had driven trade away and that result would continue. What, for instance, was the history of the Customs House Docks. They were losing thousands of pounds every year, but when they were taken over by the Board from a private company, they were making money hand over hand. In that connection, the charge had actually been made at a meeting of the Board by a responsible member; that the reason why that loss continued was that there was a scheme among the members themselves to purchase the Docks in order to turn them into a limited liability company.

    11
    He gave that statement for what it was worth. What was the history of the Pilotage Board of Dublin. It was £11,000 in debt, and was likely to remain in debt because the merchants would not allow anything to be done. Therefore he thought the Bill should not be read a second time unless the Board were prepared to overhaul their constitution and were made subservient to public opinion, in order that the citizens of Dublin should have a voice in its management.
    MR. COGANseconded the Amendment. The Bill proposed to give new and very extensive powers to an authority in which he, as a citizen and merchant of Dublin, and he ventured to say the vast majority of the citizens of Dublin had no confidence. The hon. Member for the College Green Division had enumerated the main features and provisions of the extraordinary franchise by which this Board was elected, but he had omitted to mention one particular class of voters who, at the present time, possessed the power of plural voting up to a maximum of 10 votes. He referred to the owners of shipping trading with the port of Dublin but not registered in Dublin. This class of voters would have their voting power doubled if this Bill were passed into law in its present shape, because their franchise consisted in possessing a vote for every £100 of Port dues paid until a maximum of 10 votes was reached. The numerous steamers doing a limited trade with the port of Dublin at present would possess infinitely more voting power under the new order of things to be created by this Bill than the largest trader in the city of Dublin, and consequently more control over the policy of the Port and Docks Board. There was another grave objection to this Bill in its present shape, namely, that it proposed to impose dues, or, in other words, a tax, on all merchandise manufactured and raw materials and live stock exported or imported after the passing of this Bill into law. He submitted that this very important and drastic change in the law was being promoted, to a very large extent, without taking the citizens of Dublin into the confidence of the pro-
    12
    moters; for he believed that ninty-nine one-hundredths of the people who were most deeply interested in this change—namely, the citizens of Dublin and those trading with and through the city of Dublin—knew nothing and have no means of knowing up to now how far-reaching and serious the taxes which this Bill sought to impose. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bitterly opposed last year from that side of the House because of the imposition of an import duty on sugar and an export duty on coals; yet this Bill proposed to follow closely the example set by the right hon. Baronet last year, and, indeed, went much farther than he dared to go, for it imposed an import and export duty on all merchandise.
    But as he had mentioned sugar he would point out what the Bill proposes to do in dealing with that article. It has just as many rates and sub-heads as were contained in the Finance Act of last year. It said that the rates on sugar of all sorts should be ls, per ton; on sugar-candy, 2s. 6d. per ton; on molasses, treacle, and syrup, 10d. per ton; on glucose, ls. 3d, per ton; and on confectionery, 2s. 6d. per ton. He was curious to know what the agricultural community in the Dublin district would think of this Bill, but, as he had already stated, they were, he believed, absolutely in the dark in regard to its proposals. The Bill proposed to levy a duty of per cwt. on all butter exported through the port of Dublin, and to tax all the agriculture produce, including all classes of live stock, in a similar manner, so that at least a tax of £15,000 per annum will be put upon all Irish agricultural produce exported through the port of Dublin in the future, and this without any real corresponding advantages to the trading community or the general public; for the advantages proposed to be gained would be entirely for the benefit of the shipping and railway companies.
    In this connection, he could not understand the illogical attitude taken up by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division. He appeared to be in favour of the Bill with all its faults, and would not hesitate to place in the hands of the Port and Docks Board, unfettered by any

    13
    conditions, the immense powers and privileges which the Bill proposed to confer, while at the same time he knew that popular opinion, including that of the mercantile community of Dublin irrespective of politics, was entirely in favour of a sweeping radical change in the composition of the Board. The hon. Gentleman professed a platonic affection for a popular or at least an extended franchise, but as an old Parliamentary hand he must know that, if this Bill were allowed to pass, any alteration or modification of the present intolerable system must be postponed for another 25 years at least. He (Mr. Cogan) would not say anything of what the members of the live stock trade would think of the President of their Association for in a large measure helping to place a burden upon their already hard-pressed industry. But, forsooth, his argument and defence was that, because he held to the old-fashioned, out-of-date old Tory policy of protection, he would not hesitate to tax exports, in order that he might thereby be enabled to place an embargo on imports.
    There was another aspect of the case to which he might direct attention. The Board's engineer reported that £1,258,000 would be required to carry out all the improvement schemes which he recommended, but that a selection of work to be undertaken might be made to the extent of £1,000,000. How was this enormous sum proposed to be raised? By borrowing £650,000, and employing £350,000 of revenue for new work. Who in of our time ever heard of such a proposition? Yet the Committee adopted this recommendation. Surely it was not the policy of public Boards nor of Parliament that capital expenditure should be made out of rates! All this showed the utterly careless abandonment of this fossilised Board, and such a thing ought not to be permitted. He submitted that this monstrosity of other days ought to be abolished out of existence; that this House, in dealing with this matter, should bear in mind what the policy of both sides of the House in this Question of the franchise had been; that the whole policy of Parliament had been and was in the direction of the widest and fullest franchise, the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, being the latest example. Surely if the people of Ireland were worthy of having such a full franchise
    14
    conferred upon them for county government, the citizens of the metropolis of Ireland ought to be—and they were—capable of bearing the responsibility through a similar franchise for the management and improvement of their port.
    Amendment proposed.
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Nannetti.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Mr. T. HARRINGTONcontended that the criticisms which had been brought against the Bill were such as might very well be considered in Committee, but they had nothing to do with the general principles of the Bill, or with the question of whether or not it should be read a second time. The hon. Member for the College Green and the St. Patrick Divisions could not claim to be the exclusive exponents of the public opinion in Dublin. From his long connection with the city, his official position, and the fact that he represented the Harbour Division, he claimed to have some right to speak on behalf both of the Port and of the City of Dublin. The system of voting, of which he was not in favour, had been described as practically obsolete or unheard of, but, as a matter of fact, it obtained in the ports of London, Swansea, Belfast, and other places. One of the grievances against the Board was that the only dues placed on goods were on raw material coming in. The remedy for that was contained in the Bill, and yet it was sought to reject the measure. But it was monstrously unfair for the hon. Member to accuse his own colleagues on the Board of being responsible for that state of things, seeing that it was the outcome of a provision made'by the old Irish Parliament, and had therefore been in existence for over a century. The Board itself tried to amend that provision last year, but the hon. Member blocked the Bill. As to the pilotage dues, the Board had applied to the Board of Trade in Dublin for an Amendment in regard to the manner in which pilotage certificates were issued; the Board of Trade had not given a satisfactory settlement. but they had

    15
    given the same as existed in any other port in the United Kingdom. The Bill actually provided to charge 12½ per cent. on the past revenue of these companies, but again the hon. Member proposed to reject the Bill. The present composition of the Board was the result of a compromise between the Corporation of Dublin, the Port and Docks Board, and the Chamber of Commerce, there being 28 members, of whom 12 were traders' representatives, nine were shipping members (all elected on the general franchise), six were nominated by the Corporation, with the Lord Mayor ex officio. Quite recently three members representing various sides in the present controversy vacated their seats, but not a single person opposed their re-election. If the franchise was so bad, how did the hon. Member account for the fact that the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division, who was second on the list at the General Election, was returned unopposed the other day? It could not be said that the hon. Member was a persona grata with all classes in Dublin, or that the people had more faith in him than in any other of the Irish representatives. The fact was that all parties in Dublin were anxious to make the Board a working body, not for politics, or for any particular section of the community, but to bring it up to the level of other ports for the benefit of the city at large. What was the reason for the promotion of the Bill? Dublin had been a free port. The seconder of the Amendment had spoken of the iniquity of imposing dues on goods. But how was it an outrage on public morality to do in Dublin what was done in Cork, London, Liverpool, and practically every port in the United Kingdom? Was it not trifling with the House of Commons and belieing the intelligence of the people of Dublin to say that what was necessary for the working equipment of the Port of Dublin, and to bring it up to the condition of other ports was a shameful outrage on popular feeling in Ireland? The result of the endeavour to maintain Dublin as a free port had been practically to ruin its revenues. Any port that attempted to derive its dues from shipping alone, and not as revenue from goods, had been seriously hit by the modern system of registration, as many
    16
    companies paid only one-twentieth of the amount they would have to pay if charged on the goods they brought in. Last year the surplus revenue of the Board was only £500. It was true they had unexhausted borrowing powers, but if they attempted to issue their stock they would be laughed at unless they could give some security that the revenue would be increased in order to pay the interest and sinking fund charges. He appealed to the House to save the hon. Memher from the consequences of his own action, and, as was usual in such cases, to send the Bill to a Committee where the various points which had been raised could be dealt with.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The matters dealt with in this Bill are of such importance that I will ask the House to allow me to intervene at this stage. I do not rise to discuss the merits of this Bill, but to advance one argument which, I think, hon. Members ought to hear as to the present constitution of the authority which manages this port. The constitution of the authority received the sanction of this House less than four years ago. This House at that time affixed its sanction to a Bill which embodied a compromise, and in that compromise the body presiding over the port had its constitution altered. The franchise qualification was reduced, the representation of the city was increased from three to seven members, and other great concessions were made. As a set-off to these concessions, and as a portion of the same bargain, this plural voting was retained. I think that the House should not take such an exceptional course as to reject this Bill, because they are asked to reverse a decision so recently arrived at.
    MR. FIELDsaid that although he happened to be a member of the Port and Docks Board he was a supporter of this Bill. The reason they wanted this Bill was because they wished to be able to provide accommodation for shipping, which they had hitherto been unable to do, because their funds were very limited owing to the manner in which they were collected. The tendency nowadays was to build ships larger and larger, and they required greater and more expensive accommodation, In

    17
    Dublin the ancient port and old quays required improvement, and they wanted accommodation for the ocean trade and to extend the North Wall. This Bill represented mutual concessions on all sides. They had had great difficulty in arriving at the settlement contained in the Bill, which had been agreed upon after the interests of traders, merchants, shippers, Corporations, and the Chambers of Commerce had been duly considered. The result of this ventilation of views was that, after two years discussion, a mutual arrangement was arrived at to come to the House to ask for these increased powers. He would never have supported this Bill unless import dues were put upon goods. Dublin Port was called a free port, but it was no such thing, for it could not be expected that they could provide dock facilities without they were paid for. They might just as well talk about a free railway. It was absurd for an hon. Member to stand up in this House and state that the merchant paid the dues, because they were, as a matter of fact, paid by the consumer. He could not understand why the Port of Dublin should be supposed to be the property of traders and merchants, for it was the property of the City of Dublin. If he had his way lie would have the Parliamentary franchise for this Board. The hon. Member for East Wicklow animadverted upon the import dues, but in every port in the three kingdoms, or in the civilised world, there were export and import dues. Did the hon. Member for Wicklow wish Dublin to be the only exception? Why should it be an exception to all other ports in the world? He hoped the Port of Dublin would be exceptional in its progress in the future. Surely the hon. Member for College Green did not belong to the system of economists who maintained that the free import system was an advantage to any port. He was not a Protectionist by any means, but he did not see why everything should be dumped down free of duty with the result that labour was discouraged. That was an extraordinary argument.
    MR. NANNETTIsaid he had no objection to a tax on goods provided the franchise was extended to the consumer
    18
    so that he could elect those who imposed the tax.
    Mr. FIELDsaid that the Port and Docks Board had, during the past few years, done a great deal for the port. The reformed Board [was intent upon doing its duty to the public in the future. Referring to the rules of the Board of Trade with regard to the measurement of ships, the hon. Member said he could not understand why the present system was allowed to prevail. There were two vessels which came into the port at present minus tonnage dues, altogether on account of the system of measurement. He believed it would be in the interest of the City of Dublin that the Bill now before the House should be passed. If it was not passed undoubtedly a large number of men who were at present engaged by the Port and Docks Board would be cast out of employment. This was not a mere pious opinion. He consulted the engineer before he left Dublin, and he knew as a matter of fact that it would have this effect. Dublin had a scheme on hand for the revival of shipbuilding there, and it was important that the facilities of the port should be increased. He hoped the majority of the Members of the House would support the Bill in the interests of trade and labour.
    MR. JOYCEsaid he found himself in the very doubtful position of the gentleman who had two ladies in love with him—
    "How happy could I be with either, Were t'other dear charmer away."
    He sympathised with the hon. Member for College Green until he heard the very able argument brought forward from the other side. He thought it would be wise on the part of the hon. Member for College Green to withdraw his opposition at present and allow the Bill to go through, leaving the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division to endeavour to get his Amendment with regard to plurality of votes inserted in the Bill.
    (4.42.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 27.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Keswick, William

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

    Allen,Chas. P. (Glouc.,Stroud)

    Doxford, Sir Win. Theodore

    Knowles, Lees

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lambert, George

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Edwards, Frank

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Talton

    Lawson, John Grant

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Austin, Sir John

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edwd. H.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareh'm

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Balcarres, Lord

    Field, William

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Finch, George H.

    Leveson-Gower,Fred'rick N. S.

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

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Levy, Maurice

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

    Fishier, William Hayes

    Lloyd-George, David

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lockwood, Lr.-Col. A. R.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    FitzGerald,Sir RohertPenrose-

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Flower, E. nest

    Long,Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Forster, Henry William

    Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

    Beach,Rt. Hon. SirMich. Hicks

    Foster,Phil.S.(Warwick,S.W.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Garfit, William

    Lundon, W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gibbs,Hn. A. G. H(Cityof Lond.

    Macartney,Rt. Hn. WG Ellison

    Boland, John

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St Albans)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Bond, Edward

    Gilhooly, James

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Boscawen Arthur Griffith-

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Cahnont,C1.H.L.B. (Cambs.

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gordon,Hn.J.E. (Elgin &Nairn

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

    Bowles,Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

    Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

    M`Govern, T.

    Bowles, T.Gibson (King's Lynn

    Gore,Hn.GRC.Ormsby-(Salop

    M`Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Brigg, John

    Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

    M`Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Bull, William James

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Caine, William Sproston

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Caldwell, James

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W F.

    Campbell,Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

    Greene,SirE W(B'rySEdm'nds

    Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

    Mellor, Rt. Hon.John William

    Carew, James Laurence

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Carlile, William Walter

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Mitchell, William

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

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

    Hamilton,Rt. Hn LordG(Mid' x

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire

    Hamilton Marq. of(L'nd'nde'ry

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hammond, John

    Morton,ArthurH.A.(Deptford

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Moss, Samuel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murray,Rt. Hn A. Gr'h'm(Bute

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hayne, Rt. Charles Seale-

    Myers, William Henry

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Heath, James (Staffords,N. W.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Helder, Augustus

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Nolan,Col. John P. (Galway,N.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hobhouse,C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth,South)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Norton, Capt.Cecil William

    Colomh, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Holland, William, Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hope,J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

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

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Homer, Frederick William

    O'Doherty, William

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Crombie, John William

    Howard,J no (Kent, Faversham

    Peel,Hn.Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham)

    Percy, Earl

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Dalkeith Earl of

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

    Purvis, Robert

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

    Randles, John S.

    Denny, Colonel

    Joyce, Michael

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Dewar,john A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Reid,Sir R.Threshie(Dumfries

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Kenyon,Hn.Geo. T.(Denbigh)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Dimsdale,Sir Joseph Cockfield

    Kenyon-SlaneY,Col. W. (Salop)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    20

    21

    Ridley,H n. M. W.(Stalybridge

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Welby,Sir Charles(E(Notts.)

    Ritchie,Rt.Hn. Chas.Thomson

    Soares, Ernest J.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Roliertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Spear, John Ward

    White,Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Spence,Rt. Hn.C.R (North'nts

    Whiteley,George(York,W.R.)

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Round, James

    Stanley,Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Stewart,Si MarkJ.M'Taggart

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Russell, T. W.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Rutherford, John

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Williams,R'Hn JP'well-(Birm

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Talbot,RtHn.J.G (Oxf'd Univ.

    Wilson,Fred.W (N' rfolk,Mid.

    Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Mertle'r

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

    Sassoon,Sir Edward Albert

    Thomas,F.Ereeman-(Hastings

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Saunderson.Rt. Hn. Cl.Edw.J.

    Thompson,Dr.EC(M'nagh'n,N

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Wodehouse,Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wood, James

    Seely,Maj.J E. B. (Isleof Wight

    Tontlinson,Wm Edwd. Murray

    Worsley-Taylor,HenryWilson

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wylie, Alexander

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

    Ure, Alexander

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Valentia, Viscount

    Young, Samuel

    Sinclair, John (Fortarshire)

    Vincent,C1. Sir C. E. H (Shef'eld

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Wason, Eugene (Clack mannan

    Mr. Archdale and Mr.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Wason,John Cathcart (Orkeny

    Harrington.

    Smith, H C (N'rth mb. Tyneside

    Welby,Lt. Col. A C E(Taunton

    NOES.

    Abraham,William (Cork,N.E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Mara, James

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Shee, James John

    Barry, E.(Cork, S.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Harwood, George

    Power Patrick Joseph

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Price, Robert John

    Blake, Edward

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Rasch Major Frederic Carne

    Boyle, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Reddy,M.

    Burns, John

    Lough, Thomas

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eiflon)

    Cameron, Robert

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M`Fadtlen, Edward

    Runciman, Walter

    Crean, Eugene

    M. Hugh, Patrick A.

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Cremer, William Randal

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Cullinan,J.

    Murphy, John

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Delany, William

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Dillon, John

    O'Brien,Kendal (Tip'rary Mid.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Farrell, James Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Mr. Nannetti and Mr.

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N

    Cogan.

    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    *MR. SPEAKER: A notice of Motion in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin is on the Paper. It relates to franchise, but as it is not within the scope of the Bill the Motion is not in order.

    PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
    Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of
    22
    the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
    Cavehill and Whitewell Tramways Bill.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

    PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS 62 AND 66 COMPLIED WITH).
    Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Orders Nos. 62 and 66 have been complied with, viz.:—
    Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway Bill.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

    PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
    Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, he has certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following case, viz.:—
    Northumberland Electric Tramways.

    PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
    Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Re-part from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
    Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads.
    Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE,PROVISIONAL ORDER.
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, and The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897, relating to land in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Mr. Secretary Ritchie.
    METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    "To confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, and The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897, relating to land in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, "presented according y, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
  PETITIONS.
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (STANDING ORDERS).
    Petition from Bolton, for a new Standing Order providing for the Suspension of Bills; to lie upon the Table.
    COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
    Petitions in favour; From Wallsend Main; Scholes; Moresby Pit; Aldwarke (No. 1); Aldwarke (No. 2); Oaks; and, Treeton Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
    LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour; From Alexandria; Helensburgh; Alva; Deanpark; St. Fillans; Penninghame; Scottish Temperance League; Govanhill; Kilmarnock (two); Bonbill; St. Ninian's; Scottish Baptist Total Abstinence Society; and, Baptist Union of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition of the Temperance Committee of the United Free Church of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFES SISTER BILL.
    Petition from Penrhyn, against; to lie upon the Table.
    MIDWIVES BILL.
    Three Petitions from Wimbledon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
    Petitions in favour; From Moresby Pit; Aldwarke (No. 2); Oaks; Wallsend Main; Scholes; and, Treeton Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
    PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Glasgow, Partick, Whiteinch, and Scottish Temperance League; to lie upon the Table.
    ROYAL DECLARATION.
    Petition from Walthamstow, against alteration; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition front London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (MONMOUTHSHIRE).
    Petition from North Kensington, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
    SHOP CLUBS BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Poulton le Fylde and Sheffield; to lie upon the Table.
    BRITISH MUSEUM.
    Petition of the Trustees of the British Museum (King's Recommendation signified) for grant in aid; referred to the Committee of Supply.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF SOUTHAMPTON).
    Copy presented of Order made by the County Council of Southampton altering certain Polling Districts in the New Forest Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
    Copy presented of Report, No. 347 (British Solomon Islands, Report for 1900–1901) [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
    EAST INDIA (TRADE).
    Copy presented of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the five years 1896–7 to 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    BRITISH MUSEUM.
    Return ordered "of Account of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902; and Return of the Number of Persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1896 to 1901, both years inclusive; together with a Statement of the Progress made in the Ar-
    26
    rangement and Description of the Collections, and an Account of Objects added to them in the year 1901."—(Mr.Morley.)

    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
    Copy ordered "of the Judgments of the Judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland (King's Bench Division) in the cases stated; Owens and others, Appellants, Tyacke, Respondents, and O'Donnell and others, Appellants, Molony, Respondent, decided 3rd February, 1902; with Copies of the Summonses and Convictions, and of the Orders of the King's Bench Division."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 63.]

  (4.0.) QUESTIONS.

    Chartered Company of South Africa.
    MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received, or has the prospect of receiving, a claim from the Chartered Company of South Africa for expenses incurred in connection with the defence of a part of the border of the Transvaal; and, if so, what action he intends to take.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have not received, and I do not look forward to receiving, any such claim.

    Captured Boer Cattle.
    MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can state what is being done with the cattle taken from the Boers in South Africa; and, having regard to the importance of having acclimatised animals to restock the farms, whether suitable animals for this purpose among those taken are reserved for this object.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The majority of these cattle are in the hands of the military, but a certain number are being kept on Government farms. I know that the importance of having a sufficient

    27
    suitable supply of animals to restock the country is engaging Lord Milner's attention,

    Commissions to Crown Agents on War Expenditure.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the amount claimed by the Crowu Agents of the Colonies as commission during the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, and the amount paid them; also the amount claimed by, and paid to, the Colonial Governments as commission for work done by them in respect of the South African War; and, whether the Crown Agents of the Colonies are a company with a charter, or under what powers they are able to claim their commission.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The total sum received by the Crown Agents for the Colonies from the Colonial Governments for which they act were for—

    1899

    £24,635

    1900

    £25,564

    1901

    £80,859

    These payments represent their remuneration for financial and commercial business of various kinds transacted for the Governments of the Colonies, and are in accordance with a fixed scale of charges authorised for the maintenance of the Crown Agents' office. There is, in this case, no question of any amount claimed, or of any allowance or disallowance of claim. I am informed that the only commission claimed and paid at present by any Colonial Government is a sum of £900 8s. 9d. paid to Tasmania. The Crown Agents are not a company, under charter or otherwise, and the nature of their function and organisation will be found described in Parliamentary Paper C. 3075 of 1881.

    Cost of Basuto Ponies.
    MR CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the. Colonies whether he can explain why the price paid for 20,000 Basuto ponies was officially assessed at £262,990, on an average of over £13 each, while the average value in the Leribe district of Basutoland was £20, in the Berea district £16 10s., in the Maseru district £20,
    28
    in the Mafeteng district £16, in the Mohalo district £22 10s., in the Quthing district £16, and in the Quacha's Nek district £20, according to the official report on Basutoland issued in December 1901.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will look at page 11 of the Report he is quoting he will see that the number of horses assessed at £262,000 was 15,684, and not 20,000, making an average price of over £16, not £13. I have no reason to question the accuracy of this estimate.

    Farm Burning in South Africa.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now issue a further Return of buildings burned in each month in South Africa, from January 1901 to January 1902, with statement of reasons for such burning (in continuation of Command Paper, No. 524, of Session 1901).
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODR1CK, Surrey,Guildford): I have requested Lord Kitchener to furnish a further Return, which will be published in continuation of the Command Paper mentioned.
    *MR. H. J. WILSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the Return of farms burned by the Boers in Cape Colony, which he stated was being printed on 16th April, 1901, will be issued.
    MR. BRODRICK: I explained to the hon. Member for East Mayo on May 24th last year that the question had been misunderstood and that I replied under a misapprehension. I received a telegram from Lord Kitchener on June 17th to the following effect—
    "Have received the following reports of farms in Cape Colony destroyed by Boers: Aberdeen, one farm destroyed; Barkley East, no farms destroyed, but farms looted and damaged by local rebels; Barkley West, no farms destroyed, a few damaged, but doubtful whether by the enemy or by natives; Colesberg, no farms destroyed, but considerable number looted; Graaf Reinet, one homestead burnt; five houses either damaged or furniture de-

    29
    stroyed; Jansenville, one homestead burnt; Mafeking, 14 farms destroyed, four trading stations and railway buildings, also native hut number unknown; Prince Albert, no farms destroyed, 18 farms looted; Taungs, no farms known to have been destroyed, but three trading shops gutted and walls only standing, and properties of nearly all local farmers looted; Somerset East, one large and valuable farmhouse with furniture destroyed; Vryburg, no homesteads actually destroyed, 10 homesteads damaged, estimated loss at £900; Wodehouse, no homesteads destroyed, but some looted."
    The following applies to Natal—
    "As regards damage done by the Boers to farm buildings in Natal, Compensation Committee report that there are 236 European claimants, assessed value of damage ¢:27,470, and 218 native claimants, value of damage £4,685."
    Further information has been promised, but owing to the nature of the operations in Cape Colony statistics are very difficult to obtain.
    *MR. H. J. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a Return?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have given as many Returns as I can, but it is very difficult to get accurate statistics on a point of such importance, and having regard to such large distances overrun in a short period.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether the farms were derelict or were looted by Kaffirs when they were deserted?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say. That is just the point on which information is wanted in regard to each particular farm.

    Mrs. De Wet.
    MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state under what circumstances the wife of General De Wet was placed in a concentration camp, and what were the grounds for treating her as a prisoner; whether she is now free to proceed to Cape Colony or to Europe; and, if not, whether she has been informed that she is at liberty to join her husband or any of the Boer forces in the field.
    MR. BRODRICK: Mrs. De Wet was sent to Maritzburg some months ago from Johannesburg, where her presence was
    30
    undesirable, and she has since been detained in Natal. As regards her treatment she only has to contorm to certain local regulations which render permission necessary before leaving bounds. There is no objection to her leaving South Africa and proceeding whither she likes, but she will not be permitted to proceed to Cape Colony.

    Trial of Commandant Kritzinger.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an undertaking that the death sentence, if pronounced against Commandant Kritzinger, will not be carried into effect until the House has had an opportunity of considering the full reports of the trials in his case and in those of Commandant Scheepers and others in which the death sentence has been carried into effect.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. I cannot give any pledge which would interfere with the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief of the forces in South Africa in these matters.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not the case that the trial of Commandant Kritzinger is over?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no reason for supposing that it has yet begun; but I have had no information for the last few days.

    Operations against De Wet.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of troops engaged in the recent attempt to capture General De Wet and the forces under his his command.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he canstate how many columns and what number of troops were engaged in the recent combined movements to capture General De Wet.
    MR. BRODRICK: No information has been forwarded as to the numbers engaged.

    Remounts—Military Court of Inquiry—Position of General Truman.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether

    31
    General Truman, Inspector-General of Remounts, has tendered his resignation or has been called upon to tender his resignation by the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief.
    MR. BRODRICK: I told the House that General Truman, in consequence of the observations made upon him in connection with these remount questions, asked for a Court of Inquiry into his conduct. That Court will shortly assemble, and no further action has been taken in the matter pending that inquiry, either by General Truman or the Commander-in-Chief.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. It was, whether General Truman had tendered his resignation or had been called upon to tender his resignation by the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Question is answered by saying that General Truman asked for a Court of Inquiry.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I must press for an answer. Has General Truman tendered his resignation or been asked to tender his resignation by the Secretary of State or the Commander-in Chief?
    MR. BRODRICK: Communications passed between General Truman and the Commander-in-Chief, the result of which was that General Truman asked for a Court of Inquiry.

    Remount—Suggested Parliamentary Committee.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the facts recently brought to light with reference to the purchase of remounts, he will reconsider his decision as to the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. Nothing has transpired to alter the decision which I conveyed to the House on the 6th instant.
    † See preceding Volumn, page 519.

    Hungarian Horse Contracts.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that almost all the persons connected with the Hungarian Horse Contracts, whose action has been impugned, are at present in England, he will agree to a Select Committee to inquire into these contracts and report thereon.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. The circumstances have already been brought out by the Departmental Committee, and have been fully discussed in both Houses of Parliament. I see no advantage in appointing a further Committee.

    South African War Contracts.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return setting forth all the contracts that have been entered into by the War Office for requirements connected with the South African War, with the names of the contractors, the nature of the contract, and the amount that has been paid in respect to those which have already been closed, and the amount that it is estimated will have to be paid in regard to those which are still running.
    MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to consider the grant of a return on so enormous a scale and involving such immense labour until the war is over.

    War Shipping Contracts.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the war shipping contracts, and to report thereon.
    MR. BRODRICK: This will form one of the subjects for inquiry at the end of the war.

    General Officers on Active Service.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many general officers, substantive and acting, are now attached to the Field Force in South Africa, and if, having regard to the main employment of the

    33
    troops either in blockhouses or in small columns under regimental Field Officers, effort will be made not to increase Staff expenses in default of direct application by Lord Kitchener for the services of a particular officer.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): Eighteen general officers are at present employed in South Africa. There are also 11 officers with local rank of Major-General and 12 with local rank of Brigadier-General. The Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the number of generals employed, and he is in constant communication with Lord Kitchener.

    Imperial Yeomanry Officers—Outfit Grants.
    *MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the fact that officers of the Imperial Yeomanry who were appointed to commissions from the ranks as a reward for service in the field have not been allowed the grant of £35 for outfit; although that grant was allowed to officers of the new Imperial Yeomanry proceeding from England; and will he take into consideration the case of the men promoted from the ranks.
    MR. FREDERICK WILSON: At the same time may I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the allowance sanctioned by the War Office to officers going out to South Africa in the Imperial Yeomanry is £35, but in November last a new order was issued, stating that all officers in the Imperial Yeomanry commissioned from the ranks in South Africa would only be allowed £5 for the purpose of assisting them to adopt their existing kits to officer's outfit; and, whether, considering the qualifications for promotion of men who have served in South Africa, he will consider the desirability of making them the same allowance as men sent out fresh from England.
    LORD STANLEY: In answer to these two Questions, the amounts actually expended in these cases will be granted up to a limit of £35.

    Royal Army Medical Corps.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkestone): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Army Medical Corps have been sent from England to South Africa during the last seven months; and how many of these have had actual training in hospitals in nursing the sick.
    LORD STANLEY: Since 1st July, 1901, 1,160 non-commissioned officers and men, Royal Army Medical Corps, have embarked for South Africa. Of these, 626 were enlisted in the usual way and had had actual training in military hospitals in nursing the sick. The remainder were enlisted under a special Army Order of 11th March, 1901, engaging men who had been trained in civil life. These all had good certificates of proficiency in first aid, ambulance drill, &c., but it is not possible to say exactly what actual nursing experience they had. On arrival in South Africa the drafts are detailed by the Principal Medical Officer according to their qualifications.

    Deaths from Typhoid.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of cases of typhoid, fever and the number of deaths from that disease which have occurred among the troops serving in South Africa since May, 1901, giving, if possible, the numbers of cases and deaths for each month.
    LORD STANLEY:The figures arefollows:—

    Admissions.

    Deaths.

    June

    885

    170

    July

    324

    68

    August

    328

    73

    September

    257

    47

    October

    451

    43

    November

    1091

    160

    making a total for 26 weeks of 3.336 admissions and 561 deaths. No further Returns have reached the War Office.

    Relief of Militia Regiments.
    SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can inform the House which of the Militia Regiments now serving in South Africa are to be relieved by the nine Militia Battalions recently despatched to that country.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not yet in a position to say which of the Militia battalions now in South Africa will be relieved.

    Royal Welsh Fusiliers—Volunteer Service Company.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that a period of 12 months has expired since the Volunteer Service Company of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers enlisted, and that some of the men have left situations which have been kept open for 12 months only, that being the alternative period for which they enlisted, he will favourably consider the applications of men so circumstanced to be allowed to return home.
    MR. BRODRICK: As I explained to the House a few clays ago, I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

    Contracts for Mules.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a contract for the supply of mules was made in September 1899 with Mr. Weil, of South Africa, at the price of £35 each; and whether documentary evidence from responsible officers of the Remount Department with the Natal Field Force can be produced, showing that their market price at that time was £25, and their value about £15.
    LORD STANLEY: There is no information on this subject at the War Office.

    Soldier Reservists—Section D.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that soldier reservists in Section D), who were enlisted for home service only, have been sent on active service in South Africa, and that the Military authorities in South Africa are, notwithstanding protests, compelling these men to continue in the service for a year beyond the termination of the period of their re-engagement; and, whether, having regard to the effect of this action on the soldier reservists belonging to Section D who are thus detained from their homes, he will take steps to see that the provisions of the agreement under which these men re-engaged in the service will be strictly observed.
    LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. These men undertake to serve in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for a period of four years, or for a further period of 12 months or less, if so directed by the competent Military authority.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are these men protesting against being kept on active service? Are they not anxious to return home?
    LORD STANLEY: I don't know.

    War Office Papers.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will lay upon the Table the Minutes in the Public Paper, War Office, File No.74705/4, dated respectively 17th and 20th April, 1899; also the complete set of Minutes in the War Office, File 74706/15; and the Minutes and Statement in the War Office, File 74706/16,with which the then Secretary of State for War, on 28th March, 1900, expressed his concurrence.
    LORD STANLEY: These Papers are strictly confidential, and I cannot consent to lay them on the Table. Their contents were improperly made public.

    Scottish Army Corps.
    MR. CHARLES HORHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the number of regular troops at present quartered within the limits of the Scottish Army Corps, and where each unit is quartered; what is the number of officers now on the Staff of that Army Corps; and what is the establishment in that Army Corps of regular troops and of staff officers.
    LORD STANLEY: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to a reply to a Question put yesterday by the hon. Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire, in which my right hon. friend explained that this Army Corps will not be established till after the conclusion of the war.

    Boyle Barracks.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when and by

    37
    what order a man named Dalton was dismissed from the position of contractor for repairs to the barracks of Boyle, County Roscommon; is he aware that a, successor was appointed three days before Dalton's Contract expired; and will he cause an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case.
    LORD STANLEY: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to the replies which I gave to questions put on this subject by the hon. Member for the South Division of Leitrim last July and August,† and to which I have nothing to add?

    Sandhurst Military College.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of making an arrangement whereby the sons of officers (who retire on pension or gratuity after 18 years service) entering the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, should be taken at a reduced scale from that for the son of a private gentleman, viz. £150.
    LORD STANLEY: It was decided many years ago that 20 years service was required to qualify for such advantages. In any changes which may be made at Sandhurst I will consider my hon. friend's suggestion.

    Naval Gun Machinery—Training of Officers.
    MR. PEEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to give certain executive officers a mechanical training with a view to their taking charge of the hydraulic gun machinery on board ships of war; and, if so, how is it proposed to carry out the mechanical training of the said Officers.
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): It has been decided to give certain Executive Officers a mechanical training with a view to their taking charge of the hydraulic gun machinery on board ships for war; and a Committee has been directed to consider and report upon the most effective means of giving effect to this decision.
    † See (4) Debates, xcviii, 238, 406, 848.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESwas understood to ask if these Executive Officers were to be gunnery lieutenants.
    *M R. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir, they will he lieutenants.

    India North West Frontier—Rumoured Revolt in the Khost Valley.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the troops which revolted quite lately are a portion of the Pathan Levies under the orders of the Simla Political Department stationed in the Khost Valley; will he state whether the Malukhund and Bundir districts, where the agitation has occurred, and which were at one time far beyond the Indian border, are now districts contained within the area of the new province, and can any recent correspondence relating to these trans-frontier affairs be placed before Parliament at an early date.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I think that this Question has been put under a misapprehension. No troops under British authority have revolted.

    Spanish-American War—Diplomatic Action preceding the War.
    MR. CHARLES H0USE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make any statement concerning a meeting of Ambassadors at the British Embassy in Washington in April 1898.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): The meeting which took place on the 14th April, 1898, was convened by Lord Pauncefote as Doyen of the Ambassadors at the verbal suggestion of some of his colleagues. Whatever opinions were expressed by Lord Paunce fote during the discussion, which was of an informal character, were personal to himself and not in pursuance of any instructions from Her Majesty's Government. The discussion resulted in an agreement by the Ambassadors to forward an identical telegram to their respective Governments suggesting a further

    39
    communication to the Government of the United States. On the receipt of this message Her Majesty's Government at once replied objecting to the terms of the proposed communication as injudicious. Two days later Lord Pauncefote was informed that Her Majesty's Government had resolved to take no action. We had at the time no information of the attitude of the German Government.
    MR. DILLON: Is the noble Lord prepared to state whether the official German statement as to what has taken place is correct or incorrect?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: I have nothing to add to the answer I have just given to the House.

    Anglo-Japanese Agreement.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China is included under the term other Powers, in Articles 2 and 3 of the Agreement between Great Britain and Japan; whether the granting by China of any special commercial privileges or railway concessions, after the date of the Agreement, in any portion of her territory to any other Power is a matter that contravenes the Agreement; and whether the recognition by China of spheres of influence of other Powers contravenes it.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: The interpretation of any words in an Agreement is not usually made the subject of an official statement until the circumstances have arisen which require such a statement. But as to the first part of the Question, I may say that the other Powers referred to are the countries having political or commercial relations with China or Korea.
    MR. O'SHEE: Will the noble Lord answer the second and third Questions?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: I have explained that it is contrary to what is customary in relation to these Agreements to do so.

    Gilbert and Ellice Islands—Complaints against the Resident Commissioner.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been directed to the complaints concerning
    40
    the administration of the resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands; and can he state what inquiries have been made thereon, where held, and on what dates and also into the case of Mr. Goodge, who was imprisoned and deported.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: An exhaustive inquiry into the complaints referred to was made by a Commission consisting of the Commander, the Navigating Lieutenant, and the Surgeon of His Majesty's Ship "Phoebe" at Tarawa in the Gilbert Group on the 18th and 19th of September last. The Commission reported that of the numerous charges made, some were easily explained, some were absolutely untrue and were withdrawn, and that not a single case of harshness or oppression was satisfactorily established. The Report of the Commission, which is a somewhat lengthy document, is at the hon. Member's service if he desires to peruse it.

    Gilbert and Ellice Islands—Dismissal of the Court Registrar.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explain why the services of Mr. Potts, Registrar of the Court in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, were summarily dispensed with by the High Commissioner without giving to the said Mr. Potts any opportunity of being heard in his own defence.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Potts had been more than once reprimanded for insubordination, and at an interview with the High Commissioner, in June 1899, was informed that his conduct justified his dismissal, but that he would be allowed to return to his post on the assurance that he would comply with the orders of the Resident Commissioner and carry on his duties in a proper spirit of subordination. In May 1900, in consequence of repeated disregard of instructions, he was suspended by the Resident Commissioner and ordered to proceed to Suva to report himself to the High Commissioner. Mr. Potts had an interview with the High Commissioner at Suva in August 1900, at which he was informed that the High Commissioner was convinced that it was not in the public interests to retain his

    41
    services, which were accordingly dispensed with.

    Inspector of Factories—Report.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to expedite in the present year the issue of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have consulted the Chief Inspector on this matter, and I hope that by dividing his Report and reserving all the statistical matter for the second part, it will be possible for the first portion to be ready for publication much earlier than last year.

    Fencing of Dangerous Machinery. Prosecution of Henry Mills & Co., of Hulme, Manchester.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case recently before the magistrates at the City Police Courts, Manchester, when Henry Mills and Co., Tomlinson Street, Hulme, Manchester, were summoned at the instance of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories for failing to fence a driving shaft, by which neglect Sydney Drew, 13 years of age, was caught by his apron and one of his arms was fractured; is he aware that the Bench inflicted only 5s. fine, and seeing that the inspector expressed his regret at a nominal fine only being inflicted, as it would tend to weaken his hands in getting dangerous machinery fenced, will he state what he proposes to do in the case?
    *MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called to the case mentioned by the hon. Member, and the facts are as stated. I am informed that the Magistrates stated that their reason for inflicting so small a fine was that the shaft had been fenced after the accident. There is no appeal from the Magistrates' decision as to the amount of the fine, or I certainly would have ordered an appeal to be lodged.

    Treatment of Habitual Criminals.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the advisability of holding that a certain number of convictions should entitle a criminal to the perpetual protection of the State from his tendencies to crime, and whether he has further considered the opinion expressed by Sir It. Anderson, late Chief of Scotland Yard, with regard to the small number of criminals who form the high-class organising body of criminals in the metropolitan area, and the desirability of preventing them from prosecuting their nefarious schemes; and whether, in both cases, he proposes by legislation or otherwise, to act in the direction indicated.
    * MR. RITCHIE: I have made inquiries, and I am not prepared to accept the opinion referred to in the question as well founded, or as affording a basis for legislative or other action. The general question as to the best mode of dealing with habitual criminals has, for some time, been under the anxious consideration of the Home Office, and I am in communication with His Majesty's Judges on the subject. The question is one of extreme difficulty, but I am in hopes that I may see my way to deal with it, by legislation if necessary.

    Wellingborough Vaccination Officer.
    COLONEL STOPFORD SACKVILLE (Northants, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a recent vacancy in the office of Vaccination Officer in the Wellingborough district lasted from 18th October, 1901, till 30th January, 1902; what was the reason for the delay in approving of the appointment made by the Guardians; was any person appointed to act temporarily during the vacancy; and, has he any information to show whether the Vaccination Laws are now effectually enforced within the limits of the Wellinghorough, Kettering, and Thrapston Unions.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): In the case of Thrapston, I understand that the Vaccination Officer is performing his duties satisfactorily, and that prosecutions in cases of

    43
    default are taking place. I regret, however, to say that the information in my possession shows that the Vaccination Laws are not being effectually enforced in the other two unions to which my hon. and gallant friend refers, and I am considering what steps should be taken in these and similar cases. With regard to Wellingborough, in consequence of a report which I received from one of my Medical Inspectors, I caused letters to be addressed to the Vaccination Officers of that union calling attention to the unsatisfactory way in which they were performing their duties, and stating that they would not be allowed to retain office unless they were prepared to carry out their duties in accordance with the Vaccination Acts. As a result, one of the Vaccination Officers resigned. The Guardians appointed another person in his place in October last, but in view of the unsatisfactory replies received from the other two Vaccination Officers I felt much difficulty as to sanctioning the new appointment. Sanction was eventually given last month in the case of this officer. I have felt it necessary to call on the other Vaccination Officers to resign.

    Food Preservatives.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has taken any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Preservative Committee to standardise the percentage of preservatives allowable in other articles besides butter and milk.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the recommendations referred to, but I have not at present arrived at a decision as to the course to be taken in the matter.

    Gifts of Property to Borough and District Councils.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can arrange to give prompt replies to Town Councils and District Councils applying to the Board for power to accept and hold gifts of property, real or personal, for the benefit of the inhabitants, a power similar to that now enjoyed by all Parish Councils.
    MR. WALTER LONG: When an Urban District Council ask for the particu-
    44
    lar power referred to, they usually also apply for other powers of a Parish Council, some of which can only be given after an investigation, which necessarily takes time. It has been the practice of the Local Government Board so far as possible to dispose of the whole application by means of one Order; but I have now arranged that any application for this particular power shall be dealt with separately, and there will be no difficulty in the necessary Order being issued forth-with.

    Metropolitan Underground Railway Schemes.
    SIR JOHN DICKSON-POYNDEB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if he has considered the advisability of making some special arrangement as to the Committee stage of the several Underground Tubular Railway Bills introduced this session, so as to ensure these Bills being considered as part of a comprehensive scheme of Metropolitan locomotion; also whether, with that object in view, he proposes to grant the London County Council a locus standi before these Committees.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): Yes, Sir, I have carefully considered this subject and conferred with the authorities of both Houses. I must remind my hon. friend that the Bills have been introduced in the House of Lords. I understand that it is proposed to send the Bills, if read a second time, to one or more Private Bill Committees, and to give the London County Council and the Corporation of the City; if they desire it, a special locus.

    Cupar Income Tax Collector.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that the Income Tax Collector at Cupar has issued notices stating that, unless income tax for the current year is paid within 48 hours, the sheriff's officer will proceed to recover; whether he will take such action as will allow to income tax payers in Scotland the same latitude as that allowed in England.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARYT0 THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): Though I have no official information as to the particular proceedings taken in Cupar, complaints of a similar kind have reached me within the last 24 hours from many hon. Members representing Scotch constituencies. The practice for long past in Scotland has been to issue the third notice, which threatens the intervention of the sheriff's officer, about the middle of February. In England the issue begins at the same time of third notices, which warn that, if not paid, the tax will be recovered by distraint. I should add that the notices to which reference has been made do not amount to more than an intimation that unless the tax be paid within 48 hours the matter will he placed in the hands of the sheriff's officer for recovery. Some time is always allowed to elapse before the matter is placed in the hands of the sheriff's officer, and after it has been so placed, he never proceeds to levy without a further warning. It must, however, he remembered that the tax is due on or before 1st January, and that the machinery of collection in Scotland is different from that in England. Some differences of practice are therefore more or less inevitable, but the whole question is being further examined by the Board of Inland Revenue with a view to approximating the proceedings in the two countries as closely as possible. I have to express my regret that, owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding, this question was not fully considered, as was our intention, in time to allow of any change of practice this year. But I hope that the explanations which I have now given will remove the anxiety which has arisen in the minds of hon. Members.
    MR DALZ1EL: Then I understand that the notices which have been issued will not be acted on immediately?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, they will not.

    Hong Kong Mail Service.
    MR. JAMES O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state how many letters were carried per P. and O. steamers to Hong Kong, how many viâ Canada, and What was the average number of days by each route.
    MR. CALDWELL: At the same time I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what is the approximate time occupied in transit of letters posted in London addressed to Hong Kong and Shanghai respectively, viâ Brindisi and via Vancouver; and upon what dates would the mails which left London on 9th January last, viâ Vancouver, and the mails which left London on 17th January last, via Brindisi, arrive at Hong Kong and Shanghai respectively.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It will be convenient to answer both these Questions together. The approximate time occupied in the transit of letters from London to Hong Kong is 29 or 30 days, according to the season, viâ Brindisi, and 40 days viâ Vancouver, and from London to Shanghai 33 or 34 days viâ Brindisi, and 37 days viâ Vancouver. The mails despatched from London on the 9th of January last, viâ Vancouver, are due at Shanghai on the 15th of February, and Hong Hong on the 18th, while those sent on the 17th of January, viâ Brindisi, should reach Hong Kong on the 16th of February, and Shanghai on the 21st. The hon. Member for South Kilkenny does not specify any period in his Question; but on the assumption that the figures for one year will answer his purpose it may be stated that about 230,000 letters from the United Kingdom were carried to Hong Kong by P. and O. Packet during the year 1901. The Canadian route, by which only specially addressed letters are sent to Hong Kong, was employed for something under 50 such letters.

    Canadian Mail Subsidy.
    MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the amount paid for the year ending 31st December last, in respect of the conveyance between this country and Canada of the mails which joined the Canadian Pacific route in the terms of the mail contract which received the assent of the House of Commons on 16th August, 1889.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The payment made for the conveyance by Canadian Packet across the Atlantic of

    47
    mails intended for onward transmission from Vancouver by the Canadian Pacific Service is about £500 a year.
    M. CALDWELL: And the charge from Halifax to the destination is £45,000 a year?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the subsidy in respect of which the Service is run.
    MR. O'MARA: How many letters are carried by this route?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.

    Hickson Estate, Co. Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Church body have refused to sell the Hickson Estate in the barony of Corcaguiny, County Kerry, though the tenants are willing to purchase and the landlord to sell; and whether he will take steps to secure that, when landlord and tenant agree as to sale of land, no third party shall have the power to prevent it.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I am unable to say whether the facts are as stated, but in any case the Government cannot intervene administratively to impair the exercise of any legal right which may exist.

    Evictions on the Tottenham Estate, Leitrim.
    MR. M'HUGHI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with evictions on the Tottenham Estate in Leitrim, three young men were prosecuted on a charge of having taken part in an unlawful assembly at Armagh on 19th July, 1901; that they were tried by two stipendiary magistrates under the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment each; and that these sentences were reversed and the cases dismissed on appeal to County Court Judge Waters; is he aware that the County Court Judge, in delivering judgment, censured the con-
    48
    duct of Police Constables Moffit and Murphy, on whose evidence the charges were brought; can he explain why a court under the Act mentioned was set up in these cases; and has the conduct of these constables been since considered by their superiors; and if so, with what result.
    MR. WYNDHAMProceedings were instituted against 10 persons; six were convicted. The County Court Judge affirmed the convictions in three cases. The Judge passed some words of criticism upon the judgment displayed by the two constables named. The matter has been carefully investigated by the constabulary authorities, who see no reason for taking any action. The proceedings were under Section 2, Sub-section 3 (a) of the Crimes Act, as it was considered that this procedure was the most appropriate to the offence with which the accused were charged.

    Sale of the Tottenham Estate.
    Mu. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an order for the sale of the Tottenham Estate, County Leitrim, was made by the Land Court on 31st July. 1899; can he state what steps have been, taken to carry out the order, and is he aware of the evictions taking place on this estate; and, having regard to the fact that the tenants desire to purchase, and with a view to the peace of the district, will he take steps to expedite a sale to the tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A request for inspection of this estate has been issued by the Land Judge under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896. The inspection, which, I understand, will occupy a. considerable time, is now in progress. The Government cannot take any steps with a view to expedite the proceedings.
    MR. M'HUGHCan the right hon. Gentleman say how long the inspection will last?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is not in the power of the Government to fix the time.

    Boho (Fermanagh) Nationalist Band.
    MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

    49
    Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Nationalist Band of Boho, Derrygonnelly, county Fermanagh, have had a weekly practice and parade on the public road in that locality for many years past; that recently, when so engaged in one of those weekly exercises, the police of the district met the band, and warned them not to parade again on the county road, and that, on the evening before going out for the next week's practice, the police surrounded the band room and threatened that should the band go out to play on the public road that night they would disperse them by force. And will he state by what authority the police prevented the band from playing and parading on the county road, and whether, considering the character of the district, he will take such steps as will prevent similar police interference in future.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The police had reason to believe that this band intended to participate in efforts which have been made to intimidate the tenant of a farm in the locality. They accordingly warned the members that no such demonstration would be permitted in the vicinity of the farm. The police acted in the discharge of their primary duty of affording protection and preserving peace.

    Wood Lawn (Galway) Evictions.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police constable who is married to the postmistress at Wood Lawn, County Galway, is assisting at evictions carried out by the landlord of the post office; and whether he will consider the advisability of having this police constable removed from the district.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This constable has not, as a matter of fact, been detailed for duty at the evictions referred to. There is, however, no reason for exempting him from discharging this or any other duty incumbent on the Force, nor would the assumption mentioned in the question, even if true, render him liable to removal from the district.
    MR. ROCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county Inspector is a frequent guest at the house of this landlord's evictor?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that, neither do I think it relevant.

    Firearms (Ireland) Act—Woodford Prosecution.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the statement made by the resident magistrate at Woodford Petty Sessions on the 10th instant that he would recommend that Mulivehill should receive back his gun, whether he will now direct it should be returned.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Applications for the restoration of firearms seized by the police in circumstances such as these should be addressed by the owners to the Lord Lieutenant.

    Gun Licences in County Sligo—Case of Thomas Reynolds.
    MR.O'DOWD: I beg P ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a farmer, named Thomas Reynolds, of Kilcummin, Cloonacool, County Sligo, has been refused a gun licence by Mr. Crotty, R.M., although the applicant was recommended by two county magistrates; and will he state the grounds on which the refusal of this licence was based.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The discretion of granting or withholding an arms licence is vested by law in the resident Magistrate as the licensing officer of the district. It would be contrary to practice to disclose the reasons which influence the resident Magistrate in the exercise of that discretion.
    MR. O'DOWD: Then how is this most respectable farmer to procure a licence?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order

    River Nore (Abbeyleix) Floods.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a weir known as the Alen Leech Factory Weir, nine feet high across the river Nore, near Abbeyleix, forms an obstruction to the flow of the water, which is thrown back thereby a distance of five miles up the river causing flooding; and whether, as the factory is now idle and has not been working for the past five

    51
    years, he can state what objection there is to the removal of the weir.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The weir is not within an arterial drainage district, and the river Nore is not under the control of any local Body constituted under the Arterial Drainage Acts. The Commissioners of Public Works have no power, therefore, to take action as suggested.

    Irish County Court Bench.
    MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, of the 21 members of which the County Court Bench in -Ireland now consists, there are only seven Roman Catholics; and whether, as the opportunity arises, steps will be taken to redress this inequality, three-fourths at least of the population of Ireland being Roman Catholics.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are no official records of the religious persuasions of County Court Judges, but assuming the proportion stated to be correct, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Lord Lieutenant, who appoints to the office, proceeds upon the principle of selecting the men best qualified by knowledge and experience without regard to religious convictions. I may mention that of the eight County Court Judges appointed during the past ten years, four of them, so far as I can ascertain from unofficial sources of information, are Roman Catholics, three Episcopalians, and one is a Presbyterian.

    Kilclooney (Galway) Estate.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number and extent of the holdings on the Kilclooney (County Galway) Estate recently purchased by the Congested Districts Board; also what steps have been taken by the Board to take over holdings which have been used by graziers who are willing to give them up for the purposes of the Board; and whether he will have such steps taken in all cases as will secure that the lands will be available for distribution amongst deserving persons during the coming season.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Three lots comprising 495 acres. No other lots remain to be sold and no offers to sell to the Board have been made by recent purchasers. No time will be lost in redistributing the lands in relief of congestion in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1891 and Amending Acts.
    In reply to a Question by Mr. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid: I am well aware of the facts connected with this estate, but I think the hon. Member will agree with me that to discuss in advance property which may or may not be bought is not a very good way of securing it at a reasonable price.

    Connemara Foreshore.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the invariable custom of the Land Sub-Commission in Connemara of cessing the tenants for seaweed facilities as if the foreshore were the property of-the landlord, the Government would issue instructions to the Sub-Commission in dealing with such cases in future to require proof of the landlord's claim to foreshore, and in the absence of such proof not to cess the tenants for an advantage which they enjoy only by a permissible trespass on Crown property.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This legal point was, I understand, the subject of an appeal recently heard before the Land Commission Court, in which the decision has not yet been. announced. In any case the Executive has no jurisdiction over Sub-Commissions and no authority to issue instructions as suggested.

    Labourers Cottage—Wexford Schemes.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at an inquiry recently held in Wexford regarding the proposed erection of labourers' cottages by the Wexford Rural District Council, 15 representations were rejected by the Local Government Inspector; and, having regard to the condition of the 15 labourers for whom the cottages were

    53
    intended, will he state on what grounds the 15 representations were rejected.
    MR. WYNDHAM: They were rejected either on the ground that the sites were unsuitable, or that insufficient evidence was given of the necessity for the cottages. It is open to the Council to include these applications in a fresh scheme, and if there are no objections on the ground of site or evidence they would be approved.

    Irish County Infirmary Officials' Pensions.
    MR. CAREW: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether all the officers including the doctors, the apothecaries (who in most cases are also the treasurers), matrons, nurses, and porters to the different county infirmaries in Ireland, who on the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898 were transferred to the County Councils, are entitled to pensions under the existing regulations.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): Officers of county infirmaries were not officers of the Grand Juries and were not transferred to the County Councils by the Local Government Act, 1898. The rights of existing officers of these institutions are preserved by section 15, sub-section 8, of the Act, but apparently no right to pension on retirement existed prior to the Act and no such right is conferred by it.

    Sunday Mail Service in Donegal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office could arrange with the Donegal Railway Company to carry the mails on Sunday for South and West Donegal by train, and thus not only secure greater punctuality in the delivery but also provide railway accommodation on Sunday in that district.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Inquiry is being made as regards the Mail Service on Sunday to South and West Donegal, and an answer shall be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Royal Declaration against Transubstantiation, &c.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that religious beliefs, passionately held by millions of His Majesty's subjects, are denounced in the declaration required of His Majesty on his accession to the throne by the Bill of Rights, the Government propose to take any steps towards the modification of the declaration before the Coronation; and, if not, why not?
    THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The hon. Gentleman probably remembers that there was a Bill brought into the House for the purpose of modifying the declaration to which he objects, and that that Bill met with disfavour even at the hands of the hon. Gentleman and his friends.
    MR. DILLON: The right hon. gentleman has not answered my Question at all. I did not ask whether a Bill was brought in last session. What I asked was whether the Government intended to take any steps before the Coronation of His Majesty to remove a declaration which is objectionable to many of his subjects.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I replied to that Question, and I am sorry that my answer was not satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. I reminded the hon. Gentleman that we had already made proposals for modifying the declaration, and that those proposals had not hen received with favour, even by the hon. Gentleman and his friends.
    MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question at all. I asked him what are the intentions of the Government in this matter.
    MR. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry I omitted the corollary which I thought the hon. Gentleman would draw from my answer. It was, that we are not likely to renew the attempt.
    MR. DILLON: Are we to understand that it is the intention of the Government not to make any further attempt to modify the declaration?
    MR. A. J BALFOUR: We certainly have no intention of introducing a Bill on the subject before the Coronation.

    Standing Committees—Titles of Bills.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will assent to the Return relating to Bills committed to a Standing Committee which appears on the Paper; also whether he will give in the Return the number of days on which these Bills were discussed in Committee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as the Government are concerned we have, of course, not the slightest objection to such a Return as my noble friend proposes. But as he has altered the form of his proposed Return I should like to consider whether there is any practical difficulty.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: I will postpone the Question and the Motion for the Return until Monday.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.
    Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection that, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following fifteen members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners:—Mr. Channing, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Mr. J. E. Gordon, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Mr. Alfred Hutton, Mr. Brynmore Jones, Sir John Kinloch, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Mr. Macartney, Mr. M'Crae, Mr. Pym, Mr. Renshaw, Mr. A. H. Smith, Sir Walter Thorburn, and Mr. Eugene Wason.
NEW BILL
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1897) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend and enlarge the powers of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Harms-worth, and dr. Cathcart Wason
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  To amend and enlarge the powers of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 15th March, and to be printed.
  DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.-ROYAL MESSAGE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURstated that he had it in Command from His Majesty to acquint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the subject matter of the Amendment made to the Standing Order (Office of Speaker) authorising the appointment of a Deputy Chairman who shall be empowered to act as Speaker, gives His Consent thereto.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURproposed that Mr. Jeffreys do take the Chair of the Committee as Deputy Chairman; hut Mr. Dillon, Member for East Mayo, having risen to address the Committee,
  Mr. Speakerthereupon resumed the Chair.

  DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Jeffreys do take the Chair of the Committee as Deputy Chairman."— (Mr. A. J Balfour.)
  MR. DILLON: On this Motion I desire to raise a debate, in accordance with precedent. There are two points in connection with the matter, which I desire to bring under the attention of the House, and I think I am in order in doing so without making any nomination in opposition to that proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury, although if it were necessary to do that to bring myself in order I should be prepared to submit another name. The matter I desire to call attention to is, I submit, of the first importance, viz., the method of procedure adopted by the Government. There are, I understand, no Standing Orders of this House dealing with the election of either the Speaker or of the Chairman of Committees, and I have always understood that these two elections are carried out in accordance with ancient practice and the common law of Parliament. Therefore the method adopted does not necessarily constitute a precedent or guide for our proceedings under this new Standing Order. Even if we were to regard it as a precedent

  57
  for our action on this present occasion, I fear we should find ourselves in somewhat of a difficulty. It will be well within the recollection of the older Members of the House that the method of electing the Speaker to the Chair is totally and radically different from the method of calling the Chairman of Committees to the Chair. In the case of the election of Mr. Speaker the Motion is made under circumstances of great solemnity, and it was even laid down many years ago that it is not seemly or right that the nomination of the Speaker should be made by a Minister of the Crown; on the contrary, it was urged that as Mr. Speaker had such great powers and was to sit impartially between the Majority and the Opposition, it would be more seemly that he should be nominated by a private Member of the House. Owing to some events, the origin of which is lost in the days of the Stuarts there arose the practice of electing, in addition to the Speaker, a Chairman of Committee, who gradually became clothed, in comparatively recent days, with powers and privileges equal to those possessed by the Speaker himself. There prevailed for a long time in the practice of electing the Chairman of Committee a very peculiar custom, viz., that he was called to take the Chair—on the first occasion on which the new Parliament went into Committee of Supply—by a Minister of the Crown, viz., the Leader of the House, and the House gradually came to regard it as a nomination of the Government. I noticed with some surprise the other day, and I think it is a not unimportant matter, that the Leader of the House, when the matter was under discussion, stated that the Chairman of Committees was a nominee of the Government. He is nothing of the sort, or, at least, he ought not to be; on the contrary, the Chairman of Committees was originally elected at a time when the House had lost confidence to some extent in the independence of Mr. Speaker, on account of the relations between the Crown and Speaker, and it therefore determined to elect another officer who would be more directly responsible to the House itself, and to allow him to preside over all Committees dealing with Supply, with Ways and Means, and with Religion. That, I understand, was the origin of this extraordinary practice, and my authority is Sir Erskine May. When we
  58
  passed this new Standing Order setting up a third official, we were breaking entirely new ground, and this thing ought to have been clone with a great deal more consideration and solemnity, because it was a totally new departure in the history of the House of Commons. It is the first occasion on which the House of Commons has proceeded to elect an officer who may be clothed with as full powers as the Speaker himself, under the provisions of the Standing Order.
  Now, a very serious question arises. What is to be the procedure for carrying the Standing Order into effect? The Standing Order says that at the commencement of every Parliament, or from time to time as necessity may arise, the House may appoint an assistant Chairman. The words under which we propose to act are may appoint." There is no provision that the nomination shall be made by a Minister of the Crown, and I would point out that whenever, under any Standing Order of this House, it is intended to be directed that a Motion shall be made by a Minister of the Crown, words are inserted to that effect in the Standing Order. In the present instance no such words are used. The first question then is, what ought to be our procedure under this Standing Order? Remember that on the present occasion we are doing a very important act. We are setting a precedent which will establish the procedure under this new Standing Order for all future time. The first complaint I have to make is with reference to what occurred last night. I claim that under this Standing Order, and in view of the great importance of the office which we are about to create, and the peculiar circumstances which surround it, the Government ought to have taken the House into its confidence, and to have approached this act with all due solemnity and deliberation. It would probably have been more in accord with the terms of the Standing Order had they adopted the procedure which obtains in the election of the Speaker, rather than that by which the Chairman of Committees is appointed. The Government, having a free hand in setting, as I have stated, a precedent which.

  59
  will guide all future Parliaments so long as this Standing Order exists, have not only selected the worst of the two procedures open to them, but they did another thing which they were not justified in doing even by precedent. They sprang the name of the hon. Member whom they intended to place in the Chair suddenly upon the House at the very last minute. They kept it a secret. They refused to give hon. Members any notice as to whom they proposed to appoint. The last occasion on which a debate took place on a Motion to appoint a Chairman of Committees was on the 2nd March, 1883. On that occasion Mr. Lyon Playfair announced his resignation, whereupon the Marquess of Hartington, who was then leading the House, stood up and said he wished, in order that the appointment of a successor to his right hon. friend might be made with the full knowledge of the House, to give notice that on the next day, on the Motion to go into the Committee of Supply, he would move that Sir Arthur Otway take the Chair. Yesterday, with that precedent before him, when the First Lord of the Treasury was asked to give the House the name of the Gentleman whom he proposed to move into the Chair, he refused to give it, and on the Motion for adjournment, when a further attempt was made to get the name, the Secretary to the Local Government Board, who at the moment was leading the Government, declared what I think was almost incredible, although of course I accept his word, that he was in a state of blank ignorance as to who was to be appointed. The matter, in fact, seems to have been kept a Cabinet secret.
  What object, I ask, was to be served by thus withholding the name? So far as I am personally concerned I certainly have no objection to make to the Gentleman who has now been proposed. My present objection is based not on the mere fact that the name was withheld, but on the more important ground that we are now establishing a new procedure. I complain that in the first case the Government in making this Motion have not only selected the worst of the two procedures open to them, but have, if I may say so, improved upon the worst procedure by endeavouring to put this important officer into the Chair without giving the House any intimation or affording it any
  60
  opportunity of discussing the matter at all. When in March, 1883, the Motion was made to put Sir Arthur Otway into the Chair, Mr. Raikes, who had for many years been a highly respected and most efficient Chairman of this House, initiated a discussion similar to the present. He did it, he said, with the purpose of emphasising the fact that the appointment of Chairman of Committees was one which ought always to be open to discussion, and which should be made by the House itself and not left entirely in the hands of Ministers—
  "It was not possible," said Mr. Raikes, "for any Member of the House to serve on any Committee, without the question of his appointment being put from the Chair, and without his nomination being confirmed in the most complete and solemn manner; and he thought the House would do well to confirm. in the most solemn and conspicuous way, the appointment of an hon. Member who would have to take so important a part in controlling its proceedings."
  And Mr. Raikes went on to speak of the origin of the appointment of the Chairman of Committees, and to say that his powers were equal to those of Mr. Speaker himself, and, in some respects greater, in view of the—
  "Arduous am I delicate task of presiding over private or semi-private Committees upstairs."
  The Leader of the House (the Marquess of Hartington) thanked Mr. Raikes for having raised the debate, and said that—
  "The nomination of the Chairman of Ways and Means was purely the act of the House, and was not dependent on the will of the Government."
  His Lordship went on to say that although the nomination had usually been made in a merely formal manner—
  "Yet it was for the purpose of obviating that summary mode of proceeding and giving it a more formal character that lie gave notice that on Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair lie shout I formally move that Sir Arthur Otway take the Chair."
  And the noble Lord continued—
  "No doubt it would have been possible to give notice of a formal Motion that his hon. friend should lie appointed to the Chairmanship of Ways and Means; but that would have been a course altogether without precedent, and lie thought it desirable to follow as closely as possible the usual course, at the smile time giving notice of his intention to make this Motion in order that there might be no reason for any Member of the House saying that lie had been taken by surprise."
  That was the principle laid down in 1883 by the Marquess of Hartington, and that

  61
  is exactly what we complain of today—the deliberate attempt which has been made to take the House by surprise. And but for the action of the hon. Member for South Donegal the House would have been taken by surprise, and a precedent would have been set up which would have had its effect after all of us were dead and forgotten. If Mr. Raikes in 1883 thought it most important that the attention of the House should be called to the fact that the Chairman of Committees was not an appointment of the Government, but of the House, how infinitely more vitally important is it on the present occasion.
  There are two good reasons for saying that it is immeasurably important. In the first place, since 1883, the Chairman of Committees and this Deputy Chairman have been clothed with enormously increased powers, and they are to be still further clothed with increased powers. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that this Gentleman, who is and will remain a working member of the rank and file of the Party opposite, will have powers undreamt of in 1883; that he will have, for instance, power to adjourn the sitting of the House without reason stated, to give the Whips time to get their men down for a critical division. The greatly increased powers of the closure and of punishment given to the officers of the House ought to make the House infinitely more rigorous in their control over these officers than in 1883. But there is another reason, which, to my mind, in-finitely outweighs in its gravity the reasons I have already given. In the case of the Chairman of Committees, when he is placed in the Chair we do not part with our control over him. In the case of Mr. Speaker, when he is placed in the Chair, we have nothing to do with voting his salary. His official salary is charged on the Consolidated Fund, and be is lifted out of the atmosphere of Party politics. Ever since I have been in this House I have been an advocate of placing all the officials in the same position. The Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has a salary and if he misconducts himself any Member of the House can raise every year a discussion on his conduct. In fact, on two or three separate occasions, I myself have raised discussions on the conduct of the Chairman, while the latter has been sitting in the Chair. That is a
  62
  vast power, and one of the compensating advantages for allowing, I will not say a partisan, but a Member of the majority Party in the House, to preside over its proceedings. But here we are invited to submit our liberties, and even the very right to sit in this House, to the decision of a man who will remain a working and voting Member of the Party in the majority; a man wino is to have no salary, and no responsibility whatever—we are invited to do that without a word of debate or criticism. I take the opportunity of once more giving expression to my deep conviction that it will not tend to the proper conduct of our deliberations, and the smooth working of our Rules, if we have a man in the Chair who is a working and voting member of the majority. I appeal to the Government to reconsider this whole matter, to approach it in a broader spirit, and to recast the system, so that those Gentlemen who are to preside over our proceedings shall be free from Party passion, and shall know that once they sit in that chair, they cease to be Party men. The reason why I have inaugurated this debate is to establish a precedent, that the House shall be at liberty to discuss freely the nature of the appointments to the Chair. I contend that the House has been unfairly treated on the present occasion, and I claim that when a Chairman is to be appointed the House should have fair notice of the name.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, ventured to submit that this was a Motion under the new Standing Order, not under the Common Law of Parliament. Now, the new Standing Order declared two things: first, that the House might appoint a Deputy Chairman; and second, that the person so appointed should, in a given state of things, be empowered to take the Chair. But a condition precedent to tire present Motion was that the House should be informed of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It was notorious that no such information had been given to the House. He submitted that until such information was given to the House it would be impossible to carry this Motion

  63
  into effect, if the terms of the Standing Order were to be fulfilled. The proper course of proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman would have been, first, to have moved that the gentleman in question be appointed as Deputy Chairman, and that then the Clerk at the Table should convey to the House notice of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  * MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Member takes his seat that should be done. I think it will be sufficient if it is done before he takes the Chair.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the hon. Member for East Mayo had made an attack on the Government in respect of the concealment of the name of the proposed Deputy Chairman. He thought that was not quite fair, and had not sufficient foundation. The explanation of the fact that the name of the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means was not communicated to the House till today was probably to be found in the announcement made by the First Lord of the Treasury—the communication to the House of the Royal Assent. He desired to say, and he thought he expressed the general feeling of the House, that for the hon. Member who had been appointed Deputy Chairman he entertained the highest personal respect, and the most complete confidence in his capacity and in the impartiality he would show in the Chair. His principal reason for rising was to express his personal satisfaction at the choice the Government had made, but at the same time he could not forget that this was the choice of a Member to exercise entirely new and unknown powers—greater powers than any Chairman of Committees—nay, greater powers than any Speaker—had ever exercised. He would have power to adjourn the House without Question put, and the power to initiate proceedings which would have the effect of suspending a Member from the service of the House: or a longer period than had ever been known, and the Member would not be allowed to return until he made an apology. He trusted that the double contingency which would be
  64
  necessary to put the hon. Gentleman into the position to exercise the new powers—the illness of the Speaker and of the Chairman of Committees—might never arise. It was possible, however, that the contingency might arise, and he looked upon these powers as extremely dangerous, and their committal to the Deputy Chairman as very perilous. If, however, anything could reconcile him. to them it would be the appointment of the candid and honest Gentleman who, had been selected.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that to the hon. Gentleman whose name was before the House lie had not the least objection; the observations which had been made with regard to him were perfectly true. But lie had a word or two to say to the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman in this matter had treated the House with contempt; he had disregarded all traditional authority; and he had not only treated his own followers badly, but the House at large. This appointment, according to all the ancient rules and practice of the House, should be made with the consent of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman had treated it as if it were entirely in his own power. It had always been the practice, in the appointment of a Speaker or anyone invested with the powers and authority of a Speaker, to submit the name of the Gentleman to the House, so that it might be a matter of arrangement with the House that some person agreeable to the House as a whole should be appointed, but when asked for the name of this gentleman the previous day the right hon. Gentleman had declined to give it. He was perfectly right in asking for the name of the hon. Gentleman, in order to ensure as far as possible that the hon. Gentleman might be the selection of the House. Lord Hartington, who knew and respected the Rules of the House, previously to appointing Sir Arthur Otway, announced to the House that he was going to propose that Gentleman for the position. In this case the action of the First Lord was wrong. The Chairman of Committees was originally appointed in order to give the House greater control

  65
  over finance, as it gave that office to an hon. Gentleman not approved by the Crown as was the Speaker, and in nominating a Gentleman without giving his name or saying anything about him the First Lord had cheated the House out of its rights. On the 10th of April, 1895, the First Lord made a speech on this very principle, in which he said—
  "Although nominally the matter is left to the House, we all know that this is a Government proceeding, and the course which the Government have thought fit to adopt on this occasion is in my judgment not only so absolutely without precedent, hut is so absolutely dangerous to the future efficiency of our proceedings that I should have thought myself guilty of a great wrong had I kept silence to day."
  He (Mr. Swift MacNeill) would have thought himself guilty of a great wrong if he had allowed this appointment today to proceed in this manner without raising a proper protest against it. But the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion went further. He said—
  "But, Sir, the Government have chosen under circumstances which should have made them, I should have said, more than usually anxious to conciliate the general views of all parties in the House—under circumstances which should have made them specially cautious in following our Parliamentary traditions."
  The First Lord in his action today had disregarded and broken every Parliamentary tradition, but the right hon. Gentleman in his speech went further, he went on to say the fault would be the Government's—
  "who, as I think, on an occasion so important for the future interests of this House, have deliberately elected to cast to the winds all precedent and all tradition, for the purpose of pressing on our attention one of their own friends."
  The gentleman who was now to be elected was a friend of the Government. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman would act with impartiality, but he objected to the House having no voice in a matter of the election of a Gentleman who was to he put into the Chair, and who would be literally the master of the House and not the servant of it. The House would have no control over his decisions, from which there would be no appeal. The First Lord had disregarded every privilege of the House, and had again and again refused special facilities for Motions impugning the conduct of high officials.
  66
  He had just one more word to say to the First Lord. The Leader of the House was supposed in some respects, with his knowledge of the powers of the High Officers of the House, to consult the House as a whole and safeguard its interests. He would not in the future regard the right hon. Gentleman as the Leader of the House. He was the leader of a Party, but he was utterly unworthy, in his opinion, to be the Leader of the House, as he was utterly callous to all the principles which ought to be a guide for anyone occupying his high position. There was one other point to which he wished to refer, upon which ho would ask for the ruling of Mr. Speaker. He very much doubted if, supposing the hon. Gentleman whose name was before the House were called to the Chair, he could take his place in the Chair until the Royal Assent had been given to his acting as Speaker. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker himself, when elected by the House, could not discharge the duties of his high office until his election had been approved by the Crown. There was a precedent in the time of Charles II., when the nomination for the office of Speaker was disapproved by the Crown, and another Speaker had to be elected; and if the hon. Member now proposed discharged the duties of the Chair without the assent of the Crown having been obtained, he would be acting in a highly unconstitutional manner. But the Government seemed to care not one farthing for the Constitution or its traditions, while the First Lord treated the House of Commons with studied disrespect. During the whole of his Parliamentary experience, he had never seen a Leader of the House who showed such a contemptuous disregard of the privileges of the House, and probably the followers of the right hon. Gentleman were as discontented with his action in this matter as he (the speaker) was.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): It is evident that if the lion. Gentleman who has just sat down had had any voice as to whether I should or should not be the Leader of the House at the present time, I should have had a very poor chance. But I notice with great satisfaction that,

  67
  in spite of the tragic tones employed by the hon. Gentleman, he was much more interested over my demerits than over the merits of the Deputy Chairman of Ways and. Means, which really should be the subject of discussion. It is not, however, my courtesy or want of courtsey which is now in question; the subject before the House is whether the hon. Member who has been proposed to occupy the position of Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means is or is not suitable for that high position. [Nationalist cries of "No" and "Want of notice."] The subject before the House is not the subject of notice. There are really two questions before us; one is the question of form, the other the question of substance. The question of form is, whether the Government have, or have not, been anxious to safeguard the traditions of this House in the procedure which they have adopted on this occasion. I cannot imagine that any human being can doubt that we have acted in strict conformity with the traditions of the House and with precedent. One case has been quoted in which the Leader of the House—the Deputy Leader at the time—did give notice beforehand of the name of the Member he intended to move into the Chair the next day. But there have been, within the memory of hon. Gentlemen present, many other cases of a chairman being appointed by this House, and it is a singular fact that hon. Members have not touched on a single one of those, but have raked out of the traditions of the past this single case of Sir A. Otway in 1883. I admit I contented myself with inquiring what the ordinary procedure was, without going in detail into all the precedents; but if any one takes the trouble to go through those precedents, both before 1883 and subsequently, he will find, I believe, that precisely the procedure we have adopted this afternoon has been adopted by leaders drawn from both Parties in the past, and adopted without any question or complaint from any part of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The name was never kept secret.
  MR. A. J.BALFOUR: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no record
  68
  whatever, as far as I know, of any announcement having been made beforehand, except on the single occasion which has been referred to. I believe I am absolutely within the mark when I say that in the course we have adopted tonight we have strictly followed the great balance of sound precedent.
  So much for the question of form. I do not doubt the House will excuse me from dealing with that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he accused me of studied discourtesy to the House. There are some accusations so exquisitely ridiculous that even the eloquent terms and the dialectical and oratorical skill of the hon. Gentleman will hardly make them plausible to the youngest Member of the House. I pass from that purely personal question.
  There only remains the question of substance, and on that I am glad to say there is nothing to be said as to which we are not all in absolute agreement. The question of substance is whether the Member who has been moved into the Chair is, or is not, fitted for the high function to which he is called. I gather from all the speakers who have addressed the House, and from what I know of the general feeling and tone of the House in the matter, that there is no disapproval expressed, but the contrary, of the selection made. I hope under those circumstances, if my behaviour has been sufficiently attacked, that he may now be proposed to carry out the duties with which we are desirous, on both sides, to entrust him, so that we may permit him to go into the Chair and to preside over the work in Committee of Supply.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that probably all would agree as to the high qualities of the hon. Gentleman named for the office of Deputy Chairman, and therefore he utterly failed to see where had been the necessity for so much mystery. In view of the great changes effected by the new Standing Orders, the First Lord would surely have given the name earlier in answer to Questions that were addressed to him. If the right hon. Gentleman was as confident in the excellence of his choice as were most Members who had had experience of the hon. Member, why should he have been so careful to keep the name a secret? Even so late as on the adjournment of the House the previous night,

  69
  the sole representative of the Government then present was in absolute ignorance on the point. It was not in consonance with the dignity of any representative assembly that information concerning so important an appointment should be conveyed to Members only by subterranean channels. His hon. friends had rendered a service to the tone and traditions of the House by raising the question, and he was glad a protest had been made against the course here adopted,
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (6.40.) The Clerk Assistant informed the Committee of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means owing to indisposition,
  Whereupon Mr. Jeffreys took the Chair as Deputy Chairman, pursuant to the Standing Order.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.
  1. £3,300, Supplementary, Foreign Office.

  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £98,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1902, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service."

  CAPTAIN NORTONdesired to call the attention of the Committee to a matter which had a distinct bearing on the Fair Wages Resolution of the House. That Resolution, passed on 13th February, 1891, dealt, generally speaking, with the employment of labour in connection with Government contracts. For some years previous to the passage of that Resolution, there existed a state of things which caused a grave scandal and shocked the conscience of the House. He referred to the sub-contracting and sweating which took place
  70
  throughout the country by many employers of labour, more especially in connection with contracts given by the Government. The sub-contracting brought about a vast amount of sweating, in consequence of which a Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to consider the question. The investigations of that Committee showed that employers and employed stood in a position totally different from that, for example, of landlord and tenant; in other words, that in nine cases out of ten no moral suasion or force could be brought to bear on the ordinary employer of labour, such as could be brought to bear on a landlord, and that, in fact, the system of sweating was a premium on inferior labour, and brought capital into antagonism with labour. The result was that the taxpayers suffered all over the country. He would not allude to what took place in connection with our battleships, where inferior work was done, and many of our soldiers and sailors were caused undue risk to their lives. In every Department at that time the taxpayers were being systematically robbed in consequence of this system of sweating. He would mention as an example the case of the London School Board, which had lost to the ratepayers in this way something like a quarter of a million of money. The result of the inquiry made by the House of Lords Committee on sweating was to bring about the Resolution to which he would refer. In that Resolution they would find the following words—
  "That closer attention to the conditions under which labour is employed is recommended to all employers of labour."
  As a result of this recommendation a Resolution was brought forward, part of the wording being as follows—
  "That the Government should make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."
  After that Resolution passed the case was brought before this House in August, 1893, of Messrs M'Corquadale & Co., who had houses in London and Glasgow. The question in reference to the Queen's Printers in Ireland was also brought forward. In these circumstances how did the Government of the day interpret this Fair Wages Resolution? He would quote from Hansard

  71
  what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar said in his statement when he was giving a pledge on behalf of the Government of the day. He said—
  "The Government would consider that any preference given to a non-Unionist against a Unionist in regard to Government printing would be, to a large extent, against the principle of the Resolution."
  The hon. Member for Poplar further stated that—
  "No preference should be given as between Unionists and non-Unionists."
  His contention was that one of the firms doing the main amount of printing at the present moment for the Government had made a distinct difference between non Unionists and Unionists. This firm was Wyman & Sons, who did the bulk of the printing for the Government, and amongst other things they printed the Debates of this House. At the close of last year they closed their house in Fetter Lane, and opened early in December another house at Reading. In that house at Reading they were now printing the whole of the Debates of this House, and in addition, they were printing other Government documents, and amongst others the Army Estimates. In their house at Reading they were employing women compositors. He would like to point out to the Committee that he was not raising the question of male as against female labour. He was raising the point as to whether this firm, having obtained a contract some time ago in competition with other employers of labour, were now, after the contract had run over two years and had another year to run, to be permitted to make an extra £3,000, £4,000, or £5,000 out of that contract, owing to the fact that they were able to do what no other employer could have done, or could have known that he would have been able to do at that time, by employing labour at a lower rate of wages than that which was current in the trade for competent workmen. By this system, this particular firm would gain £3,000, £4,000, or £5,000, and that money would be taken out of the pockets of the duly qualified members of the printing trade in London. This house at Reading allowed no Society compositors to apply for work as Society
  72
  hands. This firm established themselves in Reading at the beginning of December and since that time they had employed no Society men, thereby contravening the distinct understanding that there should be no difference between Society men and non-Society men. In order that he might not be tripped up, he desired to say that within the last few days a few machine hands had been taken on there who were Society men, because this firm, finding themselves in great difficulty, were obliged to apply to the Secretary of the Society to get a few of these machine men to go down to Reading. The standard rate of wages in London for fully qualified compositors was 39s, and the stun was what was called the "stab" wages per week. This firm had transferred its work to Reading, and it was paying there what was the "stab" rate of wages in Reading for duly qualified printers, namely, 28s. per week. To that he raised no objection, but what he asked was whether this firm were paying to these female compositors 28s. per week, which was the current rate of wages in the locality. Certainly they were not. Therefore, they were contravening the Resolution of the House of Commons, and his contention was that it was the duty of the Government to take such steps as they could to prevent this firm from dealing with their workpeople in this manner.
  Another point which he thought the House ought to consider was whether it was desirable or right that printing—more especially the printing of the Debates of this House—should be taken away from London and done at Reading. Surely other firms might say that had they known that it was permissible to take this printing away from London they would not have taken it to Reading, but to Brussels or Amsterdam, where they could have had the work equally well done at a very much cheaper rate. Therefore, he contended that a very great injustice was being done to all those other firms who were in a position to compete for this contract. In other words, it was cutting the throats of other employers. He would like to draw attention to the Report published in 1896 dealing with printing contracts. At that time great dissatisfaction prevailed, because the bulk of the printing contracts and almost the whole of the work was in the hands of one par-

  73
  ticular firm, Messrs. Eyre & Spottiswoode, and it was shown that they had one house which was known as an unfair house. Nevertheless they paid very high wages, which were practically as good as the wages paid in Union houses. The Comptroller of the Stationery Office in the ease he had mentioned admitted that this scale was to this extent the most generous scale, that there was no other scale accepted by so many compositors, and that consequently he treated it as the standard with which he decided the question whether the wages paid in any case corresponded with the wages generally accepted as current in the trade. He submitted that he had made his case good, namely, that the Government printing was being done at this moment in the teeth of the Resolution of the House of Commons; and that it was being done by a firm which was not paying the current rate of wages in the locality. He should be very glad to have some explanation from the Government upon that point.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £97,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I will preface what I have to say by repeating hero what I have said on other occasions, that the present Government and the Treasury, in regard to all contracts over which they have control, are anxious to secure the complete fulfilment of the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution. We have always striven to secure that, and I have myself on more than one occasion, on behalf of the present Government, since I came into my present office undertaken to investigate any specific cases of alleged breach of the Fair Wages Resolution with as much care and attention as I could devote to the subject. I think it will be evident to the Committee that any cases of a breach of this Resolution should be specific, and should be laid before the Government with sufficient detail to enable them to go into the exact facts of the ease. The hon. and gallant Member alleges that a certain firm, one of the many firms of printers which the Government employ, has broken the spirit and I suppose the letter of the Fair Wages Resolution, because they have established
  74
  large works at Reading quite recently, whereas previously they did all their work in London, and have now removed a good deal of their work from. London to Reading. The second allegation is that it is improper that at Reading they should employ women on work upon which they had hitherto employed only men.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid his objection was that they did not pay to the women the standard rate of wages in the locality for that class of work. What he complained of was that this firm did not give to the women the 28s. rate which was current in the district for compositors.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman will remember t hat he put a Question the other day as to whether the Government could not under the contract prevent the removal of this work from London to Reading, and the employment of women instead of men. I understood from that Question at the time that the solution which the hon. Gentlemen desired to see adopted was that the work should be confined to London, that the contractors should not be allowed to take it out of the Metropolis, and that the contractors should not be allowed to employ women.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I made no such suggestion. What I wish is that women should be paid the current rate of wages in the locality for that class of work. It is generally recognised by the Society of Compositors that women may be employed if they receive the same rate of wages as men. The current rate of wages is 28s per week for compositors in the locality of Reading.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: From the interruption of the hon. Gentleman, I gather that he is not objecting to the transfer of the work to Reading. Then what is the meaning of the suggestion that this transfer is taking something from London workmen? I understand further that he no longer complains that the work is done at Reading, and that, whatever may have been the inference to be drawn from the language of his Question the other day, he has no desire to exclude women from the work, and his single

  75
  contention is that women, if employed on the work at all, ought to be paid the same wages as men. I do not think such a contention as that can find any sanction in the Fair Wages Resolution of this House. I doubt very much whether in any trade, or any work, the hon. Gentleman can find an instance where female labour commands the same rate of remuneration as male labour. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] Perhaps I may be allowed to correct myself. I mean to say, what, of course, the Committee knows, that the wages of women as a general rule run lower than the wages of men. What we have to consider in the case of this employment is whether the wages given to the women are fair wages, and if any information is laid before me to prove that the firm is paying the women unfair wages for women s work I will most carefully: investigate it. No such allegation has been suggested before, and I cannot without inquiry prejudge a case of this kind, or express an opinion on the course of action which has been taken. If a particular rate of wages in a particular district is paid for men, I cannot say that in all such cases I will enforce the same wages for women. If a case is made out that women are being underpaid, then I will give it my most careful consideration, with an earnest desire to enforce to the full the letter and the spirit of the Resolution which was passed by the House.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was not altogether satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman. He was willing to concede that so far as the Financial Secretary of the Treasury was concerned, it was his desire that the principle of the Fair Wages Resolution should be applied in this case, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman altogether appreciated the nature of the accusation or complaint made by the hon. Member for West Newington in this matter. The facts, so far as he understood, practically divided themselves into three heads. The first, to which the thought the hon. Gentleman in his reply did not give sufficient attention, was that these contractors—he believed the facts were not disputed; if they were, of course his argument might, to a certain extent, fall to the ground—took this contract in competition with other con-
  76
  tractors as London contractors, that the idea and the inference to be drawn when they tendered for the work, and the intention of the Treasury in taking it, was that these being London contractors they would employ London men and pay the London rate of wages.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to interrupt the Iron. Gentlemen, but I do not wish him to speak under any misapprehension. The Government by no means desire to confine these contracts to London, any more than in the case of Ireland to Dublin, or in the case of Scotland to Edinburgh. They desire contractors from any part of the country.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: What about Brussels?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not understand that that suggestion was made seriously.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Quite seriously. It has been suggested that this work should be done abroad.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not suggest that the work should be done in Brussels, but that equal opportunities should be given, so far as the nature of the work and the circumstances will permit, to any contractor in the United Kingdom who is capable of carrying out the work. We carefully avoided making a condition in the specification of the contract to bind the contractors to carry out the work at a particular place. I have had representations made to me in regard to Government contracts to admit provincial contractors for work which has hitherto been too much the monopoly of London contractors.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was not arguing that these contracts ought to be given to London firms. He thought the hon. Gentleman had not quite appreciated the point of the hon. Member for West Newington. This was a London firm. They tendered and got the contract. They tendered at a price which enabled them to pay the London rate of wages, and they had now taken the work away from London to a large extent into another part of the country, where they were paying a lesser rate of wages with

  77
  the same contract in existence. What did that mean? It meant that the only persons benefiting from it were the contractors themselves. They contracted at the larger rate of wages, and were now paying a lower rate than when the contract was given to them. The Government did not gain by that. Probably the work was worse done. [Cries of "No."] Well, it was done probably by less skilled people. [Cries of "No."] At all events the Government did not gain anything, and wage-earning men as a class were unquestionably losing, because the contractors were Paying less for the same class of work than a year or two ago, As he had said, the only persons who had gained so far by taking the work from London to the provinces were the contractors themselves. [An HON MEMBER: And the provinces.] Particular individuals, no doubt; but these particular individuals at the expense of other particular individuals of the working class. The wage-earners were worse off as a whole, because the contractors were paying less than before. He did not object to have proper competition in regard to these things; but when this particular contract was to be given out, the competitors who were considered suitable for carrying out the work were under the impression that they would have to pay the London rate of wages if they took the contract.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken The condition they had to fulfil was than the work should be done within a given time, and provided that they could do it within that given time they were not under any condition whatever as to where the printing should be done. There was no attempt to bind any of the competitors to do the printing in London.
  MR. SYDNEY, BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would state the names of the other contractors who tendered in regard to this matter. He repeated that those who tendered at the time were under the impression that they would have to do the work in London and pay the London rate of wages. What he objected to was, that during the currency of a particular contract the wages of those employed on the work should be reduced, and that the contractors should make an undue, unfair, and improper
  78
  profit cut of a Government contract, The second point raised by his hon. friend was with reference to the wages of women. These contractors had employed women instead of men for the same reason that they took the work from London to Reading, namely, in order to put profit into their pockets at the expense of the working class as a whole. The third point, upon which the Financial Secretary of the Treasury did not say one word, was one which, to his mind, was quite as serious as the other two matters. His hon. friend distinctly stated, and he believed it was not a matter in controversy, that in this Reading branch no member of what was called the Society of Compositors, the trade union of the printers, was allowed to be employed. That was absolutely contrary, not only to the spirit, but practically to the. letter of the Fair Wages Resolution, and it was contrary to the pledge which he himself gave in this House at the time the Resolution was passed on the part of the then Government. That pledge, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would not deny it, was as specific as it was possible to make it. It was that no firm taking a Government contract should be able to favour non-Unionists at the expense of Unionists.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Your pledge was repeated afterwards by the present President of the Board of Agriculture.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The pledge was repeated afterwards by Sir John Hibbert, and by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. He (Mr. Buxton) took some personal interest in the matter, and they had a clause inserted in all their contracts to that effect. He did not know whether the clause existed at present, but if the facts he had stated were not disputed, it was clear that these Government contractors had broken the terms of the contract. What steps would the hon. Gentleman take to see that the contract was carried out inviolate both in letter and spirit? There had often been debates in the House in reference to the way in which the Fair Wages Resolution might be carried out. Having had something to do with the passing of the Resolu-

  79
  tion, he should like again to be allowed to say in the House what he had said on more than one occasion, namely, that the object of that Resolution was to do away with the old system, under which no mention was made of the rate of wages to be paid, with the result that the worst employers, the sweating employers, could only be, or were almost bound to be, the Government contractors, because they got labour at a lower rate of wages.
  He was glad to say that for many years past the Government had been, as it ought to be, a model employer, and it ought to see that its contractors moved more or less in that direction. The sole object of the Resolution was to take care that the contractors were respectable employers of labour, and it should be carried out in spirit as well as in letter. He knew from personal experience in office in many Departments, what an extraordinary amount of deadweight there was in regard to this question; there was a tendency to take the lowest contract, and not to inquire too closely into the wages paid. He hoped. the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary would look into this question, and see whether the contractors had broken the contract and the Resolution both in the letter and in the spirit.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in all those contracts, certainly in the one to which reference had been made, there was a clause providing that no preference was to be given to Unionists over non-Unionists, or to the latter over the former. There was to be perfect equality of treatment. He understood from the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that Unionists were expressly excluded from Messrs. Wyman's works on account of their belonging to the Union. If that was true, then there would be a distinct breach of the contract. Until this evening he had had no suggestion of that, but he would investigate the matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the hon. Gentleman to go a step further, and enquire whether the rate of wages paid at Reading was such as was recognised by Trade Unionist, and for which Trade Unionists could work there. Of course it was one thing to exclude Unionists,
  80
  as Unionists, but it was another and worse thing to exclude Unionists by offering a low rate of wages.
  MR, JOHN BURNSsaid that there was no complaint, generally speaking, to be made as to the frank statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, viz., that he was disposed to see that the Resolution of the House of Commons of 1891 was complied with both in spirit and in letter. The House would remember, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would take note of it, that when the Resolution was passed in February, 1891, women compositors were unknown. And what was more, the whole of the Government printing was confined to London, and there was a decided understanding that all employers who competed for contracts would have to pay the rate of wages current in London. Since that time things had changed, and a number of firms had taken their works out of London. That might be a movement which had its counter-balancing advantages, but it seemed to him, from the point of view of fairness of competition, that a country firm employing women compositors should not compete with a London firm under the Resolution of 1891, when women compositors were non-existent. They had no right to ask that national work, paid for by the national taxpayers, should not be done in Galway, or the north of England, or in Scotland, or that a ring should be put round London and all national work be done within the ring; but it appeared to him that Wyman & Company, as soon as they got this contract, transferred their works to Reading, where the wages were 28s. a week instead of 39s. a week paid in London; and that the firm went further and supplemented this advantage of 11s. a week by employing women at lower wages.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there were a great number of women compositors employed in Edinburgh.
  MR. JOHN BURNSadmitted that that was the case now, but he repeated that this firm by the transfer of their works to Reading had the advantage of 11s. a week, and the further advantage of

  81
  employing women at a less wage than 28s. a week. He maintained that equal pay for equal work should be paid to both men and women. He trusted that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would make further inquiry into the matter, and that Messrs. Wyman & Company should be kept to the spirit and the letter of the Resolution of the House of Commons. He rose, first of all, to thank the hon. Gentleman for his willingness to inquire into this matter, and his desire to be fair and just, and to tell him that the only way to do this was to insist on the principle of paving equal wages for equal work. If he did this he would combat every point that had been raised. It was said that men were being excluded because they were Trades Unionists. In interpreting the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891, he had taken the broad and general view that the current rate of wages ought to be paid by all employers, and that if female or child labour was substituted for the higher priced male labour that was a moral evasion of the Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. O'SHEEexpressed the opinion that the Fair Wages Resolution, since it had been passed, had been abused in every part of the country. He was extremely sorry to notice that the hon. Gentleman in referring to female labour had fallen into a serious error when he said that, generally speaking, women were paid less than men for the same work. He had, however, corrected himself, when that was brought to his attention, by stating that in most cases women were paid less for the same work. It was unfortunate that the representative of the Treasury in this House, with regard to the official work of his Department, should be prepared to adopt such a principle as that. The principle the Treasury adopted with regard to firms who had entered into contracts for carrying out public work was that the firms should only be bound to pay the standard rate of wages in the locality. That principle gave rise to such an evasion of the Fair Wages Resolution as had occurred in this case. Supposing this firm, instead of taking their work to Reading, where probably there were other printing establishments where a standard rate of wage has been set up, had gone to an obscure village in Essex where no standard rate of wages existed, the
  82
  same thing would happen then as happened at Tralee, where a printer refused to pay a fair rate of wage. In that obscure village in Essex, supposing they paid their workmen not 28s. a week, which was the standard wages in the provinces, or 39s. a week, which was the standard rate of wage in London, but 20s. a week, would the hon. Gentleman hold that that was carrying out the spirit of the Fair Wages Resolution? How had the Government carried out that Resolution in the case of Pinner of Tralee? It was shown that that man was paying a low rate of wage. There were no printers nearer than Limerick, but though the Government held that the wages were far higher at Limerick, they stuck to their bargain with Pinner of Tralee. The hon. Member for Battersea had called attention to a very important principle—equal wages ought to be paid to men and women for equal work, and if that Resolution was carried into effect, we ought not to leave it in the power of a firm like Messrs. Wyman, by taking their work down to a place like Reading, to set up a standard rate of wage for their women in that locality lower than the standard rate for men in the same locality. Probably at Reading no other firm employed women, and Messrs. Wyman were the only employers of women in that locality, and were thus enabled to set up a standard rate of wages themselves, and by paying that rate were able to show that they were entitled to have nothing said to them by the Government. He contended that if Messrs. Wyman were not paying for this work by the piece, they were bound to pay to their women the current rate of wages for men in that district. They should be compelled to show that they were paying their women equal wages for equal work. Therefore, on the ground, firstly, that the Secretary to the Treasury appeared to labour under the extraordinary impression that the rate of pay for women should be less than that for men; and secondly, that the Fair Wages Resolution had, in his opinion, been abused throughout the country, he considered that the hon. Member for West Newington had taken the proper course

  83
  in raising this question. He did not think that the hon. Member had reason to be very well satisfied with the explanations that had been given, and hoped he would go to a division.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington,W.)said that he understood the hon. Member to say that the assurances of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had satisfied him. Everybody would feel that he had discharged a public duty in bringing forward this matter. As the debate was not to be prolonged, because of an item in the Estimates of great importance which followed it, he was desirous of calling attention to just one matter. The total amount of this Estimate was £98,000, and as much as £94,000 of that amount was said to be in3reased cost caused by the war in South Africa.
  The Committee had come to look with suspicion on these Supplementary Estimates. Although this Estimate was not much in itself, an excess of nearly £100,000 ought to be carefully scrutinised when it was said to be due to the war in South Africa. It was a matter that required explanation. How was it that a proper Estimate of this cost was not made 12 months ago, and a sufficient sum asked for? That was most important, because the Committee had the very greatest difficulty in arriving at the cost of the war, when all these amounts were pooled together. First, they had a large Supplementary Estimate for the war itself. Then there was the statement lately made that some of the money voted for the South African police had also been utilised for the purposes of the war. The only exlanation given was that this excess of nearly £100,000 was due to the war. Some further explanation ought to be given in respect of this matter, arid an assurance that next year a sufficient amount of money should be taken in the Estimates, so that the House should not be required to deal with such a Supplementary Estimate as this.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid that as a practical printer himself and a member of his Trade Society he had no objection to the employment of women compositors providing they received the same rate of wages as the men whom they displaced.
  84
  He hoped that the hon. Gentleman in any inquiries that he was making at Reading would see whether an undue proportion of boys or improvers were employed, because such a practice as that was to be deprecated, and it certainly ought to be taken into consideration in this inquiry which was to be made. Another point, which affected not only London but Manchester and Edinburgh and other cities, was the fact that a system had grown up of tendering for the work of a particular district where it was supposed that the contractors were going to carry out the work in that district, when, in fact, they intended to do nothing of the kind, but intended as soon as they secured the contract to transfer the work to some other place where wages were lower. He hoped in the future when contracts were given out that the Government would see that the persons who secured them were prepared to compete, and on fair terms. The Fair Wages Resolution said nothing as to the standard rate of wages for women, and he did not know where the hon. Gentleman would be able to obtain the "standard rate of wages" for women. He knew that no firm could employ female labour unless they were going to sweat them, and get them to work at lower wages. If, in the 20th century, women were going to become the bread-winners and allow the men to take a rest, then he must insist that the women should be paid the same rate of wages as the men they displaced, and lie hoped that this firm of Messrs. Wyman would be made to toe the line, and do what was right in this matter.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that so far as he could see the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had agreed that Messrs. Wyman must pay the usual trade rate of wages at Reading.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that they must conform to the House of Commons Fair Wages Resolution; they were to pay the current wages in the trade.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that that meant that Messrs. Wyman must pay

  85
  the current wages in the trade. Further, the hon. Gentleman held that if Messrs. Wyman employed women in place of Men they must pay the women the same rate of wages as the men.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I did not say that.
  MR. LABOUCHEREhoped under those circumstances that the hon. Member for West Newington would divide on this question, because if women were paid less than men, the male compositors would be driven out of the business. But, whilst agreeing with the hon. Member for West Newington, who had put forward this matter, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Poplar, whose complaint was that Messrs. Wyman had, since entering into this contract, removed their works out of London. He saw nothing in that complaint. because when the contract was competed for it was perfectly well known that provincial firms were competing as well as London firms, and therefore there was no reason
  why, having got the contract, Messrs. Wyman should not remove to Reading. His reason for pointing this out was that the hon. Member for Poplar had stated that the work was better done in London than in the provinces, and in one case he certainly knew that statement was not correct. Northampton did much better work than London, and therefore the House must take it that the work could be as well done in the provinces as elsewhere. Lot there be fair treatment on both sides. If the provincial printer moved up to London he could not get more out of the contract, and if the London printer moved into the country that was his own affair.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: As I do not consider the explanation of the hon. Gentleman to be satisfactory, I intend to divide the Committee.
  (7.57.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 152. (Division List No. 28.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N. E.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Doherty, William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stro'd

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, James (RoscommonN.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  O'Malley, William

  Blake, Edward

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boyle, James

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Price, Robert John

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roche, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Levy, Maurice

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Crean, Eugene

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Mon'gh'nN

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mooney, John J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Ure, Alexander

  Edwards, Frank

  Moss, Samuel

  Wallace, Robert

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Young, Samuel

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'erary Mid

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.)

  Captain Norton and Mr.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Nannetti.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml's

  Pilkington, Lieut,-Col Richard

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gore, Hn. G R C Ormsby-(Salop

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Austin, Sir John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Randles, John S.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton, RtHnL'rd G (Midd'x

  Renwick, George

  Bigwood, James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Helder, Augustus

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Bull, William James

  Henderson, Alexander

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hope, J F (Shaffeld, Brightside

  Russell, T. W.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, John

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, HC (North'mb Tyneside

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stroyan, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Denny, Colonel

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

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

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mitchell, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Wi11iams, Rt Hn. J. Powell-(Bir.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Finch, George H.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wood, James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sir William Walrond and

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

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Original Question again proposed (8.10.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said he observed that this Supplementary Vote of £94,000 had been rendered necessary on account of the additional sum required for South Africa. How was this very large sum required, and did it include the cost of printing the proclamations?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is almost entirely for the supply of printed Army forms which were required in greatly increased numbers in consequence of the war.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What kind of forms?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Forms of every kind, which the Army uses in time of peace and which arc required in very much greater quantity in time of war, such as certificates and discharges, papers in which the doctors in the hospitals put down the requirements of their cases, the special medical comforts ordered for them, and the papers for recording the pay of native drivers employed with the troops in South Africa. Every kind of form has been required in

  89
  greater number lately, owing to thegreat dispersion of the troops which necessitates the establishment of depots in larger number. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen that I should answer a Question put to me earlier in the debate. It has been asked how it arose that we had so much miscalculated the expenses of the war as to require this great Supplementary Estimate. I should like to say one word about it. The Committee will allow me to remind them that this Estimate was prepared last November twelvemonth for the financial year beginning on the 1st of April following that. It is the general practice of the offices to prepare their Estimates a considerable time in advance, so that they may be submitted to the Treasury for confirmation. We have to reserve some time to ourselves for examining the Estimates. It was quite impossible for them to decide how much the expenditure in connection with the war in South Africa would be. The Stationery Office could not be expected to know when the war would come to a close, and they very deliberately, and, he thought, wisely, took the responsibility of putting only a very moderate addition to the ordinary Vote for the war expenditure, expressing their readiness to present a Supplementary Estimate if necessary. The ordinary expenditure by the War Office for stationery in time of peace was roughly £80,000, and an Estimate for £105,000 was presented, but the expenditure for the year would be nearly £200,000.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if the hon. Gentleman could say what the expenditure was in the previous year?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that hon. Gentlemen might take it from him that the expenditure for the present year was greater than that for the year before. This great expenditure on account of the War Office had, however, not escaped the attention of the Controller of the Stationery Office, and he was pursuing inquiries with a view to seeing that in no ease was any waste or unnecessary expenditure incurred.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that the answer of the lion. Gentleman
  90
  amounted to this, that the miscalculation. was due entirely to the prolongation of the war.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that it was not a miscalculation. At the time the Estimates were made up it was impossible for the Stationery Office to say how long the war would last, and it was thought better to put in a very moderate Estimate.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the general election had been fought on the cry that the war was over, and the hon. Member had made his Estimate on a calculation that the whole thing had terminated.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not take that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury threw a very interesting side light on the way the whole things in regard to the war had been going on. The Government had been living from hand to mouth from week to week, and from month to month, as had been shown by the manner in which the Stationery Estimate had been prepared. He asked whether the cost of the printing of the famous proclamations issued in South Africa was included in the vote.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the proclamations were printed here in order that they might be laid before the House. But the copies circulated in South Africa were printed in South Africa.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the printing of those proclamations was a scandalous waste of money, for they were not worth the cost of the paper. As a protest against the issue of those useless documents, which had been scattered broadcast over South Africa, and which had added so much to the amount of the Stationery Office Vote, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £200.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding

  91
  £97,800, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr Lloyd-George.)
  MR. FIELDthought the House was entitled to some more explanation as to the enormous addition to the amount of this vote. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary thing that these Estimates were brought forward in this haphazard way. Some opportunity should be given to hon. Members to know what items in the Estimates were to be discussed.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the cost of printing the proclamations had been a woful waste of public money, because they had had no good effect whatever; on the contrary they had done very much harm. The Committee should, he thought, mark the extraordinary extravagance of the increase of £98,000 in this vote.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the points raised by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin had been already dealt with by him in a speech, which, perhaps, the hon. Member had not heard. He merely rose to make an appeal to the Committee. He thought that there was an understanding, as the hon. Member opposite had said that the Committee should not prolong the discussion on the Estimates. This was only the second Estimate, and there were several others on the Paper. He therefore ventured to appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on the question.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he fully realised that there was such an understanding. He had no desire to prolong the discussion, but he thought that they ought to have a division.
  (9.0) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 137. (Division List No. 29.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Chas,P.(Glouc., Stroud)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Malley, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Mara, James

  Blake, Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shee, James John

  Boyle, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Price, Robert John

  Burns, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lundon, W.

  Roche, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Cullinan, J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N

  Delany, William

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Moss, Samuel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wallace, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Young, Samuel

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Field, William

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Mr. Flynn and Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Doherty, William

  Nannetti.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

  Bowles,T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Austin, Sir John

  Bigwood, James

  Bull, William James

  Butcher, John George

  Helder, Augustus

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Carlile, William Walter

  Henderson, Alexander

  Renwick, George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Cavendish,V. C. W (Derbyshire)

  Hope,J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Clare, Octavins Leigh

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Knowles, Lees

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lawson, John Grant

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Russell, T. W.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rutherford, John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Lowe, Francis William

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Denny, Colonel

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Calmont, Col. HL. B. (Cambs.

  Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stewart,Sir M'rk J. M'Taggart

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Stroyan, John

  Finch, George H.

  Mitchell, William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Valentia, Viscount

  Flower, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Foster, Phil. S. (Warwick,S. W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Welby,SirCharlesG. E. (Notts.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Williams,Rt HnJ Powell-(Birm

  Gibbs, Hn. A. GH. (Cityof Lond.

  Murray,Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Gordon,Maj. Evans- (T'r H'ml's

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Wood, James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wylie, Alexander

  Graham, Henry Robert.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Greene,SirE. W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sir William Walrond and

  Groves, James Grimble

  Randles, John S.

  Mr Anstruther.

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG. (Mid'x

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Original Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS III.
  3. £34,000, Supplementary, Prisons, England and the Colonies.
  MR. JOHN HUTTONsaid he desired to call the attention of the Committee to some of the reasons which were given for the very large increase in this Estimate. It was stated that the cost had been increased owing to the increase in the prison population. which seemed to him to be a very serious statement to make. It was a very unfortunate state of things and one which was very unexpected by the country at large. He should be glad to have some explanation as to this increase which had so suddenly come upon them. It had also been stated that a great many of the officers of the prisons were at the front as reservists, and he would like to know
  94
  whether the increase was due to the employment of officers in place of those who were at the Front. Was it the intention that the so-called temporary officers should be included in the general staff of the prisons in order to increase the standard number of officers. It was very difficult, according to the Inspector of Prisons' Report, to get persons to fill the place of Warders, and that showed a very serious state of things. There could not be any doubt that the officers who had to look after our prisoners should be of the very highest class of men procurable for the purpose, and if they had any legitimate cause or complaint it ought to receive the courteous and kindly consideration of the Home Secretary and the Government. Two or three years ago the prison warders sent up a memorial to the Home Secretary setting forth their grievances, and no paper had been drawn up with greater respect to the

  95
  authorities than that memorial. The question of Pensions was set forth with that memorial, which showed that out of the 3,300 prison officers in the pay of the King only three had been able to serve their full term of 40 years which enabled them to retire on a pension of two-thirds of their pay. They asked that the term should be reduced to 30 years, but the reply of the Treasury to the Home Secretary to that claim had been that it was impossible for the Government and the Treasury to make any difference between prison officers and other officers in the Civil Service establishment; that if this concession were granted to the prison officers it would have to be granted to postmen and clerks in the public service. But there was no analogy between these prison officers and postmen and clerks in the public service: there was an analogy between them and the police, and the police were able to claim a pension after 25 years service, and it was only right that these officers who did such splendid service and bore such a high character should have the same privilege as the police throughout the country. The sum required to meet the difference between the 30 and 40 years service had been calculated at £1,200 a year, and if that was a correct estimate he felt sure that the Committee would not allow such a paltry sum to stand in the way of this act of justice to these men, but would grant the sum and enable the country to obtain the very best class of men for this onerous duty. There was another point to which he would also like to draw attention. When the Prison Acts of 1874 were passed these prison warders were promised that they should receive, when they joined the Government service, the same treatment that they had received under the old county service. That was stated by the Authorities to refer only to pay. But at all events, the County Councils and Courts of Quarter Sessions granted these officers the full two-thirds of the retiring allowance, but now the Local Government Board had stepped in and had surcharged the County Councils with those amounts, and he trusted a Bill would be brought in to enable the local
  96
  authorities to continue these grants. He had seen a good deal of these men, and he could vouch for the fact that no more reliable, respectable, and respected class existed; they had to do duty of a very onerous and important character, and everything that could possibly be done should be done to make these men contented in the positions in which they lived. He hoped the Committee would not object to Vote the extremely moderate sum required for that purpose.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)thought that some of the increase in the prison population might be explained by the increase of the military prisoners in civil prisons. The Report presented in December last on the subject of military prisons was dated from the Home Office, although made by the Secretary of State for War. This rather indicated that there was a double jurisdiction in the matter, which could not be satisfactory, and which ought to be got rid of at the earliest possible moment. The Report stated that the military prisons were crowded to overflowing. In December 1900 there were no less than 800 prisoners for purely military offences, whilst in 1901 that amount had been increased by 774, or an increase in the last two years of nearly 50 per cent. It was quite true that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs had not been instrumental in bringing about this unfortunate state of affairs, because he had transferred the prisoners of Dover and York to the military authorities, for the incarceration of the military prisoners, whilst there was a proposal to erect on Salisbury Plain a military prison, which would undoubtedly relieve the civil gaols of a great many of this class of prisoners. The point to be considered was not so much the duplicate system, and consequently the delay which ensued as the fact that they took a man who had committed an offence, which, if he bad not been a soldier, would have been no offence at all, or a very venial one at most, and they herded him with all the criminals of the country. They shut him up with people, most of whom were steeped in crime, and who wandered from one prison to another. They brought him into close association with all the bad characters of the

  97
  country, simply because in the heat of the moment he had perhaps refused to carry out the orders of the military superior. They, not only put him into a civil prison, but put hint into convict dress. Nothing degraded a soldier—and most of these men were going back from the prison to the colours—so much as taking away his uniform and clothing him in a dress, which at once stamped him as a criminal, and which was at once degrading to him, both as a man and a soldier. It was true that in the last year or two a happy arrangement had been made for military prisoners in military prisons. They were no longer allowed to wear prison dress; they were compelled to wear their own uniforms; they were drilled and exercised, and though they led. in prison-life a life of greater restraint, they were in no way allowed to forget that they were soldiers, that they must take pride in themelves, because in the end they were to return to their corps of the colours. Such a person ought not to be looked upon as having a stigma upon him like a criminal, but as a man who had purged himself of his offence by the punishment which he had undergone. He ventured to say that the present system of taking these young fellows for purely military offences and placing them in a civil prison was a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and he was quite sure that the Home Secretary was the last person in the world to desire a continuance of the present system. The efforts which the right hon. Gentleman had already made in transferring two civil prisons to the military authorities was an indication that he was in favour of the complete banishment of military prisoners from civil prisons.
  MR. FLOWERsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not take into consideration the advisability of appointing women inspectors to report upon the condition of female prisoners. Since the right hon. Gentleman had been in his present office steps had been taken to form Committees to visit the prisons, but there was a general opinion so far, as he had been able to ascertain amongst the women who had done this work, that female inspectors should be appointed. He did not think the Home Secretary ought to allow difficulties to stand in
  98
  the way where prison reform in this direction was possible. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to the thanks of the community for the steps he had taken in this philanthropic work. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a large number of female inspectors all at once, but if a few were appointed as an experiment they would then be able to ascertain what good results would accrue from the inspection of female prisoners by women inspectors. He did not think the state of the prisons was quite so bad as had been painted, but undoubtedly they were capable of a great deal of improvement; and he could not help thinking that, so far as female prisoners were concerned, the appointment of women inspectors would be a great boon.
  COLONEL BROOKFIELDsaid he desired to return to the subject of receiving soldiers in civil prisons. He thought this was a matter which really concerned more the Secretary of State for War, and was well worthy the right hon. Gentleman's attention in his various schemes which were now being arranged for making the Army more attractive. So far as the Home Secretary and his Department were concerned, he thought this was a matter of the greatest importance. People used to talk of the degradation inflicted on soldiers who were flogged, but he thought it was a greater degradation when a young soldier, who perhaps lost his temper and committed what was a serious military offence, was herded for two or three years with ordinary criminals, He was glad to hear that military prisoners were no longer made to wear convicts' dress. He did not know what other improvements the right hon. Gentleman might have made since the report of the Commissioners on Convict Prisons had been issued, but in their report they complained of military prisoners being sent to the local prisons in violation of an Army order ordering the practice to cease. Of course, the evil must have been greatly aggravated by the war and the large influx of military prisoners from the colours during the last two years. He thought another cause which had aggravated the evil in

  99
  some localities was that the naval prisons had ceased to take any military prisoners as they used to do. He knewthat was the case with the naval prison at Lewes. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman that probably the practice of which they were complaining applied also to naval prisoners to a great extent, and he hoped the Home Secretary would see the propriety of amending the law in regard to both naval and military prisoners. A great opportunity was now offered to the Secretary of State for War whilst making accommodation for the new Army Corps to erect proper buildings for the reception of military prisoners.
  MR. PYMdid not think it was fair to draw a comparison between the position of prison warders and policemen, for the Committee should remember that the duties of the former were very trying indeed and ought to be taken into consideration. The life of a prison warder was often attended by distressing circumstances which prevented him from giving the number of years service which were required before he could attain the same position as other similar civil servants entitling him to three-fourths of his salary as a pension. The Committee should look at the case of the prison warders as entirely distinct from any of the ordinary class of civil servants. The prison warder entered the service at 27 or 28 years of age, and he was employed under conditions which made it almost hopeless for him to live the number of years which were necessary to place him in the same position as his brother civil servant. He thought this class of servants were entitled to every regard and attention which they could give to them for the public services which they rendered. It was for those reasons that he thought they might fairly call upon the Home Secretary to give some attention to the claims of those men for an improvement in their position as civil servants, more especially as the amount of money required was so very small that it was hardly worth considering from the point of view of expense. As they had the sympathy of the late Home Secretary on this matter, he trusted they would have not only the sympathy of the present
  100
  Home Secretary, but in addition, his goodwill and his powerful influence in obtaining for these prison warders what they had been striving to get for them for some years.
  Sin ARTHUR HAYTERassured the Home Secretary that he could confer no greater benefit upon the status of the soldier than the change he was making in regard to the use of civil prisons for military offences. From his own recollection of what used to happen, there was more degradation attached to a soldier returning to his comrades from a civil prison than from a military prison, and he thought it was desirable that the Home Secretary should avoid this evil as much as possible, because the herding together of soldiers with ordinary criminals for simple military offences ought not to take place. He understood that it was the intention of the Government to build a large prison at Salisbury Plain. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman meant to do anything he could to remove military prisoners from civil prisons.
  There was one item in particular to which he desired to call attention, and it was the Vote for escort and conveyance. There was an increase of £6,000 under this head, on account of the more numerous transfers of prisoners, often to a great distance, to prevent over-crowding, and he would like to know whether there was, under this item, any expense in connection with the removal of Boer prisoners from South Africa. Then there was another item on the first page which provided for seven additional officers for the State inebriate reformatories. They had some discussion as to these reformatories last year, from which it appeared that they were not taken up very much by the counties, and he wished to know whether they had now become more popular and were being taken up by the counties.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): My hon. friend the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire has drawn my attention to one or two matters mainly connected with the position of prison warders.

  101
  Before I deal with that subject I will touch upon certain other questions which have been addressed to me. I am asked how it is that there is an increase in the Vote for temporary officers, and whether the appointment of additional temporary officers is owing to the increase in the prison population, and what is the explanation of the latter fact. Of course it is a very difficult thing to say exactly how it is that crime is greater at some periods than it is at others. Naturally in a population of that kind there must necessarily be a fluctuation which it is very difficult to account for, but some portion of the increase is accounted for by the increase in the number of military prisoners. One hon. Gentleman stated in his speech that the military prisoners have during the last two years increased to a considerable extent, and that is quite true. On January 1st 1900, there were 376; on January 1st 1901, 792; and on January 1st 1902, 774. This is an increase which accounts to some extent for the total increase which undoubtedly has taken place. In addition to this increase in the number of military prisoners, while there has been a certain decrease in serious crime, there has been an increase in crime of a lesser degree, and that also, of course, has tended to increase the prison population. I will say a word or two presently about the military prisoners, but I think my hon. friend may take it that the increase in the prison population is accounted for by military prisoners and by the fact that the number of offences of a lesser degree have somewhat increased. My hon. friend also asks me why we require an increase in the staff of temporary officers, and I may point out to him in reply that that increase is to be accounted for mainly by the increase in the prison population. I have no doubt that there are some of our officers at the seat of war, but it may be taken that this increase has been largely called for by the increased population of our prisons. Of course when a population increases in this way in our prisons you must have a larger number of officials to supervise them, and the appointment of temporary officers is the right way to meet a sudden increase, especially with the possibility in view of a decrease again, to which I think there is now a slight tendency.
  102
  But the main subject to which my hon. friend referred was the question of the warders., and these he divided into two classes—the "old" warders, as I may call them, who were taken over when the prisons were transferred to the Government and the new warders who have joined since that time. With regard to the "old" warders, I entirely agree that they have a very strong and legitimate grievance. They undoubtedly considered when they were taken over that their position would not be in any way injured and that they would get the same terms both as to pay and as to pensions. The Treasury deny that that was the understanding—so far, as least, as pensions are concerned. The local authorities, I understand, are willing to contribute whatever amount will be required to make up the difference between the old terms and the new, but they are impeded by the fan that by the audit of these accounts under the Local Government Board it has been found that they are not justified in making such a contribution. My hon. friend has asked me whether I am prepared to introduce legislation to legalise these contributions. As my hon. friend knows, I have already promised to bring in a Bill of that kind, and I hope I may be able to do so within a day or two. I trust that when I do so the very moderate nature of the Bill and the really legitimate grievance which it is desired to remedy will be so appreciated by the House that hon. Members will allow it to pass through without any serious discussion.
  With regard to the new warders the matter is somewhat more difficult. My hon. friend says that the difficulty arises because the new warders come into the service at a later period of life than they ought to do if they are to be able to obtain their full pension. There is no doubt that if a man comes into the service at 30 years of age and retires at 60 he can only receive a pension of one-half instead of two-thirds of his salary. But after all their grievance is not a very real one, because they know perfectly well upon what terms they enter the service; and therefore they cannot he said to be suffering from a grievance in the same sense as the old warders are suffering. My hon. friend says that we should require a very small sum of money to put these officers in a position somewhat superior to the position occupied by ordinary civil servants, which would

  103
  entitle them to their full pension at 60 although they only joined at 30. It may be true that it might not require a very large sum of money to meet the difficulty in connection with the warders, but he must remember that if the Government depart from the recognised system of pensions with regard to one class of persons whom they employ, they cannot possibly confine that departure to that particular class. Therefore, I say that if we were to alter the terms of, superannuation for those servants of the Crown who are engaged in prisons, it would be impossible to resist an extension of the same privilege to all the employees of the Government of at all a similar class. Take, for instance, postmen. If you are going to adopt this system in regard to prison warders it would. be very hard to resist the same demand in the case of postmen. I think I need only mention that fact to show my hon. friend that the adoption of his suggestion would not mean a small increase hut a rather large one.
  My hon. friend says also that it is difficult to obtain these men at the present rate of pay. I may say that I am having that matter inquired into, but I cannot admit that that is the ease generally. There may be some ground for that statement in some parts of the country, but I am inclined to doubt whether it prevails all over the country. I am making inquiries into the matter, and if it is right and possible to improve the position of the warders we shall do so. I shall see what more, if anything, is necessary in order to obtain such a class of men as is necessary for the very responsible and very difficult and anxious task which they have to perform. They are certainly entitled to our full sympathy for the work, which they do and do so well. I would paint out, however, that if anything is done I scarcely think that it will be in the way of reconsidering their terms of pensions or superannuation, but rather in the direction of considering whether or not any improvement can be made in their rate of pay, and I think that would be an advantage which they would appreciate and which they could use to get for themselves something in the nature of an additional pension if they chose.
  The hon Member for East Bristol has referred to a very important and a very difficult question at the present time—I
  104
  mean the question of military prisoners. I at once say that I am in absolute sympathy with him and also with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall upon the point which they have raised. But there are two classes to deal with. There is the class of prisoner who commits an ordinary civil offence, and there is the military prisoner properly so called. We are very careful to do all we can to keep the latter class of prisoners separate, and to treat them in some respect differently, and we try to keep men who commit military offences as far as possible free from what undoubtedly is a contamination when they are associated with the ordinary class of civil prisoners. We do this as far as we can, and military prisoners are not now clothed in the same dress as ordinary prisoners, and they are kept as far as possible separated. The difficulty of carrying out this policy of separating the purely military from the civil prisoners is greatly increased owing to the fact that our prisons are very full at the present time, and we are not able in consequence to do as much as we should like to do in that respect. Of course the real solution of the problem is to have separate prisons for them. The right hon. Baronet has very truly stated that this is a matter in which the Home Office have not got full control, but we have never ceased to urge upon the military authorities the necessity of providing accommodation in military gaols for prisoners who commit military offences. The hon. Gentleman has stated truly that the Home Office have given over two prisons for the exclusive use of military prisoners, but notwithstanding this there are still a large number of military prisoners in the ordinary civil prisons. I am able, however, to state that accommodation is now being provided for them by the War Office. For instance, accommodation is being provided at Aldershot for 68 prisoners, at Colchester for 13, at Devonport for 16, at Dublin for 20, at Dover for 380, at Woking for 300, at Shorncliffe for 15, and on Salisbury Plain for 100. Except in the case of Salisbury Plain, this accommodation, I believe, will be ready in a few months, and much of it in a few weeks; and when these are ready the accommodation for purely military prisoners, I

  105
  am informed, will be adequate for any demand which is likely to be made upon us.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked in what relation the Inspector General stood to the War Office and the Home Office.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I confess that I have always thought the position an extremely anomalous one. It is rather difficult to explain exactly what the Inspector General's position is. I have already had some communication with the Prison Commissioners upon the subject, and I hope to communicate with my hon. friend the Secretary of State for War to see whether some change could be made by which the position would be made somewhat different from what it is at present.
  The right hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall asked whether any amount in the Supplementary Estimate stands for the conveyance of Boer prisoners. No, there does not. The increased charge for conveyance; etc., is accounted for in this way. Some of our prisons are much fuller than others, and we have to transfer prisoners from one to another. The right hon. Baronet also asked about the State Inebriate Reformatories. He said they were not very much taken up by the counties, but as there were to be seven additional officers he presumed that they were being more taken up now. Those seven officers have nothing to do with the County Inebriate Reformatories. These places are provided by the counties, though they get a certain allowance from the Government for each inmate. I agree with the right hon. Baronet that the counties have not been coming forward quite as rapidly as we hoped they would do, in providing this accommodation; but I do not think too much blame should be attached to the local authorities for not doing their duty as long as the Government did not do theirs. It is only quite recently that the Government have done anything to perform their part in providing accommodation for inebriates, who are not fit to go into the ordinary County Inebriate Reformatories, but who require to be restrained by measures which are rather more of a prison character. During the last twelve months, we have begun to do something in that direction. We have now started a State
  106
  Inebriate Reformatory for men, and also made temporary accommodation at Aylesbury for women inebriates. It is for these places that the officers to Whom the right hon. Baronet refers are required. What we have to dell with is prisoners who are violent, and we are providing accommodation at Warwick for inebriates of that class. We have also commenced to clear a large piece of ground near Aylesbury for the purpose of erecting an inebriate asylum for women. It is a curious fact that there seems to be much more demand for accommodation for women than for men. There are more women committed than men, and therefore we require more accommodation for them. I do not wish to go into the reasons for this, because it would take a considerable time. I want to encourage the local authorities in every way we can. I think it is most important to encourage them to provide accommodation of this class, and for the Government to aid them by providing accommodation for those who cannot be received into County Reformatories. We intend to do all we can to make the Act operative, and I am confident that the result will be a good one. My hon. friend the Member for Bedford spoke of the position of the prison warders. He will understand that I induded him in what I said in reply to another hon. Member on that matter. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Rye Division referred to the question of military prisoners, and I think I have dealt with his point also. My hon. friend the Member for West Bradford has touched upon another experiment we are making, and which we regard as most hopeful. We are providing, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for taking into the prison at Borstal what are called "juvenile adults," that is to say, prisoners over 16 and under 21; and we hope by a system of training and of teaching them trades, by general instruction and help, to take these prisoners away from the con tamination in which they have lived, out of the atmosphere of crime in which they have been reared, and make them fit to be useful members of society when they leave prison. I am

  107
  glad to be able to say how much we appreciate all the efforts that are being made by Prisoners' Aid Societies, who are doing a great deal at the present time for young prisoners and others, by taking charge of them on their release, because that is the trying time. However good their intentions may be, and however good the influences brought to bear on them in prison may be, they are, on getting out, at once subject to contamination by old "friends," who may drag them down again into a career of crime. I cannot say too much in praise of the splendid work which the Prisoners' Aid Societies are doing by taking hold of these prisoners when they come out, and endeavouring to carry forward the good work we have done for them in prison, thus taking them out of the atmosphere of crime. I hope and believe that by taking crime in its youthful stage, and by, I trust, at some future time taking steps to prevent habitual criminals from being let loose upon the population, something material may be pone to reduce crime in this country. My hon. friend the Member for West Bradford, spoke also about women inspectors. I think he said that however good the administration of prisons was, they were still open to improvement. There are no institutions or individuals of whom the same might not be said, and as to women inspectors being necessary, in order to effect the improvement, I may say that I had an opportunity three months ago of going down to Aylesbury and going over the prison there. I cannot dispute the fact that there, as everywhere else, there may be room for improvement, but I was amazed to see the kindly and orderly attention that was paid to the prisoners. Of course, we can never hope to make it agreeable to them, but still they were all busily occupied, and I saw nothing degrading in the employment in which they were engaged, and so far as the attention paid to them was concerned, I do not think there was anything left to be desired. I confess, although I have the greatest confidence in women inspectors as regards the work they do generally, I have not seen any reason for appointing women inspectors for prisons. The women confined in prisons have the advantage of lady visitors. At Aylesbury there is an excellent committee
  108
  containing lady visitors. At any rate, no lady inspector could possibly, in my opinion, do anything like the good work which is done in a prison like Aylesbury by the exceedingly kindly and sympathetic lady visitors there. If I thought that there was any advantage to be derived from carrying out my hon. friend's proposal, I would gladly adopt it, but I feel satisfied from inquiries I have made that the necessity does not exist. At the same time, if at any future time the necessity is shown, I shall not be at all disinclined to consider the question. I can only assure my hon. friends who have brought forward the variaus topics to which I have referred, that I have a great deal of sympathy with much that they have said, and anything that I can do in my office, either for the immediate advantage of prisoners, or generally to get those who are sent to our prisons as far as possible out of the atmosphere of crime in which many of them have been reared, I shall be extremely glad to do. I think the discussion will he useful, and I hope I have dealt with the subjects which have been brought forward in a spirit which will commend itself to hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman had discussed matters was eminently satisfactory. In 1895 a Committee reported in favour of teaching prisoners trades, such as shoemaking, which would be useful to them when they went out, placing them in a better position than when they went in. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would feel that this was one of the most important things the State could do. He wished to know whether steps were being taken to carry out the recommendation of the Committee.
  MR. DUKEsaid it would be a satisfaction to those interested in the administration of the criminal law if his right hon. friend the Home Secretary would give some information as to the phrase "increase in the prison population," which occurred with disagreeable frequency in the Supplemental Estimates under consideration. Those who had been concerned in the administration of the Criminal Law had apparently been under a mis-

  109
  apprehension in believing that crime in this country was steadily diminishing. Humane changes had been introduced with regard to the treatment of prisoners, and many first offenders now escaped without imprisonment. He should like if his right hon. friend could tell the Committee whether the increase of the prison population was a casual increase, such as might be expected to arise from temporary causes, or whether the facts pointed to an increase of offences which was progressive or likely to be permanent.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would also like to ask whether the increase in the prison population was not partly due to the extra leniency now shown by magistrates to offenders. There was an increase of £34,000 on the Prisons Vote, and he understood the Home Secretary to say that that was very largely, if not entirely, due to the extra burden put on the police department by the transfer of military prisoners to civil prisons.
  *MR. RITCHIE: No, no.
  MR. WHITLEY: Well, that was a point that needed elucidation. At any rate, the increase was partly due to the transfer of military prisoners, and he thought it would be very desirable in the future that the extra charges in connection with prisoners from South Africa should be put down as a separate item in the Vote. When the expenditure of a department. had considerably increased it was difficult to get back again to the economical basis which had previously existed; but he was quite sure that when the war was over, there would be an endeavour to retrench in the matter of expenditure. Extra charges on account of the African war should be set out as separate items, and for this reason—that when the expenditure in a department had considerably increased it was not a very easy matter to bring it back again to the economic basis which existed before the war. The right hon. Gentleman had explained that increased expenditure had been put on the Department because of the fact that the War Office had not sufficient prison accommodation for military prisoners. He would not pursue the inquiry as to why there should be such
  110
  a large number of military prisoners; but he hoped that at some time there might be a Return showing for what offences and crimes the military prisoners were incarcerated and the duration of the terms of imprisonment.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid it was rather difficult to say what the military prisoners had cost, but he thought it probably did not amount to more than about £7,000 of the total Estimate. He hoped they should not have any more purely military prisoners to take care of after some three or four months. In reply to the remarks of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Plymouth, he had made inquiry and was told that the increase of the prison population to which he had referred was not to be accounted for at all by the more lenient treatment of prisoners. No one knew better than his hon. and learned friend that offences were always increasing. There was hardly an Act of Parliament passed which did not increase offences, and, as the population was always growing, these two things acting together, naturally led to some increase in minor offences. At the same time he thought it was eminently satisfactory that the larger offences were undoubtedly decreasing. He had to say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire, that, whenever they found prisoners who had a trade, they employed them accordingly, and if there was in any particular prison an opportunity for exercising the trade to advantage, that would be one of the considerations which would govern the transferring of prisoners from one prison to another. In this way every effort was made to ensure that they were made more fitted than they otherwise would be to carry on their trade when they came out of prison.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.
  4. £13,000, Supplementary, Diplomatic and Consular Services.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR (Invernesshire)said he wished to ask a question with reference to the compensation claimed by British subjects in connection with disturbances in Turkey.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester)said that the Supplementary Estimate did not include any money for the Turkish Embassy.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he desired to call attention to the enormous amount of the Supplementary Estimate. When the original Estimate was framed, the troubles in China had arisen, and certainly the Committee ought to have some explanation of the reason why the original Estimate was swollen to nearly double its amount. They were not told whether the increase was due to the Alliance with Japan or to the troubles in China, and it would be well if hon. Members were given information, instead of being left to grope in the dark.
  *LORD CRANBORNEsaid he would explain the practice adopted with reference to telegrams. It was impossible to foresee at the beginning of the financial year what telegrams and correspondence would be required, even in times of peace. That must always be a matter of doubt, and the practice adopted was to take a normal sum every year, and if there were a larger number of telegrams than that amount would cover, to charge for them in a Supplementary Estimate in the following year. Of course in ordinary times that normal sum might cover the total expenditure, but in times of great crises, especially in the Far East, where the rates were very expensive, there would be certain to be a large excess. He need not remind the hon. Member that the troubles in China lasted a considerable time, and necessitated a large amount of correspondence.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that the country was very much concerned in the work of the China Tariff Commission, and he thought before they passed the item under that head the noble Lord might give the Committee a statement as to how matters stood with regard to it. He desired to know if the Commission had come to any conclusions with the Chinese Government, and whether they had been able to obtain the favourable results anticipated; and if they had not concluded their labours, how near were they to a conclusion?
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said that the noble Lord stated that he only took a normal amount for telegrams; but last year, war was proceeding in China a long time before the original Estimate was framed; and he wished to know whether, notwithstanding that state of affairs, only the normal sum which would have been required in time of peace was estimated. He could not understand why even a Government Department should have been so wanting in foresight as to submit an Estimate to cover normal conditions, when they knew perfectly well that abnormal conditions prevailed.
  *LORD CRANBORNEsaid he had already explained to the Committee that the system adopted was to charge a normal sum, and to make up the difference, if any, by a Supplementary Estimate. He thought, however, that in the next original Estimate he would have to ask the Committee for an increase in the normal sum that had been estimated for many years past for telegraphic service. He supposed it was thought not worth while to attempt to frame an Estimate for a service which was so uncertain, and that therefore the system which he had explained was adopted. He quite agreed that opinions might differ as to whether it was or was not a good system, but it had been pursued for many years past. With reference to the China Tariff Commission the Committee would remember that there were two provisions in the protocol which the representatives of the Powers at Peking had put forward with reference to commercial matters. There was, in the first place, the provision which permitted the raising of the normal Chinese tariff to an effective 5 per cent. ad valorem, and there was also Article 11, which prescribed that certain commercial reforms should be established in China. With reference to the first, there were certain commercial advantages which were promised in return for that 5 per cent. They had to do with the navigation of the Pei-ho and the Wang-pu, the river, as hon. Members will know, on which Shanghai is situated. In order to reach a 5 per cent. ad valorem standard it was necessary

  113
  to go through a very elaborate calculation. The old specific duties had to be completely recast in order to fit them to the new standard. That was done to a large extent in London and partly out in China. The adjustment was entrusted to this special Commission, over which Sir James Mackay presided. Besides that, the Commission was charged to negotiate with the Chinese Government for the commercial reforms which were contemplated in Article 11 of the protocol—such questions as the abolition of the likin and other internal charges, and other matters of great importance to the commercial community urgently pressed by the Powers on the Chinese during the debates in the conference of representatives at Peking. With that principal object this special Commission was appointed. It was thought by Lord Lansdowne that the matter was so elaborate that it would take a considerable time, that it was impossible to overtake it by the ordinary diplomatic staff at Peking, and that it was necessary to send out experts to China with that object. The Government were fortunate enough to obtain the services of Sir James Mackay, an eminent member of the Indian Council in London, to take the lead in this Commission. With him were associated Mr. Cockburn, the Chinese Secretary of the Legation at Peking, a man of great experience, and Mr. Dudgeon, of the China Association, a man of great eminence resident at Shanghai. They had to consider a very large number of questions, and Sir James Mackay was very carefully instructed before he went out with reference to all the points which the Foreign Office knew were of interest to the commercial community. One of the things which the British representatives insisted upon more urgently than anything else during the debates at Peking was that no consent would be given by Great Britain to the raising of the 5 per cent duty, except in return for those commercial reforms. It became a very urgent matter that we should arrive at some conclusion with the Chinese Government as to what these reforms ought to be. The result was that this special Commission was sent out and sums of money had become duo in respect of travelling expenses and salaries. That was the reason for the Supplementary Estimate.
  114
  He had had to trouble the House of Commons so often with the commercial side of the Chinese question that he could not bat believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House would be glad if the Foreign Office had undertaken operations of such a hopeful kind in order to bring the policy of the Government to a fruitful conclusion; and he ventured to think that the money necessary to defray the expense of the special Commission would be ungrudgingly voted by the Committee.
  MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire)asked if the 5 per cent. ad valorem duty meant the abolition of likin duty.
  *LORD CRANBORNEsaid the Chinese Government could charge a 5 per cent. ad valorem duty. The duties formerly levied were much less than 5 per cent.; and, therefore, under treaty rights they were readjusted, so as to be equivalent to a 5 per cent. duty. However, the Chinese Government had to fulfil their treaty obligations, and when the Powers consented to raise the Customs to 5 per cent., they did not do it unconditionally, but stipulated for certain commercial reforms in return. That finished that chapter. Then the further question was raised as to whether the duty should not be increased beyond 5 per cent. ad valorem, and the Chinese Government were informed that the Powers would not consent to that except in return for much more extensive commercial reforms, and it was those reforms that Sir James Mackay was now engaged in negotiating.
  MR. WYLIEsaid that the noble Lord had done a great deal towards the removal of the very exorbitant charges on British trade in China, and he congratulated his noble friend on his success.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that a sum of £6,000, which should have been added to the £19,000, making a total excess of £25,000, had been deducted from it. Surely that was not correct.
  *LORD CRANBORNEsaid he thought if the hon. Member would look again at the Estimate he would see it was right. The £6,000 was an appropria-

  115
  tion-in aid, and therefore deducted from the £19,000, leaving £13,000.
  MR. FLYNNsaid surely the noble Lord would see that the revised Estimate should be the larger sum.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the £6,000 was an appropriation-in-aid, and had been paid back.
  COLONEL. DENNYsaid he would suggest to the Government that the special Commission which had been sent out to China should be empowered to settle the indemnity for the loss of the "Kowshing." If that could be settled now it would save the expenditure of much more money later.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS VI.
  5. £48,941, Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he desired to say a few words on the Vote before the Committee, especially as it only appeared as a Supplementary Estimate, inasmuch as the deficiency was not realised until the end of each year. This was, therefore, the only opportunity of debating Savings Bank questions. The deficiency, which amounted to £38,000, arose as follows. The funds of the banks could only be invested in Government securities, and the interest received from them was less than the Government had to pay over to the banks, viz., £2 15s. per cent. per annum, in order to enable the latter to pay to their depositors the generally current rate of interest, namely, £2 10s. per cent. That deficiency had to be made up by the State, and although one regretted that it should exist, he was quite satisfied, from his knowledge of the banks, that it was one by the payment of which the State in the end gained. It put a great an incident which occurred at Man-premium on thrift, it had the advantage chester, which was one to be regretted, of enabling small investors to have their money taken care of; and it was a means of accumulating small capital, leading to the prosperity of individuals and the promotion of the trade of the country, and the interest even of the bankers.
  116
  The economic and social value of the Savings Banks (as of the Friendly Societies) was therefore very great. They were a source of saving to the State itself, both directly in reducing the rates, and indirectly in the formation of national character. Last year there was a slight increase in the number of banks, including the branches, and that might be said also of the last ten years. Any defaults on the part of the trustees and managers were carefully examined by the Inspection Committee, appointed by statute; and he was bound to state that wherever defects had been pointed out there was a general desire to remedy them. The audit, although the book-keeping was sometimes of an old system, might generally be spoken of as effective and satisfactory, and, what was of very great importance, the expenditure had decreased no less than ls. per transaction. He believed that the banks were economically managed under the influence of the Inspection Committee, and also that the trustees and managers generally took a course which insured, humanly speaking, the prosperity and safety of the banks. The total sum deposited in the banks amounted to £53,000,000, and in addition there were about £1,000,000 invested in the Stock Purchase Department, and £5,000,000 in the Special Investment Departments of certain banks. The depositors numbered over one and a half millions, and the surplus of assets over liabilities amounted to one and a quarter millions sterling. The system was a great testimony to the value of voluntary action on the part of those who took an interest in a class of people who were not always able to help themselves; and he thought the State owed a great obligation to the voluntary trustees and managers, who did so much in various localities to promote the prosperity of and confidence in the banks, and so gave the best service to the State. He wished to refer to an incident which occurred at Manchester, which was one to be regretted, although, in one sense, it was most encouraging; and it was the serious run on the bank in that city, which it was believed was caused in some measure by statements with reference to the fall in Consols, which led to the inference that

  117
  the solvency of the banks might be affected, although of course that could not occur, since they were under the guarantee of the State. When that run commenced the assistance of the Bank of England was at once obtained, depositors were reassured, and in the end, no evil result followed. He thought they ought to bear testimony to the management, which on that occasion was efficient, reliant and full of resource. It was sometimes said that the banks did not serve the class for which they were originally intended, but on that point it was the conviction of the Inspection Committee that, although there were no doubt some exceptions, yet as a general rule the intention of Parliament was being carried out; and that the wage earning classes were being helped by the banks. This he said both from information from banks as to the occupations of their depositors, and also from his own personal observation on many occasions of visits to the banks, which he had made officially. It was also said, in proof of the charge, that the deposits were largely increased, and that that was inconsistent with the statement that the intention of Parliament was being carried out. A conclusive proof to the contrary was that, while the deposits had largely increased, the number of depositors had also increased. If they went back 50 or 60 years they would find that the average deposit at that time, when undoubtedly the banks were serving the class for which they were intended, was about £34; now he believed it was about £32, which indicated that the same class was still being served. It was also said that large sums were occasionally deposited at once. That might be so, but he believed that those sums were generally taken out from time to time for current purposes and subsequently re-deposited in one sum. Another satisfactory indication of the use of the banks was that judges, especially in Scotland, frequently recommended persons who received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts to put the money into one of the banks, and he believed that was largely done; and it ought to be enacted that every sum received
  118
  under those Acts might be at once deposited in one sum. He was hoping to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enter upon legislation for some administrative reforms. The Act of 1891, under which the Inspection Committee was appointed, had done a great deal to check any maladministration that might have existed, and it had also arrested the decline of the banks; the number of banks and branches was greater now than when the Act was passed; the deposits had increased by £8,500,000; the cost per transaction had been reduced by ls.; and the surplus assets had been doubled in that period. That was a great testimony to the value of the Act, and to the administrative action of the Inspection Committee, speaking as he might for his able expert colleagues, if not for himself as Chairman. One point of vital moment to the banks now was that in 1903 the interest on Consols would be reduced from 2¾ to 2¼ per cent. That would mean a loss to the State upon the funds invested belonging to the banks of 4¼ per cent. That loss would somehow have to be met or counteracted, or the deficiency would be increased, and have to be met by a vote of the House. The practical problem of the moment was, therefore, how to meet the deficiency. He could, suggest only three ways. The first was, naturally, to say that the interest paid to the trustees and managers, and by them to the depositors, must be reduced by the equivalent of the ¼ per cent. He was satisfied, however, that that could not be done without materially checking the valuable influence of the banks, because, although the chief object of depositors was safe custody, yet they also had, and not unnaturally, a very great regard for the amount of interest allowed. He had received many letters expressing the hope that no reduction of that sort would be made, if it could possibly be avoided, and from his own knowledge of the banks he hoped that no such step would be taken. If there were such a check he believed it would cause a loss which would ultimately have to be borne by the State. For the banks were, both directly and indirectly, distinctly a source of saving to the State, as they created means which prevented obliga-

  119
  tions being imposed on the rates; they formed habits and character which, generally speaking, were at variance with pauperism and crime; and, though some little more interest might have to be borne by the State, he was satisfied that the ultimate result would be a saving rather than a loss. At any rate, let no such change be made unless and until a national system of pensions was established, for which Savings Banks and Friendly Societies would be some sort of substitute.
  Secondly, It had been suggested that the interest should be made to fluctuate, but the feeling of the banks was strongly against the proposal. It had been said, and he believed it to be true, that, above all things, the depositors liked certainty, and had a strong objection to uncertainty. That view was certainly strengthened by the fact that investments in stock had never risen to the point it was expected they would reach, and he believed that that was, in a large measure, due to the fact that the purchasers did not know what might be the difference between the cost and the result when realised, and that depositors, in dealing with their small savings, desired certainty. It was true that the fluctuating system was the law in France, and had been since 1893, but. practical effect had never been given to the law, and so the experiment had not been really tried.
  After a good deal of thought and observation, he submitted that the real remedy was to increase the powers of investment, on the part both of the Government and of the Bank trustees and managers. At present the Government were limited to Consols and other Government securities, but there were a large number of safe securities beyond Consols. It might be said that they were more fluctuating, but Consols themselves had had a very devious career within recent years, and people who invested in them a few years ago must have suffered considerable loss. There were steps in the direction he suggested. Scotland, always in advance when habits of providence were concerned, had already had an Act passed for her under which Trustees
  120
  generally, including Savings Bank Trustees, had a wider range of investment than was allowed in Engand. There the position had been, to some extent, remedied by an Amendment of the General Trustee Acts. It was remarkable, too, how many Colonies had fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the Colonial Stocks Investment Act, 1900, by which trustee investments were permitted in Colonial Stocks, and, when those conditions were complied with, he thought Colonial Stocks frequently presented a perfectly safe and remunerative form of investment. But the chief point he desired to urge in this connection was that the power of investing in local and other securities should be enlarged. At present, securities in the way of mortgage, such as local rates would be, were not permissible; but a good School Board or municipal or county rate, with local knowledge of the value of the stock brought to bear upon the subject, provided a perfectly safe, readily realizable, and non-fluctuating investment.
  Lastly, there were one or two administrative reforms which he hoped care would be taken to carry out if legislation was proposed. There should be powers of superannuation. Because no power existed to superannuate an old and once an able actuary, banks were frequently closed, in order that a gift or allowance might be made to him in the liquidation of the bank. That was a most undesirable state of affairs, and the Inspection Committee suggested that such powers should be given to trustees and managers, subject to the confirmation either of the National Debt Commissioners or the Inspection Committee. Provisions were also required for the sale of old premises when a new bank was erected, for rendering it unnecessary for an auditor, appointed for one year without any custody of or responsibility for cash, to go through the form of giving security, for the amalgamation of Banks, and also with regard to the expenses of founding penny banks. Of all the valuable modern features of savings banks, that of penny banks in the public elementary schools and the like, which brought home to the very doors of the people, in their earliest and most impressionable years, the duty of some saving, was of the

  121
  very greatest advantage. These provisions had been embodied in Bills which he himself had brought in, but he attached far more importance to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted most of them, and, if the right hon. Gentleman was going to legislate, as he probably must, he urged him to give the Inspection Committee and trustees and managers the advantage of these administrative reforms. Finally, some time back the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced a Bill, which was not received with universal favour, with great readiness, expressed to himself his willingness to appoint a Committee to consider the whole subject. If that Committee were appointed, as lie hoped it would be before any legislation, he also hoped it would consider not only the fiscal difficulties of the Government and the banks, but also the question of better and more remunerative, but at the same time safe, investments for both, and also the administrative reforms to which he had referred—in short, the whole subject of the Banks. In any case, he desired to thank the right lion. Gentleman for his ready response to representations which he had often made to him, and the invariable desire he had shown to consult, as far as public policy would allow, the real interest of the banks, and to maintain them in prosperity, for the great advantage and benefit of the people.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORcalled attention to the extraordinary state of things existing in regard to savings banks in Ireland. It would scarcely be believed, but it was true, that in order to withdraw half-a-crown in a remote district in Ireland it was necessary to communicate with the central office in London, with the result that occasionally much delay was caused. The point he desired to emphasise was the over-centralisation of the Savings Bank Department in London. He thought the present roundabout process was entirely unnecessary, and, to a certain extent, it was unjust to Ireland. It kept away from post office officals, and those who might become post office officials, a large amount of labour and
  122
  wages which should be spent in Ireland, and it entailed the employment at large expense in London of officials who might be employed in Ireland. The official excuse was that there was a large number of cross- accounts, and that, in consequence, this system of centralisation was necessary. As a matter of fact, the number of cross-accounts was much smaller than the number of accounts strictly confined to Ireland, and he believed they could be dealt with by a system of transfer.
  MR. BANBURYthought the hon. Member for South Islington, in the arguments he had put forward, had forgotten that the Savings Bank kept no margin of cash in hand, that the whole of their funds were invested. Ordinary banks kept a large amount of ready money in hand for emergencies, and the Savings Bank, if they were to invest their money in the securities to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, would have to do the same, because such securities were quite unsaleable in case of emergency. Consols were the only security which could be readily sold when an emergency arose, and, therefore, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would continue to keep, at any rate, the bulk of the funds of the Savings Bank invested in these easily realisable securities.
  MR. HALDANEsaid it was all very well for the hon. Member for Peckham to say it was desirable to provide against an emergency, but, after all, that emergency was not very likely to occur, and, if it did, it could be provided against in other ways. He desired to refer to the serious situation alluded to by the hon. Member for South Islington. It was true that this year there was a, decrease in the substantial annual deficiency on the savings banks and friendly societies, but that arose from the fact that in investing the funds of those institutions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to provide a national security which had considerably depreciated. For some time to come the price of

  123
  Consols was likely to be low, but there might come a time—possibly when a change of Ministry occurred—when the price of Consols would go up substantially. The position then would be a very difficult one, for two reasons. In the first place, Consols would have become dear again, and the deficiency would increase instead of decrease; and secondly, the interest on Consols would have gone down ¼per cent. With Consols yielding 2¾ per cent., there was a substantial deficiency on the working of the savings banks. Next year, with the immense amount invested in Consols, and with the rate of interest lower, the deficiency would be even greater, and some provision would have to be made to meet it. All were in favour of thrift, but he protested against working these institutions at the expense of the State to the enormous extent which seemed to be probable in the future. It was never contemplated, when the Savings Banks were founded, that they should be worked at a loss; the intention was that they should pay their way, and they did, because when the rate of interest was fixed at 2¾ per cent., the interest on national securities was much higher than at present. The matter was a serious one, and required attention at the hands of the Government. He had always thought that they must, at any rate in respect of the savings banks investments, resort to other securities than Consols. The right hon. Gentleman might even rival in popularity a distinguished colleague of his, if he would show more favour to Colonial securities. Not only in the case of India, but also in regard to some of the colonies, there were some very good classes of securities which were perfectly safe, and yielded a higher rate of interest than Consols. With the prospect of this large deficiency before them, he would like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in contemplation any step of a far-reaching nature to provide against it. He quite appreciated the difficulties of the situation, but the right hon. Gentleman was not a man to let a loss occur which he could possibly avert, and therefore this matter was certain to engage his serious attention.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The hon. Member for South Islington has several times brought this matter under the notice of the House, and those Iyho are acquainted with the subject know how great is the public service my hon. friend has rendered' for many years past by his interest in the working of the Trustee Savings banks, as Chairman of the Inspection Committee. The hon. Member went into some questions with regard to which I think it is not necessary for me to trouble the Committee, but the particular question raised in the latter part of his speech, and which has been dwelt upon by the hon. Member opposite, is one, I agree, of great and pressing urgency. What are the circumstances? I am sure that Parliament has never grudged the annual Vote which it has granted to make up the deficiency in the income of the Trustee Savings Banks. For many years past there has been an annual Vote required for that purpose and with regard to the deposits we hold for friendly societies, and during the last four years the Post Office Savings Banks have required similar aid. That was due to the fact that Consols, in which, by law, the National Debt Commissioners have been compelled, practically, to invest the greater portion of the funds which they hold for these banks, were for sonic years at such a premium as is well known. This year we find again a small surplus income from the Post Office Savings Banks. That, of course, is due to the fact the hon. Member opposite has alluded to — that the present low price of Consols and other Government securities enabled investments to be made on far better terms than was possible three or four years ago. But we shall be face to face with a very difficult situation next year. Until the last few years, practically, the deposits in Savings Banks were almost entirely invested in Consols. In recent years we have been able to find, under the powers granted by law, other investments for that money, because it is legal, as hon. Members are aware, to invest those deposits in any stock or in terminable annuities guaranteed by the

  125
  Government, and they have been invested, to a very considerable extent in recent years, in the terminable annuities issued under the authority which Parliament has granted for raising money for military and naval works and matters of that kind, which yield a better rate of interest than Consols. But the amount invested in Consols in previous years is a very large sum indeed. The Consols actually held by the Commissioners for the National Debt, on behalf of the Post Office Savings Bank depositors, are no less than £65,385,000, and the Consols which will have to be replaced by terminable annuities, representing money also belonging to the depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank, are valued at £9,769,000; in all, more than £75,155,000. With regard to the Trustee Savings Banks, the Consols held are £19,688,000, and the Consols which have to be replaced by terminable annuities are valued at £8,540,000; £28,228,000 in all. Well, that is a very large sum, and the reduction of the rate of in terest on that by ¼ percent. in the year 1903 will entail a loss of income to both kinds of Savings Banks of no less than £258,000 a year. I do not think that Parliament ought to be asked to supplement the income of the Savings Banks by such a sum as that. How we are to deal with the matter is not an easy question. I proposed two years ago that the rate of interest given to the depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks and given to the Trustee Savings Banks should vary with the amount of income that could be earned by the deposits. That is the law now in France, although it is quite true,
  126
  as my hon. friend stated, that the rate of interest given there has not varied for some years. I am bound, however, to say that my proposal was not received with much favour by those who manage Trustee Savings Banks. Owing to want of time, I was quite unable to obtain a discussion upon it in the House of Commons, and it was withdrawn. But I think that what I have said will satisfy the Committee that the matter is not only of great importance, but of urgent importance. I think that probably the best way of dealing with it will be, if the House would allow, without any debate—I think debate on the subject really would be unnecessary—if the House would allow, without debate, a Committee to be appointed to investigate this question, and possibly some of the questions alluded to by the hon. Member for South Islington, and to advise what should be done in the matter. Of course, it is possible that we may have to reduce the interest. It is also possible, as the hon Member opposite has suggested, and as the hon. Member for South Islington suggested, that something may be done by extending the powers of investment, though I am bound to say for myself I think there is very great force in the objections raised by my hon. friend behind me to any great extension such as was suggested by the hon.Member for South Islington. It has always been held, by Mr. Gladstone, and by those who have been considered the greatest financial authorities in this country, for many years past, that it would be a mistake to invest, at any rate any large

  127
  portion of the Savings Banks deposits, in securities not guaranteed by the State and not easily realisable. Before we depart from that wholesome principle, I think we must consider very carefully what would be the result of any such change. I do not myself anticipate that there would ever be need for great realisation of securities to meet the demands of Savings Banks depositors. If you wanted to realise 25,000,000 of Consols you would find it a very difficult thing to do, and, after all, what we must trust to is the belief which the depositors entertain in the good faith and power of the State to pay their claims, because it cannot be too much remembered by every one in the country that the safety of deposits in our Post Office Savings Banks is not a matter which depends on the amount of the assets which is represented by those deposits, whether they be invested in Consols or in anything else, but that the safety of those deposits is guaranteed by the State itself, and therefore is as safe as anything in this world can be. The investment of deposits is not a matter between depositors and the State, but between the taxpayers and the depositors. That is to say, the taxpayers should guard themselves against having either to pay an unreasonable rate of interest to the depositors, or allowing the investment of the deposits in such securities as possiblythey might loseupon. I am sure that every one would be most anxious to avoid anything which would lessen that encouragement to thrift which the Savings Banks have held out for many years; but, on the other hand, we must deal with the matter as men of business; and if I were able to induce the House to appoint such a Committee as I have suggested, I should then be able to place my views before the Committee, who could hear
  128
  evidence, consider the matter fully, and, I hope, report even this session in time to initiate the legislation which ought to become law before 12 months expire, because the loss of interest on Consols will date from April 1903. The lion. Member for the Scotland Division complained that the depositors in Ireland had difficulty in getting payment of their deposits, because of the necessity of communicating with London. I am most anxious that every facility should be given to depositors in Ireland. I have often pointed out that the increased deposits in the Irish savings banks is a proof of the prosperity of Ireland. I will inquire into the matter and see if anything can be done in the direction the hon. Member desires. If the House entertains of my suggestion, I shall place on the Paper at once the terms of reference to the Committee which I shall propose, and I trust that the appointment of the Committee may be agreed to in the circumstances without debate.
  MR. FIELDhoped the right lion. Gentleman would take into consideration the observations made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division. He could state from personal knowledge of what took place in a district that the savings bank became unpopular because of the delay arising from having to transmit money from the Central Office in London. It was with the view of popularising the savings banks that he called attention to this matter. The penny banks ought to be encouraged as much as possible in connection with the savings banks, because there was really more good done by these banks among the very poor who were inclined to become thrifty than

  129
  by the banks where the larger deposits were received.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid the promised Committee would be hailed with great satisfaction, especially by the Trustee Savings Bank.
  Vote agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  6. £ 40,000, Supplementary, Inland Revenue.
  7. £75,000, Supplementary, Post Office Telegraphs.
  Ma. BRYN ROBERTScalled attention to the fact that the officer of Inland Revenue who was formerly in the habit of visiting the village of Garn Dolbenmaen for the purpose of issuing dog licenses had lately discontinued his visits, thereby causing inconvenience to people in the district. When the officer visited. the village he found accommodation at a public-house, hut a complaint was made of the practice on the ground that farmers' sons and cottagers who were sent to take out dog licences had to stay in the public-house waiting their turn. They were thus led to start drinking, and sometimes they spent the rest of the day in the public-house. When he asked a question on this subject some time ago he was in-formed that it was impossible for the officer to find accommodation elsewhere. He was told, however, that was not the case, and that there was a private house where a room would be granted for the accommodation of the officer. The officer, it appeared, had dis-
  130
  continued his visits to the place as a punishment on the villagers, or those who were interested in the cause of temperance, He, the hon. Member, was asked to put the Question in the House, and apparently be hailed the because it was dared to question the conduct of the gentleman, he refrained from going to the village at all to issue licences. The people were now compelled to travel four or five miles to the Head Office in order to obtain their licences. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter, and try to do something to remove the inconvenience which seemed to be the result of pique or vindictive feeling.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I recollect the question to which the hon. Member refers. I certainly thought from the information I received at the time that a private house could not be secured, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with the name of the place, careful inquiry will be made into the circumstances, because it is of as much interest to me as to anybody else, that facilities should be given for the issue of licences.
  MR. HALDANEreferred to the item of £4,000 for temporary pressure of business in the Estate Duty Office. He supposed this was occasioned by the arrangements required for dealing with the arrears. This subject had been inquired into by a Departmental Committee over which he had presided and he would be glad to know what progress had been made with the re-organisation. He was aware that the delay in dealing with the matter arose from the want of buildings, but the Committee pointed out that it was not necessary to wait for a commencement of the reform until sufficient buildings had been obtained for the whole of the work.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the recommendations of the hon. and learned Member's Committee were in course of being carried out. Some of the changes had already been made, and further changes, which depended upon the provision of additional space, would be carried out as soon as approved of by the Treasury. He hoped that no such accumulation of arrears would occur in the future.
  Vote agreed to.
  7. £75,000, Supplementary, Post Office Telegraphs.
  MR. C. G. D. HAYsaid he wished to call attention on this Vote to a question which affected a large body in the Telegraph Service. When the first draft of telegraphists were sent to the Front they were regarded as Army Reservists, and attached to the Royal Engineers, and they received the pay of Royal Engineers in addition to their own pay. Last year, when a call was made for another draft of sorting clerks and telegraphists, those who responded went out to South Africa under the impression that they would be dealt with on the same terms as the first draft. They found, however, when they got to the Cape, that they were treated as privates of the Line, and when they demanded the additional money the authorities at home would not admit the claim. The general result was, that these men laboured under a great sense of injustice. He would not labour this point more, because he felt that the unequal treatment of these men must have been a pure inadvertence, and only
  132
  required to be stated in order to be corrected.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he had received representations on this matter from many of his own constituents, and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to represent to the military authorities the great hardships that existed at the present time. Some of the telegraphists went out, joined the Royal Engineers as privates, and had now been in South Africa upwards of two years. They felt that it was time they should be relieved, and he thought they were entitled to the same privileges as the men of the first draft.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the complaint of the hon. Member for Hoxton related not to the terms which the Post Office had made, but to the terms which the War Office had made. The point which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield was also one rather for the Secretary for War than for the representative of the Post Office. He would communicate on both points with the Secretary for War.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again on Monday next.
  Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.