Commons Sitting of 8 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bridgwater Gas Bill; Sutton District Water Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Blackheath and Greenwich District Electric Light Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Pelican and British Empire Life Office Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Great Western Railway Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill; Hainault Forest Bill; Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [Lords]; India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraph Works Company Bill [Lords]; London County Council (Money) Bill; Milford Docks Bill [Lords]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynamman Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
North Eastern Railway Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Romford and District Tramways Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
South Wales Mineral Railway Bill [Lords], [not amended], considered; to be read the third time.
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords]; Wellington (Salop) Gas Bill [Lords]; Wood Green Urban District Council Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Scunthorpe Urban District Water Bill [Lords]; Shepshed Urban Gas Bill [Lords]; Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Forth Navigation Order Confirmation Bill, considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Dawlish, Bude, and Sandown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Dawlish, Bude, and Sandown," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Aultbea, and Pennan, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Aultbea and Pennan," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Sligo, Limerick, and Dundalk, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
Ordered, That Standing Order, 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Sligo, Limerick and Dundalk," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 235.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Boscombe and Bournemouth, Carnarvon, Gorleston, Heme Bay, and Avoch, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A he suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Boscombe and Bournemouth, Carnarvon,
208
Gorleston, Herne Bay, and Avoch," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Truro and Salen (Mull), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Truro and Salen (Mull)," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 237.]

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Hawick, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from East Dulwich, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Isle of Wight, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Stockton-on-Tees; and Leicester; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL, AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Oldham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Stockton-on-Tees, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Leith, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Govan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from East Dulwich, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petitions against (praying to be heard by Counsel): from Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress; Wandsworth and Putney Gas Light and Coke Company; Commissioners of Sewers for Lombard's Wall to Gravesend Bridge; Public Wharfingers and others in the Port of London; Commissioners of Sewers for the Havering and Rainham and other levels; Commissioners of Sewers from Gravesend Bridge to Sheerness; Company of Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal; Kent and Essex Brickmasters' and Flint Merchants' Protection Association; Commissioners of Sewers for the levels of Fobbing and other places; Association of Master Lightermen and Bargeowners of the Port of London; and William Cory & Son, Limited; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Kettering; Droylsden; King's Lynn; Springburn; Harleston; and Broxbourne; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petition from Gillingham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA (TAXATION OF NATIVES).
  Return [presented 28th May] to be printed. [No. 184.]
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (WHITSUNTIDE RECESS).
  The following Papers, presented by Command of His Majesty during the Whitsuntide recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August, 1896:—
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2987 to 2990.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 8, 1903).
  Copy of Protocol between the United Kingdom and the United States of Venezuela relating to the settlement of British Claims and other matters; signed at Washington, 13th February, 1903; together with agreements for the reference of certain questions to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, and for the decision of the claims by a Mixed Commission; signed at Washington, 7th May, 1903.
  COLONIES.
  Copy of Papers relating to the Investigation of Malaria and other Tropical Diseases, and the Establishment of Schools of Tropical Medicine.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy of Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, with detailed Report for the year 1902.
  Copy of Sixty-fourth Annual Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records.

  EXPLOSIVES.
  Copy of Twenty-seventh Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, being for the year 1902.
  Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 7th May—Mr. Lloyd Morgan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 185.]
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 26th May—Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 186.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF SURREY).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Surrey, ordering that a second polling place be provided for the Parish of Godstone at Blindley Heath [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACTS, 1881 AND 1892.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-ninth Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works by the Chief Inspector, being for 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 187.]
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Copy presented, of Statistical Tables for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Twelfth Report of the Board, being for the year ending 31st March, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland appointing the places at which examinations shall be held for 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Irish Land Commission as to Assistant Commissioners, dated the 18th May, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent on the Strikes and Lock-outs of 1902, and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th May—Mr. [Bonar Law];
  212
  to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 188.]

  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898, PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877, AND SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND ACTS, 1885–1889.
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Secretary for Scotland as to the appointment of a visiting Committee to the State Inebriate Reformatory at Perth [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Draft Customs Union Convention agreed to by representatives of the British Colonies and Territories in South Africa at a Conference at Bloemfontein in March, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION) (TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY)
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th May—Mr. John Ellis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 189.]
  VICTORIA (THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1903.)
  Copy presented, of the Constitution Act, 1903 (Victoria) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 190.]
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  Copy presented, of Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  Copy presented, of Returns relating to the Council up to 31st March, 1903, with Estimate of Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 191.]
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE ACCOUNT.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 26th May, 1903, directing that the Imperial Institute Account shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 23rd May, 1903, declaring that

  213
  for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Third Assistant to the Chief Crown Solicitor for Ireland, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 13th May, 1903, declaring that Joseph Woolverton, Royal Laboratory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  LOCAL LOANS FUND.
  Accounts of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt in respect of the capital and income of the Local Loans Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1902; with report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 192.]

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Return ordered, "giving the text of the Enactments to which reference is made in the Irish Land Bill."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 193.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained an the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  New Workhouse at Tetbury.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if any steps have yet been taken in regard to the construction of a new workhouse at Tetbury; and if it is proposed to hold a local inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The guardians submitted for my approval plans for the erection of a new workhouse on a site comprising that of the present building, with some adjoining land. On the 23rd of last month I informed the guardians that the erection of a workhouse on this limited and inconvenient site would probably cost as much as a new workhouse on an altogether fresh site, and I pointed out to them that their scheme was otherwise open to objection in that the area at

  215
  their disposal would not admit of a desirable arrangement of the buildings or the possibility of any extension in the future, and that the confined character of the existing yards would be maintained. In view of those objections I requested the guardians to reconsider the matter, and I am awaiting a further communication from them on the subject. I do not propose that a local inquiry should be held at the present time.

  Rates in Support of Secondary Schools.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will ascertain what county or county borough councils in England have resolved to levy rates for the support of secondary schools under the powers conferred upon them by The Education Act, 1902.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) County and county borough councils will probably not levy rates for the support of secondary schools until they have ascertained how far the residue under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act is insufficient for the purpose. This information is not at present in the possession of the Board, but a Return will be furnished as in previous years as to the expenditure of local authorities under this head showing the amount derived from rates.

  British Rights in Southern Persia.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the rights possessed by His Majesty's Government in southern Persia that are admitted by that country; are these rights to be found in any agreement signed by Persia; and do they include the right of His Majesty's Government to forbid the grant of Persian territory for coaling stations and ports to any other Power.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) My reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley on 23rd February† and to the hon. Gentleman himself on 27th May,‡ and the statement made by Lord Lansdowne in
  †See (4) Debates, cxviii., 484.
  ‡See page 12.
  216
  another place on 5th May,† contain information bearing upon the hon. Gentleman's Question. It would not be for the public interest that I should make any further reply.

  Chinese and Black Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that certain persons in the Transvaal are engaged in negotiations with agents to obtain from the Congo State blacks for the Transvaal mines; and whether he is prepared to give an assurance that no contracts will be allowed to be concluded by individuals in the Transvaal either to import further black labour or Chinese labour into the Transvaal under contracts until this House has expressed its approval.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No, Sir, I have no knowledge of any such negotiations. The question of the supply of labour in the Transvaal is receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, and this House will have the usual opportunities of discussing any action which the Government may take in the matter.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Sale of War Stores—Disease Infected Blankets.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received from the General Officer Commanding in South Africa a report explaining the circumstances under which discarded hospital blankets were sold in South Africa; will he state the result of the inquiry, the number of blankets sold, and the amount which they realised; and, in the interest of public health, will he consider the expediency of issuing instructions that all stores composed wholly or in part of textile fabrics which have been used in the field, whether in hospital or otherwise, shall be carefully disinfected before they pass out of the hands of the military authorities.
  †See (4) Debates, cxxi., 1343.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The General Officer Commanding, South Africa, reports that in October last, owing to the rapid demobilisation of the troops, an enormous stock of unwashed general service blankets, returned to store by the troops on demobilisation, was stored at the Cape Town Ordnance Stores, stacked in the open under tarpaulins. Efforts were made to have these washed and properly stored, but meanwhile the stacks took fire by spontaneous combustion and endangered the entire ordnance dep÷t. Prompt action became imperative, and the chief ordnance officer gave instructions for large numbers of those in the worst condition to be destroyed by fire, and accepted tenders for the sale of 80,000, provided they were removed within three days. These blankets were not unserviceable, though they had not been washed. The amount realised by the sale was £1,495. Medical officers have, under the regulations, power to destroy any articles of public property on sanitary grounds, and are expressly ordered to disinfect all soiled bedding which has been in contact with the sick. I am not prepared to issue so wide an order as that suggested—that all textile fabrics which have been used in the field should be disinfected before being sold. As previously stated, the ordnance and medical regulations contain clear instructions as to the disposal of condemned or infected articles; and I also issued special orders forbidding the sale in South Africa of any textile article which might convey infection. There appears to have been an error of judgment on the part of the responsible officer, who had otherwise done excellent service. The military authorities are investigating the matter.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the hospital blankets which reached this country from South Africa as discarded War Office stores have yet been traced in the towns in the provinces to which they were distributed; and can he say whether the local authorities have in every case taken steps to secure the destruction or disinfection of these infected blankets.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I sent a circular letter to about 200 sanitary authorities in England and Wales, in whose districts it was reported that some of the blankets referred to had been received, and advised them as to the measures which should be adopted in order to safeguard the public against any possible infection from the blankets. I have not received reports from all the authorities; but, so far as my information goes, I have every reason to be satisfied with the action taken in the matter.

  Discarded Military Tents.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of discarded military tents which have been sold in South Africa, and the amount which they realised; were they disinfected, and were they sold by tender or by public auction; and will he also state the number of hospital tents sold, and say whether any, and, if so what, steps were taken to secure their disinfection.
  MR. BRODRICK: About 2,760 tents are known to have been sold, of which only four were hospital marquees. They were sold by auction and tender. The amount realised was £970. Under the medical regulations medical officers are authorised to destroy public property on sanitary grounds when necessary, and are also in possession of stringent instructions regarding disinfection. I have no reason to suppose these instructions were disregarded.

  John Bright's Statue.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will arrange for the statue of the late Right Hon. John Bright to be placed in the position now occupied by the bust of Oliver Cromwell.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The position now occupied by this fine bust of Oliver Cromwell, the work of Bernini, was very carefully selected, and the proportions of the

  219
  pedestal were specially designed with regard to it. The First Commissioner would deprecate its removal to another site.

  Worn Silver Coinage.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the worn condition of the small silver coins of the late reign; and whether he will direct the minting of new coins to replace those now in circulation.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): Worn silver coin is withdrawn from circulation by the Bank of England, and latterly the rate of withdrawal has been increased. The Bank are always prepared to receive worn silver coin from bankers on the same terms as coin which is in good condition; the withdrawal, therefore, of larger quantities of worn coin depends in a great measure on them. As the Bank hold ready for issue small silver coin to the amount of £425,000, there is no necessity to direct special minting operations.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the scarcity of shillings and sixpences, and the superabundance of two shilling pieces and half-crowns?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes; that arises, I think, from considerations of convenience in giving change. People prefer to give it in large pieces. I should be delighted to issue as many sixpences and shillings as there may be any demand for.

  Alien Criminals.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the approximate cost of maintaining in His Majesty's prisons the 3,449 aliens who were sentenced to imprisonment for crimes committed in England and Wales in the twelve months ending 31st March, 1903, in addition to sixty-two sentences to penal
  220
  servitude; and what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take in the matter.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The information desired by my hon. and gallant friend could not be obtained without calculations of an elaborate nature which, even if practicable, would not, in my opinion, serve any public purpose. All the salient facts on the subject have been carefully laid before the Royal Commission and will appear in the minutes of evidence.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is the sum spent in maintaining these prisoners upwards of £30,000 per annum?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I will make inquiries.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any hope of legislation on the subject this session?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, Sir.

  Oliver Cromwell's Bust.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will explain why the name of the donor is inscribed upon the pedestal of the bust of Oliver Cromwell, and why the name of the donor or names of the donors of all other busts or statues is or are not inscribed upon the respective pedestals.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: In the case of the bust of Oliver Cromwell the donor was a single individual who desired his name to be associated with the gift. In the other cases there were a number of subscribers who expressed no such wish.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I should like to know whether it is the case that persons who wish to advertise themselves in this way are entitled to do so.

  SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  1. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £563,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs Department."
  *SIR EDWARDSTRACHEYmoved the reduction of the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Customs by £100 in order to call attention to the refusal of the Board to give information as regards the names and addresses of persons to whom foreign milk was consigned in this country and by whom it was sold. The Committee might think this a trifling matter, but he held that the British Dairy Farmers' Association, on whose behalf he was raising the question, were just as much entitled to find out who imported and sold this milk, as were those who desired that the sellers of foreign meat should declare themselves, or as sellers of manufactured foreign - made goods were known. He did not want to prevent foreign milk from being sold in this country, but he submitted that the purchaser had the right to know whether he was buying English or foreign milk. The milk ought to be imported under proper restrictions. Home dairy farmers were subject to strict rules as to inspection and registration, but this milk might, for all they knew, come from insanitary dairies or it might be left standing on wharves under insanitary conditions. The risks of infection were consequently great. At present it was unknown to the Customs or the seller or consumer under what conditions, sanitary or insanitary, this foreign milk was produced. Further than that it was quite possible
  222
  that it was retailed as English milk, and the consumer was thus defrauded by paying a higher price. He failed to understand the anxiety of the Government to protect the foreign trader in this matter, and he did urge that the Board of Customs, in the interests of the health of the public, might well give the information as to who were the consignees of this milk, so that people might know when they were buying milk produced under safeguards in the interest of public health, or foreign milk, in respect of which they had no guarantee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Chairman."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,)was understood to deny that the Government were in favour of foreign milk being put on the market under more favourable conditions than English milk. The Government were in favour of good food being put on the market from whatever direction it might come. He did not think it was the duty of the Government, without legislation, to cause to be put over a man's shop a statement as to where he got his goods from. The hon. Member would have rested his case on a surer basis if he had brought forward any specific cases where injury had been done.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My complaint lies in a nutshell. The Board of Customs absolutely refuse to give the names and addresses of those who import foreign milk into this country. I want to know why they refuse it, and in whose interest they do so.
  MR. ELLIOT: It is not their duty to do so. If, however, the hon. Member will talk the matter over with me, and if he can place before me any cases in which milk is complained of, I will see what can be done.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was very glad to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury, the sole

  223
  representative of the Government present, that they would welcome the importation of food from whatever quarter it came. But he was bound to confess that the hon. Gentleman's statement was not at all consistent with the action of the President of the Board of Trade in introducing a Bill giving power to absolutely prohibit the importation of sugar under certain circumstances dictated by a foreign Commission sitting at Brussels. He thought it was an unreasonable request to ask for the names and addresses of persons who imported foreign milk. It was asking the Commissioners of Customs to go beyond their proper duty in a matter in which they had no concern, and with which they were not competent to deal. It was not a matter for the executive Government to deal with the importation of foreign foods by way of prohibition, or by way of setting up signs to frighten the importer of foreign articles. He was not aware that the quality of the milk was complained of.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Some has been seized on account of its quality.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could quite understand the Customs authorities having power to stop the importation of bad milk, but the proposal of the hon. Member was that all foreign milk, good or bad, should be dealt with in an exceptional manner, and he should therefore resist the Amendment.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsupported the Amendment. As a London Member representing a crowded constituency, where naturally great quantities of milk were consumed, he claimed that the people had a right to know where their milk supply came from. They thought they were justified in asking that the Government should do all in its power, not simply to benefit the farmers throughout this country, but to give to the consumers of milk some protection against having foisted on them foreign milk which might have been produced under insanitary conditions, or had been left standing on insanitary wharves. It was important that the rising generation should be
  224
  supplied with the best of milk. It was said that no complaints had been made against the quality of this foreign milk; but what he desired was to have every possible guarantee that a food so closely connected with the health of the people should be absolutely fresh and of the best quality, and not stale and poor.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that no complaint had been made that the foreign milk was impure. They had been told that some had been seized because it was bad, and surely there could be no complaint on that ground. This, he wished to point out, was a proposal to reduce the salary of a public official because he declined to do that which by law he had no power to do. Sir Henry Primrose was not empowered by law to take the course which was suggested, and they ought not therefore, to punish him for refusing to act illegally.
  MR. COHENsaid he had listened to the debate with surprise. This was a proposal to brand as inferior anything imported from abroad in the way of food. That was a strange nostrum to come from a Party which professed to have a desire to do away with everything that had the least semblance of protection about it. He objected to the suggestion made by the mover of the Amendment that the names and addresses of importers of milk should be supplied. There was no ground for imposing a restriction because of the fear that milk might possibly have been tainted in course of transit from abroad. It was not alleged that this milk was adulterated in any way. He did not think the hon. Member for King's Lynn had treated the Secretary to the Treasury fairly in his interpretation of his remarks.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I did not put any construction on his words. I only pointed out that he held certain views and that the Government held other views.
  MR. COHENsuggested there was no parallel between the cases of milk and sugar. One was a taxed article, the other was not, and he hoped it never would be.

  225
  He believed there was no ground whatever for putting any statutory regulation on the importation of such a necessary article of food, which he believed could not be produced in sufficient quantities in this country.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he had never given a Protectionist vote in the course of his life, and he did not regard this as a question of protection. It was a subject affecting the public health, and when he was President of the Local Government Board there was reason to believe that some of the preservatives used in milk were deleterious to the public health. If the hon. Member opposite went to a division he certainly would support him.
  MR. LOUGHthought the Chairman of the Board of Customs had been a little hardly dealt with in this matter as no rule empowering names and addresses to be given could either be laid down or carried out without having consequences which the House certainly could not approve. The hon. Member had not met the Financial Secretary quite fairly. The hon. Gentleman had offered to confer with him with regard to any abuse that might exist, and surely he ought to be satisfied with that promise. They ought not to pass any reflections on the Board of Customs in connection with that matter.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that he would not press his Amendment if he were given an opportunity of raising the question on Report, should the Financial Secretary on consideration of the matter decide that he could not assent to giving the names and addresses of the importers of this milk.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that he had only expressed his wish to know on what facts the hon. Member's grievance was based. After all, the Board of Customs had well defined duties to perform, and they could not do exactly what they liked with information that came to them confidentially. It was not the business of the Board to help the foreigner against the home producer or the home producer against the foreigner. The right course of the hon. Member was to legislate.
  *MR. MACONOCHIEwas sure that many Members on both sides of the House sympathised with the mover of the Amendment, so far as he desired to secure pure articles of food. If it was true that the milk that came over here was adulterated there was no reason why they should not stop it, but if they took into consideration the fact that the Chairman of the Board of Customs had no power whatever to give the information asked for without a special Act of Parliament, he thought it was a trifle unreasonable for Sir Edward Strachey to press this Motion. It appeared to him that the whole of Sir Edward Strachey's argument went to prove that he sympathised with the views of some Members of the House in the shape of protection, and in trying to stop supplies which might increase the food of the people.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Absolutely the contrary. The hon. Member entirely misrepresents me, and the Committee would recognise his object in so doing at the present moment.
  *MR. MACONOCHIEdid not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but they had the idea on the Government side of the House that that was the way his argument inclined. He (Mr. Maconochie) was sure, after the undertaking given by the Secretary to the Treasury that he could not very well give the information sought. Sir Edward Strachey would withdraw from his position, for he could not hold that they should deliberately propose that the Chairman of the Board of Customs should break the rule which he had no power to override without a special Act of Parliament.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that, in view of the Financial Secretary's statement that the information he had asked for might require legislation, and that the Chairman of the Board of Customs was under legal obligation not to give the information, he felt it would not be right to press the Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Customs until the point had been cleared up, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw refused.
  Question put and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. TOULMINsaid that a large addition to the staff of the Customs had been necessitated by the sugar, coal, and corn duties. They had been told that 444 persons had been added to the staff at an annual cost of £57,000. Now that the corn duty was to be abolished, he asked for some assurance that the staff would be proportionately reduced. Three years ago the staff numbered 3,986, the next year it went up to 4,114, and now it had been very slightly reduced to 4,073. The cost had, however, not diminished. There had, on the contrary, been a considerable increase under the head of superintendents. In 1901–2 these officials numbered 231; now there were 262 of them, and it certainly did seem singular that when the general staff had been reduced in numbers there should have been an increase in the number of superintendents. He must press for some assurance that now that the corn duty was to be abolished the staff should be decreased.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that even after the corn duty ceased to be levied there would be much extra work in the readjustment of rebates. Any reduction in the staff would be more apparent next year than in the present year. In such a department as the Customs it was necessary to look a little beyond the service of the moment, and it was probable that the changes in regard to the importation of sugar would entail a considerable increase of the Customs staff, because refining would have to be done in bond. Still he hoped that when the corn duty had been abolished it would be possible to effect some reduction.
  MR. TOULMINasked for an explanation of the increase in the superintendence charges.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that there had been an enormous increase in the work of making returns, and that had largely fallen on the superintendents.
  MR. WHITLEYdid not think the reply of the hon. Gentleman altogether satisfactory. He had suggested that an increased staff would be required because sugar refineries were to be placed in bond. But that was not a new policy of the Government this year. It was announced a year ago, and any increase of the staff due to the sugar duties must have been contemplated before these Estimates were framed. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office estimated the increased cost of staff through the corn duties for one year at £8,500, and seeing that the tax was only to be in force for three months of this financial year, so large a sum ought not now to be asked. The principle laid down was that money should be only taken for the necessities of the financial year and therefore it was hardly fair to be asked to vote money for contingencies which might or might not occur next year. Unless some more satisfactory explanation was given than had been given by the hon. Gentleman a reduction ought to be moved. It was most unsatisfactory to put a number of men on the permanent staff, and thus create a new class of civil servants whose services were only required for a year, and whose salaries would have to be paid when their services were no longer needed. Under the circumstances he moved to reduce the Vote by £4,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £559,000 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that when the Government last year imposed the corn tax they imposed it as a permanent duty, and they very naturally providedan increased staff at the Customs for the collection of what was a rather onerous duty to collect. That was a necessary and inevitable step assuming that the Government intended to stick to their guns and make the corn tax a permanent one, but by some strange chance, during the absence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the illimitable veldt, the Government had come to the

  229
  decision to rescind this tax. He did not complain of the decision, but there was this to be said: if the Government had determined to undo the corn tax they must also undo the charge which had been placed upon the country by the imposition of that tax. It was not sufficient for the Secretary of the Treasury to "hope" there would be a reduction. These Estimates were prepared in the autumn or winter of last year, and it was fair to assume that the Government had at that time arrived at the decision to rescind the corn duties, and it was not fair, as the hon. Gentleman, who was a fair-minded man, and who had remained a fair-minded man even after he went to the Treasury, would see, for the country to pay the cost of these gentlemen who were put on to collect the corn duty when the corn duty had ceased to exist. He was not surprised that areduction had been moved. The hon. Member had stated that the sugar duty would require an increased staff this year by reason of the Sugar Convention. Why? And in what way? The decision of the Brussels Convention did not necessitate any additional men; on the contrary, fewer men would be required because the Sugar Convention prohibited the introduction of certain sugars into certain countries. The hon. Gentleman said that a greater superintendence of factories and places where sugar was manufactured in this country would be required and that these places would have to be placed under bond, but that was not a question of Customs officers. His belief had always been that that was a matter for the Excise. Customs officers could have nothing to do with a bonded system of inland manufactories, and therefore whatever bonded system was required, and whatever duties had to be collected, would have to be attended to by the Inland Revenue Department. He therefore anticipated the hon. Gentleman would agree, not to the reduction which had been moved by the hon Member opposite, but to a reasonable reduction representing the real reduction of the staff which had been rendered possible by the cessation of the corn duties.
  MR. J. H. LEWISasked how many extra officials
  230
  had actually been appointed in consequence of the imposition of the corn duties, and the amount the country had to pay for their salaries. This information became of considerable importance to the Committee, having regard to the fact that the corn duty was not now to be a permanent duty. It would also be interesting to know what the "probable increase in duties soon to be expected," to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, were. If that information was given the Committee might be justified in voting in favour of this Vote.
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether the custom still prevailed of destroying captured smuggled goods by burning or otherwise, and, if so, whether an alteration in that custom might not be made under which these goods might be sold for the public benefit. In the case of tobacco he asked that it might be supplied to the inmates of the workhouses, by whom, as everybody knew, a little tobacco was much appreciated.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid the increase in the number of the staff owing to the corn duty was forty-six indoor and forty-seven outdoor officers. But what he desired to impress on the Committee was that it would be bad policy and bad economy to dismiss anyone on the established staff when there would be a considerable demand for their services after the 1st of September next. With regard to the question of seized smuggled goods his strong impression was that the method of destroying goods which had been alluded to had been put an end to.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwas understood to press for a reply to the point he had raised with reference to the men whose services—in consequence of the abandonment of the corn duty—would not be required.
  MR. ELLIOTthought that the hon. Member was incorrect in supposing that in consequence of the abolition of the corn duty the services of all these men would not be required, or that their services would not be available, if required, in connection with the changes

  231
  with regard to the importation of sugar. It was expected that their services would be so available.
  MR. NUSSEYpointed out that the Estimates had been framed with the knowledge that the Sugar Convention was coming on, and would have to be provided for. He fully sympathised with the hon. Gentleman, who was in the difficult position of not knowing what might be the policy of the Government from day to day. The duty might be revived even in the present week, but as far as available information went, these forty - six men indoors and forty - seven men outdoors would have nothing whatever to do between now and September. The Departments concerned ought to be careful to ascertain whether a tax was to be permanent before they increased the staff by a large number of men.
  MR. MARKHAM, in view of the large amount of money lost by the Revenue owing to the manner in which invoices were made out for rebates on small coal, asked whether the Custom House officials had any means of ascertaining from the colliery companies the actual price at which the coal was sold. He would tell the hon. Gentleman how he evaded the tax himself. The price of small coal was 6s. f.o.b. If a foreign exporter came to him for a certain quantity of large and a certain quantity of small coal, he would make out the invoice for a certain amount of small coal at 5s. 11d., and the foreign exporter would pay 6d. per ton more for the large coal. By that means the exporter escaped paying the duty on the small coal, and thereby, if the quantity was 20,000 tons, put £1,000 into his pocket. The colliery company gained no advantage, but the authorities ought to look into the matter, as the tax was largely evaded in that manner. As one who had evaded the tax, and would evade it on every possible occasion, he thought steps should be taken so to frame the tax that it could not be thus evaded.
  MR. ELLIOTthought the Treasury ought to be much obliged to the hon. Member for his remarks. With regard to the men to whom reference had been made, it would be very hard for them to
  232
  be dismissed at short notice. A great number of the men would be absorbed in the manner he had described.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the hon. Gentleman misapprehended the point of the objection. Nobody desired to secure the dismissal of a number of officials. The Estimates were framed in November. Had the Government at that time decided to abolish the corn duty? If so, the Estimate was framed on that basis. But if the abolition had not then been decided upon, the Estimate was based on the continuance of the corn duty. That duty was now being abandoned; consequently the Estimate ought to be reduced.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESreminded the Committee that any unexpended balance of this Vote would be surrendered at the end of the financial year, so that if anything were saved on the salaries of these gentlemen it would be to the benefit of the Treasury. But what they could not be sure of was that anything would be saved. He doubted whether the hon. Gentleman was correct with regard to the transfer of the men from one duty to another. It had to be remembered, however, that the corn duty was imposed last year, and was to be taken off this. But was it to be re-imposed next year? They were given to understand that it was to be, and to that extent the hon. Gentleman had a case for the retention of these officials.
  MR. WHITLEYpointed out that the proposed reduction amounted to only one-eighth of the cost of collecting a duty which was to run for three months in a current financial year. The Motion did not involve the dismissal of the men. If the Financial Secretary was correct in saying they would be required in connection with the Sugar Convention it was the duty of the Government to bring in a Supplementary Estimate appointing them for that purpose. It was not right that the money should be taken under this Vote and the men employed subsequently for some other purpose. From the admissions of the hon. Gentleman himself he thought a case had been made out for the reduction.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that with regard to the changes made necessary by the abolition of the corn duty the question was a very simple one, namely, the question of the best policy in the interests of economy and good administration. The question was what was the best thing to do? A great deal of work would have to be done in connection with the rebates. He thought the best policy was that which the Treasury proposed to adopt. In future the work would be done under the Customs Department. Personally he should like to see a larger reduction when things settled down. Naturally hon. Members felt that the arrangement was not altogether satisfactory, and it was not in itself desirable that when once a permanent duty was put on it should be shortly afterwards taken off. Whether it was right to put the tax on or take it off was not a matter to be discussed now.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: The hon. Gentleman neglects the point of view which was put before the Committee by my
  hon. friend near me and others. This is no question of dismissing individual men at all. These men who have been engaged in collecting the corn duty are not corn duty men ad hoc, if I may use the term; they are merely an addition to the staff necessitated by additional work. If that work is no longer required they can be employed on other work of the Department. If so, it will be unnecessary to make any additions to the Department. If these men are set free to take their share in the general work of the Department there ought to be some diminution of the expense, because no other new men will be required. It is not a question of leaving these men to destitution or of keeping them in idleness. I do not think it is at all unreasonable that there should be a reduction moved in these circumstances, for there is no hardship or difficulty in the matter whatever.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 37; Noes, 96. (Division List, No. 112.)

  AYES.

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

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Bell, Richard

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Blake, Edward

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Caldwell, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ure, Alexander

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Hothouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Whitley and Mr.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Toulmin.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Allwyn Ed.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

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

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Forster, Henry William

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bond, Edward

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Garfit, William

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (Tr. Hmlts

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg:)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Carew, James Laurence

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stroyan, John

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rothschild, Hon. L. Walter

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Original Question again proposed.
  CAPTAIN NORTONdrew attention to the wages of the body of officers known as Customs watchers. He explained that Customs watchers were officers who performed duties which were many years ago performed by those who were known as assistants or outdoor officers. These outdoor officers were paid something like £100 a year, but owing to the general increase of education throughout the country the Customs officials found that they were able to obtain the services of men of good character who were sufficiently well educated and responsible to perform the duties which were performed by these outdoor officers at a very much lower wage, and they wisely and properly, in the interest of the taxpayers, abolished that class. To that there could not be the slightest objection. His point was that they went too far, and that they were employing the Customs watchers at what he did not hesitate to call a sweating rate of wages for men in the area of the county of London. In addition to a certain amount of physical labour these men performed the very difficult and responsible duties known as tallying and locking. Therefore the class of men obtained for these positions must be men of character who were absolutely reliable. The Government had always obtained for this class of duty men who had served in the Army, Navy, police and fire brigades throughout the country. The majority of these men at one time held pensions from having been in the Army, Navy, or police. At one period they received a wage of less than 19s., but their wage was raised to 21s. His
  236
  contention was that the Government had no right to take men who already had a pension and make use of that pension for the purpose of lowering their wages and thereby depriving others, who were in the labour market and had no such stand-by in the posts which they might occupy, of a fair wage. The Government was not justified in the face of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House in employing men at less than a living wage in consequence of the fact that they had pensions, which, after all, were in the shape of deferred pay or reward for duty done. Some time ago he brought the question of the pay of the Customs watchers before the Committee, and he was told that these men had little responsibility because they were under constant supervision. But he would point out that there was nothing to prevent a Customs watcher from entering into collusion with lightermen, and returning a lighter as containing 499 cases instead of 500 cases, of brandy, and thereby defrauding the public revenue. He did not say that it was done, but if a man was placed in a position in which he was able to do that, there was great temptation to do it when he was forced by the Government to live on what he called a starvation wage.
  Take the case of locking warehouses, if any irregularity occurred in connection with the goods in these warehouses, it could never be detected until the whole of the goods had been cleared, and when the man concerned might be at the other end of the world. Therefore they required for that work men on whom they could rely. The various dock companies paid

  237
  their lockers 25s. a week and gave certain extra wages when they worked under certain conditions. In 1898, when he brought this question first before the House, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury had a consultation with him and the gentleman who was responsible for these particular offices. It was agreed to give these men certain concessions, but these were to a certain extent bogus concessions. Paragraph I of General Order 66, issued in 1900, which was for the purpose of meeting these men, said that one-fourth of the whole of the number may proceed by yearly increments of 1s. from the present minimum of 21s. to a maximum of 24s. a week. There were 600 of these men employed throughout the country, and half of that number were employed within the area of the county of London. They had to do with the Port of London, and it was more especially for these men that he pleaded. He admitted that a wage of 21s. in certain parts of the country, where house rent was from 3s. to 4s., was a better wage than 24s. in London, where a man was obliged to pay 7s. or 8s. for anything like decent lodgings. These men could not obtain lodgings in the neighbourhood of the docks where their labour was, and they were compelled to go a considerable distance afield. Although they could get houses at get-at-able distances near the field of their labours at a more moderate rate, the difficulty was not overcome. These men, owing to the peculiarity of their duties, which extended to nine hours out of the twenty-four, were, on account of the arrival of fruit and vegetables at an early hour in the morning, unable to get to their duties without paying railway and bus fares throughout the entire week. Therefore these men, although Government officials placed in responsible positions, were called upon to do work at less than was paid to scavengers in the various London boroughs, and at less than was received by even an ordinary docker, who had no responsibility at all. They were led to believe that they might rise to 24s., but he could inform the Committee that there was a watcher with twenty-two years service who was not in receipt of that amount. Those who had joined since August, 1896,
  238
  could never obtain 24s., and had not up to the present obtained any increment. There were men with six years service without increment. These men had no complaints whatever recorded against them. The Customs watchers had been led to believe that, provided they performed their duties and were not unfavourably reported upon, they would rise automatically to the maximum of 24s., but they now found themselves in a position in which they were ruled out under the very order to which he had referred. These men were working at 21s., and had no hope of ever rising, while at the age of sixty they would be turned out of the service.
  He would be glad to know also whether the Financial Secretary would consider the advisability of further extending the concession which was made to these men in reference to their uniform. On the occasion to which he had already referred, he pointed out that the only badge of office which these men had was a cap, and now, according to this order, they were to be annually supplied with a uniform jacket. He suggested that consideration should be given to the question whether they might not be given a complete uniform. In all foreign countries every man employed in any position under the Government, whatever his wages might be, was, at any-rate, given a respectable uniform. Apart from that, he would like the hon. Gentleman to say whether there was any reason why these men should not obtain a living wage. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor stated as a reason for not giving them a living wage the fact that they were not all able-bodied men. That could not be urged at the present moment. It was true that many years ago there was a certain number of old soldiers doing duty as watchers, and who, it was stated, had been taken on almost as a matter of charity. His contention was that it was the duty of the Government to employ the best men they could obtain, and to pay them the current rate of wages for that class of labour in the locality. Another objection which had been stated was that though their hours were nine per day, they were not employed continuously during that time. That was no answer to a man who had a wife and family to support on 21s. a

  239
  week. He was there as an employee of the Customs, and he could not go away to earn money elsewhere. He asked that it should be made possible for those men against whom there was no complaint to rise to 24s. a week.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that this class of Customs watchers had been only started in 1896. Before that the work was done by men known as permanent labourers at a wage of 19s. a week. The work done by the watchers was of a purely mechanical kind—locking and watching doors. In 1900 their position was benefited. Their pay was increased, as was admitted by the hon. and gallant Member, and an increase was also made to their overtime wage. They were before that entirely without uniform; and for a long time they had only a cap, but now they had a jacket as well. Their case had been carefully gone into and considered as part of a system begun in 1896, and it had been since looked into and considerable benefits given to them. Some of them wished to be put on the establishment list; but there would be no difficulty in any of these men leaving at once and going where they would be more highly paid. He was told that there was a feeling amongst the men that if they were on the establishment system it would give them a right to a pension. He, however, on behalf of the Department,
  did not think that that was desirable, even in the interest of the men themselves. That right to a pension would limit their freedom of going anywhere else. There was no reason why the wages which had been so lately gone over should be again revised.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he could not accept at all what the hon. Member had said. These men did not exist in exactly the same category now as prior to 1900; whereas he had been dealing with their grievances for the last ten years. His contention had always been that these men had not a living wage, as also in regard to the men employed at Deptford and Woolwich; and the Government had no right to employ men at less than a living wage. That was the point at issue. It was true that some slight concession had been made to them in 1900, but the concession debarred the men from rising to a wage of 24s. a week. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £562,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 48; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 113.)

  AYES.

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Bell, Richard

  Leamy, Edmund

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Blake, Edward

  Leng, Sir John

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

  Burt, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Caldwell, James

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Toulmin, George

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ure, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Rea, Russell

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Schwann, Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Captain Norton and Mr

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Herbert Samuel

  Kitson, Sir James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Austin, Sir John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Aird, Sir John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Myers, William Henry

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Garfit, William

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Percy, Earl

  Bond, Edward

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Carew, James Laurence

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Flower, Ernest

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  2. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,370,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."
  MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid that he noticed that the number of men employed by the Department in 1901–2 was 5,778, in 1902–3, 5,886, and this year, 5,984. That was a considerable increase in the personnel. But the expense was increasing at a greater ratio. In 1901–2 it was £1,274,000, in 1902–3 £1,322,476, and this year £1,347,900. Both increases were very considerable; that in the personnel being the most important, as it could not be readily got rid of.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that the increases referred to were mainly due to the fact that the quinquennial assessment
  242
  under Sections A and B of the Income Tax was taken, and that entailed an enormous amount of extra work. Increased taxation always meant a considerable increase in work, and consequently in expense.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he wished to raise a question which affected a very large and very deserving class of ratepayers. He referred to persons who were entitled to abatements of their Income Tax. He had endeavoured from time to time to ascertain approximately how much those persons were entitled to. Last year they received about £330,000; but they were entitled to some millions. The fact of the matter was that a very large proportion of the people who were entitled to abatements never received them. It might be said that that was entirely their own fault; but he hardly thought that that was a sufficient answer. He feared that the officers of the Inland Revenue, although no doubt acting in the interests of the Treasury, were not too anxious to help persons who wished to obtain the abatements to which they were entitled. No one would wish, for instance, that a man with an income of £300 or £350 should

  243
  not receive the exemption to which he was entitled. He would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that he should, through the usual channels, give instructions to the officers of the Inland Revenue to render every assistance in cases of that kind, and to make it as easy as possible for persons making claims to have them carried through. That was the very least that the Department might do. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give the matter attention, with a view to having justice done to the class to which he referred.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not do anything of the kind suggested. Abatements and exemptions were a most mischievous and improper system. The exemption granted to one person meant an extra imposition on another person. If all the incomes of the country were taxed, a 6d. Income Tax would do the work that a 1s. Income Tax now did; and it was only because a certain class were entitled to abatements and exemptions that other persons had to pay a 1s. instead of a 6d. Income Tax. Abatements and exemptions were now extended to incomes of £700, which was far beyond the limit which would justify any sort of abatement. To exempt poor persons from the Income Tax was a notion for which something could be said; but that a man with an income of £700 should not contribute his quota to direct taxation as well as the man with an income of £1,000 or £1,200 was absurd. The result of the system was to make it necessary to levy increased taxation on other subjects of the Crown. Further, the Inland Revenue was a tax-collecting Department; and the business of a tax-collecting Department was to collect taxes, not to encourage remissions. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman opposite urged the Secretary to the Treasury to get his Department to give facilities for escaping the payment of taxation, he was proposing that the Department should betray its first duty to the State. If there was to be a recasting of the Income Tax, it should be entirely in the contrary direction to that suggested. His conviction was that even the poorest were not disposed to evade payment of a fair proportion of taxation. If exemptions and abatements
  244
  caused certain persons to pay less and others to pay more than their proper proportion, the reform of the Income Tax should be in the direction of the diminution of the abatements and the disappearance of the exemptions. He wished to refer to the system of allowing poundages and percentages on the taxes collected. On page 40 of the Estimates there was a list of commuted allowances such as "Commuted Allowances in lieu of Poundage to Assessors and Collectors of Taxes." The proper way to pay public servants was not by percentages, but by fixed salaries. Payment by percentage was a false system. The best service was given for a fixed salary, such as the service rendered to the Navy or the Army. On page 40 also there was an item for statutory poundage to assessors and collectors of Income Tax; and a further item for allowances (chiefly to Excise officers) for collecting taxes. On page 39 there was an item for allowances to purchasing distributors in England and Ireland (5 per cent. and under on general stamps and 1 per cent. on postage stamps). The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury was that the true principle was to replace poundages and percentages by fixed allowances. He hoped to hear from the hon. Gentleman that it was the fixed intention of the Government to abandon gradually the system of paying public servants by percentages, which was a false and a vicious system; and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would give an assurance to that effect.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he was in entire agreement with a great deal of what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn; and already a large number of commutations had taken place. In Ireland, the old system was still, to some extent, adhered to; but the system was under consideration, and it was probable that some move would be made in the direction of assimilating the practice in Ireland to the better system which obtained in England. With reference to the percentages paid in England and Scotland, his impression was that they were paid to certain bankers, not to officials in the service of the State, in connection with foreign

  245
  dividends. He was in entire agreement with the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs that the people referred to were entitled to abatement, and that being so every facility ought to be given to them to get back money which did not belong to the State, and which did belong to them. He would do his best to see that every facility should be given to the persons entitled to abatement to get it back.
  *SIR JOHN LENGsaid he desired to elicit some further explanation from the hon. Gentleman on a subject of great interest to the legal fraternity and the people of Scotland. A few weeks ago it was stated in an evening journal that it was the intention of the Inland Revenue to centralise the collection of all death duties arising in Scotland in the city of Edinburgh. It was suggested that these duties, which had hitherto been collected by the Inland Revenue authorities in the large cities and towns of Scotland, were hereafter to be transmitted direct to the head office in Edinburgh. The objections to the proposal had been stated in a remonstrance of the Faculty of Procurators in Scotland. He had received copies of remonstrances from many sources, but the one from Glasgow epitomised the whole. That remonstrance pointed out that the proper way of discussing the figures was by personal interview, and that if it had to be done in Edinburgh by correspondence, it was likely to throw a considerable charge on the people. In the case of Glasgow, where they would have to send accounts to Edinburgh to be adjusted the solicitor would have personally to attend, or if it were done by correspondence the settlement of the duties would be indefinitely delayed and great expense thrown upon the public. It ought to be made clear that it was part of the duty of the local Inland Revenue officer to adjust the accounts in the district, although the ultimate review of the accounts could easily be left to the central office in Glasgow. He hoped the financial Secretary would be able to give an assurance which would remove any anxiety there was in Scotland in this regard. It appeared that the one great change proposed was that instead of the
  246
  local stamp distributor accepting payment and giving the interim receipt the accounts must now be sent by him to the head office in Edinburgh for assessment before the duty was imposed. If that was all that was proposed and the local solicitors were not to be prevented, as hitherto, from arranging all matters with the local Inland Revenue officers the alarm and anxiety which now existed would be largely allayed. If not, he was afraid agitation would continue.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he did not understand that anything which the hon. Baronet had just said was for the benefit of the general public; but for the benefit of the solicitors and lawyers of Scotland. The alterations proposed did not apply to inventories. What had been done was to provide a now method to facilitate the accountable person getting the proper assessment made. He might go direct to Edinburgh, or, if be liked, to his nearest solicitor or Revenue official. That was entirely for himself.
  MR. SOARESdrew attention to Item (e) which had increased from £260,000 last year to £307,600 in the present Estimates. He could not quite understand why that should be, because if the allowance or poundage allowed to collectors of Income Tax was calculated on the amount collected, it followed that the Income Tax, having been reduced from 1s. 3d. to 11d., this item should have also been decreased.
  MR. ELLIOTpointed out that the general increase was due to the quinquennial assessment on Schedules A and B, and also to the fact that when there was an increased tax the Government had to pay more heavily for its collection.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to call attention to a not unimportant subject. In his belief there were enormous sums wasted by the system of collection adopted by the Inland Revenue, which refused direct payment to itself and desired payments to be made to subordinate officials. In 99 cases out of 100 the simplest and best way would be for the Inland Revenue to

  247
  receive payment direct, as all that would then be necessary would be for the taxpayer to draw a cheque and send it through the post. Under Item (F) the taxpayer was asked to pay banker's commission (usually 2s. 6d. per cent.) on drafts drawn for the remittance of revenue by local bankers, or by traders and others in payment of duties, etc. That was really absurd, as no banker was required. The assessment having been made, the act of payment was the simplest thing in the world. But that was merely an illustration of how the system worked. In Item (E) there was a heading, "Guarantee premiums in respect of Collectors of Taxes," and therein lay a most extraordinary anomaly and grievance. It would scarcely be believed that it was impossible for a taxpayer to pay his taxes and be certain he had finally disposed of them. If the local tax collector, having demanded and received from a taxpayer the King's taxes, absconded with the money, the taxpayer could be called upon to pay a second, or even a third, time. If the money were sent direct to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue they would refuse to receive it. Under ordinary circumstances the local tax collector received his appointment from certain Commissioners who were nominally appointed by this House. In certain cases where those Commissioners did not, the Inland Revenue themselves appointed the collector, and being aware, perhaps from bitter experience, that tax collectors were not incapable of defaulting, they paid the premiums provided by this Vote to secure the honesty of their own collectors. He desired to extract from his hon. friend an undertaking that such a system would be adopted as would enable taxpayers to be certain they had finally paid their taxes. He would suggest that they should be enabled to pay the money direct to the Inland Revenue Commissioners. Possibly such a system would require an alteration of the law, but he thought the requisite amendment could be made without giving rise to much discussion. Either the Inland Revenue authorities should guarantee the honesty of their local collectors, or they should receive the taxes direct. In the hope of receiving such an undertaking as he had suggested, he moved to reduce the Vote by £200.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E (Commuted Allowances, etc.) be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that if a man had paid his taxes once it would be a very bad system which left him liable to be called upon to pay them a second, or even a third time. He, however, had not heard of any such cases. As a matter of ordinary justice it appeared to him that if a man had paid the money into the hands of a servant of the State it ought not to be possible for him to be called upon to pay again. Whether the suggestion of his hon. friend could be adopted he was unable to say, but he would certainly give an undertaking to look into the matter with a view to preventing a recurrence of such demands.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SOARES, reverting to his objection to the increase in the item for commuted allowances in lieu of poundage to assessors and collectors of taxes, said he understood from the Secretary to the Treasury that this increase would not have been made had the Treasury known what the proposals of the Budget were to be. According to that principle if a tax were repealed altogether the Committee would still be asked to vote the entire cost of collecting that tax. It appeared to be a thoroughly bad system. Surely in such a case a revised Estimate ought to be presented. In order to get some further explanation he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £1,370,400, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Soares.)
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that when the Estimates were being framed in December the only thing that could be done was to have regard to the then existing taxation and the existing law. It would

  249
  be impossible to frame them with regard to a Budget which would not be introduced until after Easter in the following year.
  MR. SOARESasked why, when Estimates were found to be incorrect, fresh ones could not be issued.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid it would be very inconvenient to recast the Estimates in the middle of the year. They must study the convenience of the House.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the hon. Gentleman apparently misunderstood
  the question of commutation. It had nothing whatever to do with the amount of income tax to be collected. Hitherto certain men had been paid by poundage; it was now proposed to commute that poundage, and pay them by salary. The amount depended entirely on the number of men whose payments were to be commuted during the year, and had nothing whatever to do with the amount of income tax to be collected.
  Question put—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 47; Noes 129. (Division List No. 114.)

  AYES.

  Blake, Edward

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burt, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Tomkinson, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Emmott, Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ure, Alexander

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harwood, George

  Rea, Russell

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Whittaker Thomas Palmer

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Brist'l, E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Mr. Soares and Mr.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Allen.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Aird, Sir John

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Austin, Sir John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Flower, Ernest

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Bignold, Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bond, Edward

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Butcher, John George

  Garfit, William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'ml'ts

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Coddington, Sir William

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Mid'x

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Myers, William Henry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Bothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Percy, Earl

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Purvis, Robert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Smith, H. C. (Northum, Tyneside

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stroyan, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  3. £536,790, to complete the sum for Post Office Packet Service.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that since the Vote was before the Committee the Postmaster-General had announced that he had appointed a Committee to go into the question of the renewal of contracts for the conveyance of mails to China. As regarded this Committee the Postmaster-General would remember that a year ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol in connection with these contracts, promised that he would appoint a Committee to inquire into the mail contracts and what the late Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to was a Committee of the House of Commons. By the existing law the Postmaster - General's Department had power to conclude a contract by land without the sanction of the House, and the only remedy hon. Members had was when the money came to be voted. In regard to the conveyance of mails by sea, the Postmaster-General had no such power. By the Standing Orders of this House a mail contract by sea was not operative until it had received the sanction of the House. That order was passed many years ago for a very good reason—namely, that vital interests were affected in connection with the conveyance of mails by sea. There were questions of competition between one shipowner and another, and there were great complaints at the time that the Standing Order was passed about influences being brought to bear in order to secure contracts for particular shipowners. Parliament had vested the approval of such contracts in the hands of this
  252
  House, and every contract, before it could be acted upon, must have the sanction of the House by special Resolution. It was obvious that if the responsibility of concluding a contract was to rest with this House, the Committee appointed to inquire into the terms and conditions of the contract ought to be a Committee of this House in whom they would have confidence, and whose inquiry would have great weight when they came to decide the point. If the Committee to whom this matter was to be referred was merely to be an advisory Committee, leaving the House of Commons free afterwards to have a full investigation into the matter, then of course there was not so much to be said, but that would be a double inquiry. The constitution of the Committee, according to what he could gather from the newspapers, was open to very grave doubt. For instance, it was to consist of representatives of different Government Departments. The P. & O. contract alone involved a sum of £330,000. It had been stated that they were to have on the Committee a representative of the Navy. Why should there be a representative of the Navy in a matter of this kind? There was nothing about the Navy in the P. & O. contract, and it was stated in the House lately in regard to the cruisers that the Navy were hampered by having to take these mail ships as cruisers, whether suitable or not. The Admiralty had a special Committee of their own to investigate the question of which ought to be the cruisers for the Navy apart altogether from the mail contracts. That was proper on their part because the mail contract steamers were not necessarily suitable for cruisers. They were probably not

  253
  the best, and we ought to have the best naval cruisers apart altogether from the question of carrying the mails. Looking at the list of P. & O. steamers, and Canadian Pacific steamers, they would find that there were none that could go above thirteen or fourteen knots an hour. We had practically nothing on our list to compare with the armed cruisers of Germany. Going to America the Germans had vessels which did twenty-two and twenty-three knots. We had nothing to compete with the German boats on the China station, or the Australian station. In a matter of this kind the mail contract should be dealt with entirely by itself, and the Admiralty should be left alone to take their choice of the whole British Merchant Shipping, and to determine what would be best in the interest of the Navy, without being trammelled by any terms of mail contract.
  The first Lord of the Admiralty was no longer a director of the P. & O. Company, but at the same time he had been in that position and he possibly retained his holding. He did not know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty did so or not, but it was mere nonsense to say that a man who had been a director of a company, and who merely resigned when he came into a Government office, was an impartial man afterwards in dealing with a Government contract with that company. He was nothing of the kind. His interest would be with the company and those with whom he had been associated in the directorship. And all the more would he be able to give preferences when not a director. He ventured to say that the First Lord of the Admiralty as a director would be more careful not to act with what might appear to be favouritism to his company than when he was not a director. He thought it was unfortunate that in connection with such matters as these important contracts there should be a representative on this Committee of the Admiralty. This Committee was to inquire in to the contract with the P. & O Company, with which the head of the Admiralty was in such close relationship. It was to be remembered that at the present moment the mail contract was for taking 70,000 tons of mails. That was the total for which they got
  254
  £330,000. That was as much as would pay 15 per cent. on the total capital of the P. & O. Company, which consisted of £2,300,000. This House was asked to trust the preliminary inquiry to a Committee consisting of officials, and only one Member of this House. If any one wanted information as to the manner in which this subject was treated, it could be found in the evidence of Sir Thomas Sutherland. It was shown that the Chairman was no match whatever for that gentleman. One point which Sir Thomas tried to make in comparing his subsidy with the German subsidy was that because the P. & O. vessels went through the Suez Canal so much was paid for canal dues. But the dues were not paid for the mails only; they were paid for the whole ship and the cargo. That was an illustration of how Sir Thomas managed to twist and turn the matter. He said that in taking the percentage per mile of the subsidy, they must take it from London and not from Brindisi only. Quite so; but if the ship started from London it had the trade to Egypt, and that ought to be taken into consideration. What were the terms of reference to this Committee? What were they to inquire about? He also wished to know whether any other people would be asked to tender for the contract besides the P. & O. Company. It came to this—that they gave the P. & O. Company the monopoly of the trade route to Bombay, and the result was that they killed off other British shipowners from competing, and left the competition to be done by the foreigner. They would not kill the foreigner by subsidising the P. & O. Company, but they would prevent the British shipowner from having an opportunity of competing. The Frenchman and the German and every foreigner would go on in spite of any subsidy we gave in that way.
  He wished to know also about the railway. Were the Committee to inquire as to the terms under which the Siberian Railway would take letters? Obviously the Siberian Railway would be the nearest railway conveying letters to Shanghai, Hong-Kong, and Japan. At present they took letters in nineteen days to Pekin, and they took them to Port Arthur and Japan in less time. The British steamships going to Port Arthur only made ten to twelve knots an hour,

  255
  while the Russian vessels did sixteen knots an hour, and of course Russia was competing with us. It was because of the slow P. & O. boats going to Bombay that there had been a demand for this new railway route which was so much spoken about. Then we were told that foreign countries were competing with us. Certainly they were competing with us, because this country and the P. & O. Company notoriously were behind. It used to be the fact that the P. & O. Company had the prestige of having the fastest ships. They were now nothing of the kind; they had lost that prestige altogether. The mails would be carried by a new route to the Persian Gulf and by the China route. There was another point. Why should not the mails be conveyed by the fast cruisers of the Fleet in the time of peace? These vessels steamed at the rate of twenty-two knots an hour, and in time of peace they did nothing, although we had to keep them in repair with their full complement of officers and men. At any rate, why should not these fast cruisers convey the mails to Bombay instead of employing slow thirteen and fourteen knot P. & O. boats? Would that matter be referred to the Committee?
  Then he came to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's contract for conveying mails from this country to Hong-Kong viâ Halifax in winter, and Quebec in summer, through Canada to Vancouver, and thence by the Empress line of steamers to Yokohama and Shanghai. That contract was entered into in 1889 for a period of ten years, and its conditions were very important. It should be remembered that this country did not make a contract to a foreign State but only to its own territory. Hong-Kong was our own territory, but Shanghai was not; it was only a Treaty Port. Therefore the contract ended at Hong-Kong. It was important to keep this in mind, because penalties were not exacted upon failure of arrival at Yokohama or Shanghai, where they might be as late as they liked so long as the ships arrived at Hong-Kong up to the contract time. The contract was for a mail service between this country and Hong-Kong by the route he had described, once in every four weeks in each direction, and the subsidy was £60,000 a year.
  256
  Of this sum the Canadian Government provided £15,000, but for that contribution Canada got value because it gave them a mail service to Japan and China, but as regarded the British Government the service was practically of no value whatever since they already had the P. and O. contracts to carry the mails to Shanghai, Hong-Kong, and Yokohama. The cost of the mails from this country to Canada was £500 additional. The remaining £45,000 was divided into two portions—£7,312 to be pad by the Admiralty for the mails to their cruisers, and £37,688 by the British Post Office. Moreover, there was this peculiar point about this contract. A service of steamers was not in existence at the time the contract was entered into. That was not usual. The Post Office often made the excuse for renewing contracts with existing companies and not entertaining offers by new companies that the latter had not then in existence quick speed steamers. The contract was given to the Canadian Pacific Company before their ships were built. At that time great pressure was brought to bear on the Government in regard to the contract. The Secretary to the Treasury stated that he had received a letter to be forwarded to the Prime Minister signed by upwards of 300 Members of Parliament in favour of a subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Company. He remembered the letter perfectly well, in which it was said that this was going to be a competitive service with the P. and O., that it would be a faster route, and that it would bring down the P. and O. rates. The Treasury Minute of 18th July, 1889, said—
  "Her Majesty's Government considered the scheme as a whole, offering as it does direct communication entirely through British Territory, and an alternative route to the East, desirable in the interests of the Empire, apart from postal considerations, and under these circumstances my Lords again took the question into consideration. Though the scheme is not justifiable upon postal reasons alone, it offers an alternative service which saves several days as compared with the Suez route, and it is therefore of considerable value from a postal point of view. It has the land transit lying wholly within British Territory, and as a Military route it is held by the Naval and Military Authorities to be of the highest importance."
  They never gave the House of Commons any reason why.

  257
  "The offer of the company to construct mail steamers which could be employed by the Admiralty as armed cruisers in case of need, also accords with the policy already adopted in the case of certain other large steamship companies."
  The Treasury Minute further stated what he should show had been absolutely falsified—
  "A sum of £2,165 a year now paid to France and Italy for the conveyance of the China and Japan mails by other routes may perhaps be saved. On the other hand, the cost of carrying the mails across the Atlantic may amount to £650 a year. The Canadian Pacific Railway will present an alternative route for Australian and New Zealand mails. At present these mails when sent viâ America travel viâ New York and San Francisco and a specially high rate is paid for the United States land transit. Under the proposed contract it will be passible to send them viâ Quebec or Halifax and Vancouver on payment of the ordinary postal union rates of transit to the Canadian Post Office, and possibly the mail route viâ the Pacific to Australia will be diverted from San Francisco to Vancouver."
  The optimism with regard to the mails to Australia and New Zealand had not been realised, for what had been the result? He put a question to the Postmaster-General as to what was the saving of time by the Vancouver as compared with the San Francisco route. Here was the answer he got on 24th February, 1903—
  "The approximate time occupied in the transit of correspondence from London to Sydney viâ Vancouver is thirty-eight days, and viâ San Francisco thirty-four days."
  So that the mails had not been diverted from San Francisco to Vancouver as had been predicted. Now, observe how it was that everything was magnified as to the importance of this route, and how the advantages to be obtained from it were the inducing causes for granting the subsidy. Whilst the Treasury Minute of July, 1889, stated that the Canadian Pacific route—
  "Offers an alternative service which saves several days as compared with the Suez route,"
  the Secretary of the Treasury was compelled, in answer to a Question put by Sir George Campbell on 15th August, 1889, to admit—
  "That in the desire to be concise the Treasury Minute is not so clear as it might be; the saving of time referred to is really on certain sections of the line—viz., between London and Shanghai and London and Yokohama."
  258
  They were told in this revised answer that the mails from London to Hong-Kong would take the same average time (thirty-five days) by the Vancouver route as by the Suez route; that in the case of Shanghai there would be a saving of eight and a half days by the Vancouver route as compared with the Suez route, whilst as regarded Yokohama there would be a saving of from fifteen to eighteen days. It was on the faith of that that the contract was entered into.
  How completely even this modified saving of time by the Vancouver route has been falsified by actual working out in practice, was shown by a reference to the Post Office Guide for January, 1903. It gave the approximate time occupied in course of post from London to Hong-Kong as forty days viâ Vancouver, and only twenty-nine days viâ Brindisi; or a saving by Suez of eleven days instead of occupying the same time as in 1889. In like manner as regarded Shanghai, the time occupied was given as thirty-seven days viâ Vancouver and only thirty-two days eighteen hours in the case of Suez, or a saving by the Suez route of four days six hours instead of, as alleged in 1889, a saving of eight and a half days by the Vancouver route. In the case of Yokohama, the Postal Guide gives thirty-two days viâ Vancouver as against thirty-eight days viâ Suez, a saving in the case of Vancouver of only six days instead of, as alleged in 1889, a saving of from fifteen to eighteen days. So far, therefore, as any postal facilities to Hong-Kong and Shanghai were concerned, the Canadian Pacific route had been mere bunkum. He had asked the Postmaster-General how many letters we got by that route—was it one, two or three, but he could not tell. The Postal Guide further brought out the fact that there were no less than six separate departures of mails every twenty-eight days by the Suez route, whilst there was only one departure every four weeks under the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Thus, in January, 1903, mails were despatched viâ Brindisi on the 2nd, 16th, and 30th; by the French Packet on the 9th and 23rd; and by the German Packet on the 6th and 20th; while they were only sent viâ the Vancouver route on the 8th. Accordingly, mails sent from London by the French Packet on 9th January arrived

  259
  at Hong-Kong and Shanghai before the letters which left London viâ Vancouver the day previously. Even letters sent from London by the Brindisi route on 16th January arrived at Hong-Kong before the letters which left London on 8th January viâ Vancouver. So far as regarded Yokohama, there was a nominal saving viâ Vancouver route of six days, but it had to be borne in mind (1) that there was do postal contract by the Suez route to Yokohama, and that by proper arrangement this interval might be considerably reduced; and (2) that viâ Vancouver there was only one mail every twenty-eight days, whereas there were six mails every twenty-eight days âvi Suez, so that, even as regarded Yokohama, only those letters posted on the day of despatch of the mail viâ Vancouver, or within four or five days previously could possibly get any benefit. They did not subsidise vessels in the interests of foreign countries, but in the interests of the British colonics. The colonies gave contributions towards the mail contracts, but no contribution was received, for instance, from Japan. One mail a month was worth nothing. If a man were even one day late a monthly mail was of no practical value to him. There was only one mail in twenty eight days by the Canadian Pacific route; and it would therefore be seen that, from a postal point of view, that route was of no practical advantage whatever, and effected no saving as far as this country was concerned.
  The Canadian Pacific Railway promised to put on a fast mail service between this country and Canada, but that service had not been put on. The Treasury Minute of the 18th of July, 1889, said—
  "Some difficulty was felt with regard to the Atlantic portion of the line, the control of which in entirely in the hands of the Dominion Government. Satisfactory assurances were, however, given by that Government that the necessary acceleration of the service should be secured, and after much negotiation the terms of a contract were agreed upon."
  That assurance was never carried out; there was never any attempt to carry it out. For ten years, therefore, the Government had been working on a footing of not getting the value which had been promised to them. During that period the British Government had been fooled; and now, at the end of it, it was
  260
  proposed to renew the contract for five years, during which the Government would continue to be fooled. The Postmaster-General might say that it was not a question of postal matters alone, and that there were other considerations—naval and military considerations. He would deal with that. In the original contract it was stated that, if officers and men had to le despatched to Hong Kong or China there would be a considerable saving of time by the Vancouver route. Accordingly, in the original contract, there were clauses under which—
  "The Company agree to convey troops on service at cost, the word 'troops,' including naval and military officers, seamen, marines, etc., including accommodation in colonist sleeping carriage, by rail, £16 4s. per man to and from Halifax, non-commissioned officers £20 13s. 11d., second class, and commissioned officers £31 4s 8d., first class. Rates to apply to detachments of fifty or upwards and to include all accommodation by land and sea, meals and rations. Government stores, not exceeding fifty tons in anyone consignment, from Halifax to Hong Kong at cost; the cost by railway being estimated at one halfpenny per ton weight per mile, and the coat by sea at nothing beyond the charge of 4s. per ton for loading and discharging; and stores exceeding fifty tons in weight at the lowest tariff rates charged to the public at the time of shipment."
  These were the naval and military advantages which were considered to be very important to this country, but who would ever think of sending troops to China by the Vancouver route. They would have to embark at Liverpool for Halifax, and on arrival they would have to travel five or six days by train to Vancouver, where they would detrain and embark on board ship for Hong-Kong, and arrive there later than if they had proceeded direct from Southampton without any changing. Those clauses were, however, eliminated from the new contract altogether, for the simple reason, of course, that the Government found there would be no advantage in sending men by that route. The new contract provided for any number of naval, military or civil officers in the service of His Majesty, not exceeding eight in the first-class saloon, four in the second class, and ten in the third class. But the passage money was to be the same as that charged by the Company for ordinary passengers of

  261
  the same class. Where was the need for putting such a provision into the contract? Why should there be any restriction as long as the Government were willing to pay the ordinary rates? Further, it was provided that the Company was to receive on behalf of the Admiralty small packages at the lowest rate of freight charged by the Company for private goods of a similar character and description. Under the original contract there was a provision for cheap fares; but that had now been dropped out, because it was found that the route was too long and involved too many changes. The Canadian Pacific Company befooled the Government for ten years; they now induced the Government to allow themselves to be befooled for another five years; and at the end of that period it would be found that the speed would not be one whit greater than it was at present. When the contract was before the House of Commons, and when he proposed that it be referred to a Committee, a number of canards appeared in the newspapers stating that the route to Yokohama could be covered in twenty-one days. That was actually done on one occasion; but it was merely an advertisement journey. They could never run a twenty-two knot service to Canada; it was too far north, and if they could it would be impossible to compete with the route to New York.
  Then, with regard to the Admiralty subsidy of £7,312 in respect of these vessels being cruisers. These vessels were worth nothing as cruisers. They could not go more than fourteen knots an hour, and at that pace they would have to have armed cruisers to protect them, and vessels to carry coal for them, whereas Germany had cruisers which could go at twenty and twenty-one knots, as indeed had we. It had also been said that if the Suez Cana were to be blocked at any time it might be convenient to have Vancouver as a station. It was inconceivable that the Suez Canal could be blocked, but if it were the P. and O. Mail Fleet would be cut in two. Half of it would be in Chinese waters and half this side, and that part in Chinese waters could be easily diverted if necessary to Vancouver, while the other portion could go to Canada, This was not a question
  262
  of benefiting Canada but of benefiting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway on the 5th February, 1889, were selling at 54, and on the 15th of the following August, after the contract was signed, they were selling at 63½. Why on earth was this contract renewed for another five years? When the Siberian Railway was completed and arrangements made with its owners to carry the mails they would reach Japan and Shanghai in about fourteen days, and no mails would go by these boats at all. So far as a quick service to Canada was concerned that had yet to be obtained, yet the only reason of this contract was to obtain an accelerated service. Did the Postmaster-General imagine that there was the slightest possible chance in the future of deriving any benefit from the renewal of this contract? When the Siberian Railway was completed they could not hope to compete with it. For ten years the Government had been fooled with the promise of an accelerated service and, not satisfied with that, the Government had renewed the contract for the purpose of being befooled for another five years.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONentirely endorsed what the hon. Gentleman had said with regard to the carriage of mails, but he was not in agreement with him in all his arguments. In his opinion these mail services should be charged not to the Post Office but to the Admiralty. We voted this money first to establish our supremacy on the sea, secondly to establish an all British route, and lastly for carrying mails. We paid for our mails 3s. a lb., because they were carried in British ships. On foreign ships they were carried at Is. 8d. a lb. We were, in his opinion, sailing under false colours. He hoped the Postmaster-General would carefully examine this question of mail subsidies. We were paying £60,000 a year to Canada and were glad to do so, but it was absurd to I say it was for the purpose of carrying the mails. We paid it to maintain British supremacy. We also paid £200,000 a year to India, and the whole postage to and from India did not amount to half the sum. Then why saddle the Post Office with the cost? The Australian people

  263
  are framing their contract in such a way as to insist that the vessels should be so built that a large portion of them should be reserved for the carriage of frozen butter and frozen meat. The Members of the House of Commons were anxious that those subsidies should be continued, but they were not anxious that they should fraudulently be placed on the Post Office Vote. The mails to America were a source of continual annoyance, because, although we were paying this large sum of £137,000 per annum, faster vessels travelled to America. He hoped his right hon. friend would be able to assure the Committee that a better state of things would prevail in future. The Returns moved for by the hon Member for Dundee had to some extent opened their eyes. It was because the Department were wanting in honesty in refusing to face the fact that they were paying the subsidies for purposes other than the carriage of mails, that they had fallen into their present position, but he doubted whether, strong as the Postmaster-General was, he would be strong enough to break through the traditions with which he was hampered in this matter.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,), dealing first with the question as to the Committee he had appointed, said that the two years notice given on January 31 of this year to the P. and O. Company to terminate the mail contract was given at the request of certain Colonial and other Administrations who were parties to the contract. The Australasian Administrations in particular preferred the request; but practically every Administration interested in the contract and contributing towards the service desired some changes. Speaking generally, the changes desired were greater speed and a smaller cost. These changes were equally desired by the British Post Office, but it must be a matter for negotiation and consideration how far success in these directions could be achieved. A service in which so many different Administrations were interested was a matter of some complication, and his desire to be advised by people with greater knowledge than he possessed as to how these various interests
  264
  could best be met, would be readily understood. He had, therefore, appointed the Committee, and he had selected the hon. Member for Aston Manor to be the chairman, not only in view of the interest he had taken in the subject, but because of his experience as chairman of the Committee on the effect of subsidies on British shipping and British trade. There was a unanimous opinion that he had conducted that Committee's deliberations with great skill and fairness, and he had acquired experience in that way which would be valuable to the Mail Contract Committee. On the Committee he had placed representatives of the Post Office, and he had invited the Colonial Office and the India Office to nominate representatives specially to look after the interests of Indian and Colonial Administrations. He had also invited the Admiralty to name an Admiralty representative—and they had, as a matter of fact, named two—in order that Admiralty interests might not be overlooked, and that the harmonious co-operation of the different Departments of Government concerned might be secured. He regretted the suggestion that because the First Lord of the Admiralty was, some years ago, a P. & O. director, this would make it impossible for any Admiralty official to sit on this Committee with an open and impartial mind. This was a large extension of anything that had ever been said concerning the position of Ministers as directors, and one which no authority other than the hon. Member for Mid Lanark was likely to approve.
  The Report of the Admiralty Committee on the use that might be made of merchant cruisers had not been presented to the House; but one of the points particularly emphasised by the evidence they took was the desira-ability of a better communication between the Admiralty and the Post Office in regard to these contracts. He entirely shared that view, and thought it only reasonable and business-like—in fact, common sense—that the Government should obtain the advantages to be secured by negotiating as far as possible as a whole, and that the Admiralty should be associated with other departments in the consideration of a contract in which they had a great interest. He

  265
  agreed that the Admiralty should be unhampered in their choice of mercantile cruisers by considerations which were pre-eminently the business of the Postmaster-General; but that was not a reason why the Postmaster-General, in making a big contract of this kind, should neglect Admiralty interests altogether, or exclude Admiralty interests from consideration. It was not for the Postmaster-General to decide whether any ship should be used as a mercantile cruiser; but it was right that he should assure himself whether any condition useful to the Admiralty might be inserted in the mail contract, and whether any subsidy could be paid in respect of any naval advantages which the Admiralty might obtain, at the same time as the Postmaster-General was arranging for the conveyance of the mails. The reference to the Committee for which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had asked had already been published. He had not the exact terms with him, but substantially it was a simple reference requesting them to consider what provision should be made for the mail service to the East and Australia on the expiration of the present contract. They would, of course, have to consider what alternatives to the present method of carrying the mails were available, and whether the opening of new routes and other facilities which had come into existence since the present contract was concluded should alter the conditions of carriage in any new contract. But he did not propose to ask them to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member that cruisers be employed in leisure times as ordinary mail ships. To that he would anticipate the strongest opposition from the Admiralty, and he did not think anyone acquainted with the Admiralty would associate himself with the hon. Member in that proposal. While it was in accordance with precedent that such a Committee as he had appointed should be called together, it would, of course, be for the Postmaster-General and other Ministers concerned, and especially for the Treasury, to consider carefully any Report which they might present.
  The hon. Member had referred to a promise made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer of a wider inquiry into the
  266
  question of mail subsidies. He was unaware of that promise, but if the hon. Member would give him the reference, he would look the matter up and see what it was. Personally, as at present advised, he did not think that a Committee of the House to look into mail contracts in general was required, or was likely to get much new information or to render any useful service. He was quite willing to consider what the hon. Member might have to say in the matter. Of course if there had been a definite pledge given he should be anxious to redeem it, but, so far as his own view was concerned, he thought that, if there was an interdepartmental Committee on the lines he had indicated to consider the conditions of the new contract for the mail service to the East and Australia, it would be possible to put the House in possession of full information; and, as the hon. Member had said, no such contract could be made binding for a term of years without the assent of the House being given to it. A big question had arisen in connection with the Australian contract to which he did not wish to do more than allude at the present time, as it was still under discussion. It might, however, appear as if he were trying to withhold information from the Committee if he passed by the subject without reference. It was known to hon. Members through statements which had appeared in the Press that the Government of the Australian Commonwealth had desired the insertion in any new contract to which they were a party of a provision directed against the employment of coloured labour on the mail ships. His Majesty's Government had felt themselves precluded now, as on previous occasions, from assenting to any stipulation for the exclusion of a class of His Majesty's subjects. He need scarcely say that if it would be, as in his opinion it would be, impossible for his Majesty's Government to assent to such a stipulation in any contract, it was doubly impossible in a contract to which the Indian Government was also a party. He only mentioned this to the Committee, because his silence might have the appearance of a desire to shirk the question.
  With regard to the service from Vancouver across the Pacific, which

  267
  was worked in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, he need say the less, as the hon. Gentleman opposite had given the Committee a very full and detailed account of the circumstances in which the contract had arisen. To this question the hon. Gentleman opposite had devoted the greater part of his speech, and his hon. friend the Member for Canterbury had especially made it the text of his sermon that the Post Office Vote bore a burden which it was not fair to place there. He did not wish to challenge, in the main, the hon. Member's statement of facts; but he demurred to the statement that, in connection with this contract, the Government were conferring a favour upon the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or that they had been fooled by the company, or that the company had been too sharp for His Majesty's Government. The contract was entered into as a great Imperial service by British ships at the urgent request of the Dominion Government, and not for the purpose of pleasing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If the Government had a desire to please anybody when this contract was made, it was to please the Dominion Government. It was quite true that the expectations with which the service was established had not been fulfilled. In one respect only the hon. Member had not given quite a fair account to the Committee. He had said that since this contract was made, the P. and O. Company's service, providing an alternative route to the East, had been quickened, so that this route, which would otherwise have been the shorter route to certain places, had lost its advantage even in regard to nearly all those places.
  MR. CALDWELL: Did this occur before the renewal?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was the case; but the hon. Gentleman had quoted so much from the Minute of 1889, that he had thought it only fair to show that a quickening was secured on the alternative route. It was perfectly true that we had failed to obtain hitherto any fast Atlantic service in connection with
  268
  this route, such as had been hoped for, and such as he still hoped to see established. The Canadian Government had from time to time made efforts to secure the establishment of such a service. Those efforts had not hitherto been successful, but it was within the knowledge of the Committee that quite recently they had called for fresh offers for a fast Atlantic service between this country and Canada. They had not vet communicated the result of any such offers to His Majesty's Government, and, in the meantime, it was perfectly true to say that this service, as it at present existed, was of very little advantage as a mail service. We made a very small use of it, and the revenue which was obtained from letters and packages which went that way bore no proportion to the subsidy which had to be paid for the service. In his opinion, His Majesty's Government, in their anxiety to meet the wishes of Canada and give Canada every opportunity for facilitating the establishment of this fast Atlantic service, had gone to the utmost limits to which they could be expected to go, in assenting to the renewal of the contract for five years, in the hope that by that time the establishment of an At antic service might become an accomplished fact, and that we might then get a further quickening on the Pacific side, and soon make this route a route of real value. If these results were not achieved in the further interval which was left, he did not think it likely that whoever might be then responsible at the Treasury or Post Office would be inclined to concur in any further extension of the contract on its present basis. He did not agree, however, that we had obtained no advantage from the contract. It was some advantage to have this alternative route, even though it was not a very effective route in the piping times of peace; and it was some advantage to have the British Marine represented in the North Pacific, and to prevent the trade in those parts passing away from the British Mercantile Marine. It was an advantage, at any rate, in the view of the Admiralty, to have the whole of these ships as mercantile cruisers, for which they were willing to make a contribution of £7,312, which represented

  269
  their contribution to the total cost of the service for this route for the call they would have upon the ships. The hon. Member opposite said those ships were very slow. No doubt they were slow contrasted with the Atlantic greyhounds, but their value to the Admiralty in certain conditions would depend, not on that comparison, but on the speed of other vessels cruising in the same waters. They were more valuable in the North Pacific than in the North Atlantic amongst very fast ships.
  MR. CALDWELL: But there are not many British ships in the North Pacific.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that although that might be true it was nevertheless worth while to have the British flag represented in those waters. Sometimes it was necessary to lay out one's money for a return which would not be immediate. It must be borne in mind by the Committee in considering this question of mail contracts that it involved not merely the conveyance of a certain bulk of mails between certain ports, but the running of a service in which vessels should start at fixed dates at a given time with or without passengers or cargo, with return at a given time and no waiting for cargo; and this regularity of service, which prevented the turning aside to obtain a cargo from other sources, had to be paid for. Under such circumstances it was not altogether fair to divide the amount of subsidy paid to the P. and O. or the Pacific Company, or to the Cunard or White Star line by the amount of mails carried, working it out and saying they might be carried cheaper in foreign ships. Possibly that might be so; but we had the advantage of the regular service, upon which we could rely, and so far as he was concerned he preferred wherever it was possible to send British mails by British ships. He went a step further. He did not altogether agree with the hon. Member that it was wrong to include the packet service Votes among the Post Office Votes. It was true that beyond the appropriations in aid they might serve a great national interest altogether outside the Post Office; but he did not know under what better classification the service could be put. As each contract
  270
  came up for consideration the Department did its best to secure the most advantageous terms in speed, regularity, and convenience of service; but the conditions were so widely different, the circumstances under which one contract was carried out were so entirely different from those which existed in reference to another contract, that each must be judged on its merits and examined by itself, and there would be no advantage in having them all thrown together into one pot to be boiled up and considered by the House of Commons. He had dealt with the points raised, and as there had been considerable discussion on a previous occasion he hoped the Committee would agree to pass on to the telegraph Vote, upon which there had not yet been any discussion.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he had not moved a reduction of the Vote, and did not wish to do so, being quite satisfied that the matter would receive the personal attention of the Postmaster-General. He put more faith in the right hon. Gentleman's own personal attention than in his Committee. There was no doubt that the contracts referred to were two of the most important the British Government had to offer. He hoped, therefore, matters would be carefully adjusted before the contracts were entered into. He was satisfied with the answer given; and only desired to refer to the necessity for making the contracts for short periods, so that the service should obtain full advantage of the improvements in speed and other developments. In no case should a contract be entered into for more than five years.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,549,430, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and working expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service.
  *MR. JAMES O'CONNORasked whether the Postmaster-General had appointed the Committee to inquire into the grievances of certain Post Office employees, and whether he could give the names of the gentlemen who are to constitute the committee.
  *MR HENNIKER HEATONwith reluctance called attention to a number of details in relation to the service, upon which he suggested reforms should be instituted. In the first place the large and increasing less on the telegraph service called for inquiry; no business men could be satisfied with the present state of affairs. The loss in the past year he estimated at £1,000,000, and probably it was more. There were 90,000,000 telegrams sent in the year, and on 74,000,000 of these the loss was 4½d. each. He thought it was due to the Committee that they should know whether there was to be a limit to this loss, or whether it would continue to increase. His right hon. friend had said that the reasons for the enormous loss in the telegraph they differed as to the reasons which caused the loss, and the whole country was waiting for an explanation of this state of matters. He called attention to this question some time ago and the Postmaster-General endeavoured to make some reform. The only thing that was done was to issue an order to postmasters not to give blotting-paper. The right hon. Gentleman might have effected a saving in connection with the cost of telegram forms and envelopes. Ninety million telegram forms were used, but he found that the supply was about 300,000,000. There must be a great loss in that direction. He had always held that the cables ought to be purchased by the Government; he meant the cables connecting this country with all parts of the Empire. At present the cable companies were making a very good thing out of their services. It might not be known to the Committee that we spent £4,000,000 a year in cabling to various parts of the Empire and to foreign countries, and only £1,000,000 in postage, that is, four times more on telegraphing than on postage to the colonies and foreign countries. On
  272
  the other hand, we spent in England £3,500,000 on telegrams, and £15,000,000 on postage. There was a great deal to be desired in the way of reform in connection with the telegraph tariffs to various parts of the world. The rate throughout Great Britain and Ireland was only a half-penny a word. The rate throughout France was less than a halfpenny a word, and he therefore thought that the rate to France ought not to be more than one penny a word. The Postmaster-General admitted the other day that a very large profit was made on the telegraph service to France Chambers of Commerce and other public bodies interested in obtaining cheap communication between this country and France were anxious that the rates should be cut down. But the tariff was worse for telegraphic communication with other countries on the Continent. For instance, the charge for a message from here to Spain was 3½d. per word, but from Germany to Spain it was only 2½d. a word, although the German cable had to pass our door. He would like the right hon. the Postmaster-General to explain these anomalies, and say whether he intended to move in the matter of their reform. Again the rate from this country to the Russian frontier was only 2d. a word, but into Russia itself it was 5d. per word. The rate from St. Petersburg to Vladivostock was 4½d. a word, but from England to Vladivostock it was 2s. 7d. a word. The right hon. the Postmaster-General should hold a meeting with the Postmasters-General of all the countries on the Continent and devise a scheme by which through telegraphic rates should never exceed the combined inland rates of the countries through which the messages pass That, he thought, was a common-sense suggestion, and if carried out it would give intense satisfaction to the commercial community. He understood that the Postmasters-General of Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Italy and other countries were most anxious to come to some arrangement on this matter, and with the advent of a new Postmaster-General in this country he trusted they would be able to make both the postal and telegraphic communications between Great Britain and the Continent as

  273
  cheap as possible. The telegraphic rate to Egypt was 1s. 7d. a word, which was most unjustifiable, and he was sure that it could be not unprofitably reduced to 6d. a word.
  He invited the attention of the Postmaster-General to the enormous charges for telephonic communication. The charge for a three minutes conversation between London and Paris was 8s., and 16s. for a six minutes conversation. That, he thought, was monstrous; it was far too high, as indeed had been admitted by the Postmaster-General himself. Statistics should be furnished showing the revenue and the expenditure on the telephonic service; and he was confident it would be demonstrated that the rate might be reduced from 8s. to 2s. 6d. for a three minutes conversation between London and Paris or London and Brussels. He believed hon. Members would also agree with him that telephonic communication between various parts of this country over the Trunk lines was much too high. A few weeks ago he had had a long conversation with the most progressive, able and intelligent Postmaster-General of Italy, His Excellency Signor Gallimberti, who had pointed out to him how the system of communication in Italy compared with this country. If the right hon. Gentleman would pay a visit during his holiday to Rome, and other Italian cities, he might learn a lesson in regard to charges both for telephonic and telegraphic communication. For instance, in Rome a telegraph message of fifteen to eighteen words only cost 5d., as against twelve words for 6d. in this country. Turning to another question, he had had hundreds of letters complaining of telegraphic blunder made by ignorant clerks in his right hon. friend's Department. In one case a man incurred a loss of £1,500, and was driven into the Bankruptcy Court through the blunder of a telegraphic clerk; and there were numerous other instances of people who had lost large sums of money through the carelessness of telegraphic clerks. When complaint was made to the Department, the answer on every occasion was a reference to the rules and regulations by which the Postmaster-General must be guided, and under which he must treat all
  274
  alike, although he deeply regretted the losses incurred. There was one case in which a man sent a message for 1,400 rolls of knitting wool at 7½d., and the telegraphic clerk sent it at 8½d. That was an astounding blunder; hundreds of pounds were lost, and no compensation was given. He thought that in such cases there should be something more than a polite letter of regret from the Postmaster-General. As to porterage of telegrams, there was free delivery from the Post Office door up to three miles, but if the distance was a yard beyond that, a porterage of 3d. per mile was charged from the Post Office door, or in other words for four miles altogether. For instance, a man who lived just one yard beyond the three miles was charged a shilling for porterage. The fair thing would be to commence charging porterage beyond the three-mile limit. It was stated that the object of the Government was to keep the people on the land, and he held that it was their duty to put every person in the country, whether near or distant from a Post Office, on a footing of perfect equality in regard to telegraphic communication. It was wrong to punish people for living beyond the three-mile limit; and he thought that his right hon. friend should give free porterage everywhere. They had now a magnificent system of transmitting telegrams; and he thought the time had arrived when the limit for telegrams should be increased from twelve to twenty words for 6d. Further, the name of every place in the country should be charged as one word. A man should not be punished for living in a place called "Mud-in-the-Hole" by having its name charged as four words. He never could understand why "Charing Cross" was charged as two words, and "St. Pancras" as one, unless it was that the Post Office wished to square the saints. He would leave that question in the hands of his right hon. friend, with the hope that he would be able to give the Committee an assurance that in future every place in the country should be charged as one word.
  In conclusion, he would like to say a few words with regard to the marvellous system which was known as wireless

  275
  telegraphy, and which was invented by his distinguished friend Marconi Although he was in no way connected with that system, he was delighted with its progress. Lately there were signs of greater keenness on the part of the Post Office regarding it; but he should like an explanation as to why Marconi had not been treated fairly by the Post Office authorities in this country. He was glad to say that his right hon. friend had to a great extent altered that state of things. He would tell the Committee what occurred. A few years ago Marconi submitted a written offer to the Postmaster-General to connect the islands of Guernsey and Sark by wireless telegraphy without any conditions or stipulations, and without any expense to the Post Office; but the Post Office officials refused it. He would ask his right hon. friend to state why that offer was refused, in view of the fact that the Government went to large expense the other day in constructing a cable from Guernsey to Sark rather than accept the noble offer. He would mention another case. When Marconi was trying very hard to extend his system, in place of getting generous assistance from the Post Office, he never got anything but opposition. Worse than that, a letter, which he believed emanated from the Post Office, was sent to all the Colonial Governments warning them against taking up Marconi's system. He should like a thorough inquiry into that matter. Only the other day Marconi asked that he should receive the same rights and privileges as were given to the cable companies. A more modest application he could not imagine; but Marconi did not get the facilities for which he asked. He did not think that was fair. Marconi did not receive from this country that generous assistance which he hoped for and expected; but, at the same time, he was bound to add that during the short time the Postmaster-General had been in office he had made the position of Marconi more comfortable.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he thought that some explanation should be given of the very large increases in Sub-heads A and B of this Vote. In view of the fact that
  276
  the Post Office was working at a considerable loss, it appeared strange that there should be an increase of no less than £250,000 under those two heads. The maintenance of the postal telegraph system had increased by £133,000, or 16 per cent.; and telegraph works had increased by £125,000, or no less than 30 per cent. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give an explanation of those large and sudden increases. Some of the increases were very surprising. For instance, linemen and battery men in London numbered seventy-five last year, whereas this year they numbered 179. There were only three enginemen in London last year, as against eleven this year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was due to the progress of the London telephones.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the London telephones appeared under other heads. With reference to telephones, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee what financial success had attended the operations of the Post Office in that direction, up to the present. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also tell the Committee the result of his negotiations with the Marconi Company for wireless communication across the Atlantic. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Canterbury that the Government should take over and work the cable systems. A more risky speculation he could hardly imagine.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he should like to ask the Postmaster-General to take this opportunity of stating to the House the names of the gentlemen he proposed to appoint to inquire into the grievances of the postal staff, also how long the inquiry would be likely to last; and whether the Report would be laid before Parliament.
  SIR JOHN LENGsaid that the hon. Member for Canterbury had given the Committee a number of interesting suggestions which he hoped would be

  277
  adopted as time went on. He should like to emphasise the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman as to the cheapening of foreign cable messages. As far as trade and commerce were concerned, it was most desirable that the rates for telegraphing across the Atlantic, to Australia, to India, to China, and other countries should be reduced to the lowest possible point. The imports and exports of the country depended very much on low charges for cable communications. By far the most valuable part of the business of the country was conducted almost entirely by cable; and it was greatly handicapped as compared with continental commerce by the high charges which had to be paid. Allusion had been made to the treatment which the Post Office meted out to the young inventor, Marconi.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
  GREAT NORTHERN, PICCADILLY, AND BROMPTON RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [By ORDER].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  1. £2,549,430, to complete the sum for Post Office Telegraphs.
  *SIR JOHN LENG, proceeding with his speech, referred to a widespread impression that existed that the Post Office had been some what ungenerous in its treatment of Mr. Marconi. So far as
  278
  the public could gather the treatment of the Post Office had neither been encouraging nor helpful, which was quite contrary to the attitude of the Admiralty, who had promptly availed themselves to a large extent of Mr. Marconi's invention. His system had been employed on between 100 and 200 vessels in the Navy, and had been much appreciated. He would be glad to have information from the Postmaster-General as to anything that had been done in the way of facilitating the transmission of Marconi messages from the sea through the ordinary post offices on shore. He desired also to know what progress had been made in facilitating communication between the lightships on the coast and the shore lighthouses, so that in the event of shipwreck instant communication could be obtained with the coastguard and lifeboat services. He also asked what progress had been made with the laying of underground telegraph wires with a view to the avoidance of those serious interruptions of telegraphic communication with Scotland by the blowing down of wires in high winds, or their breakage by snowstorms. Perhaps, also, the Postmaster-General would give some information respecting the proceedings of the International Conference. He complimented the Postmaster-General, in conclusion, on his able discharge of the duties of his office, and disclaimed any desire to reflect upon his administration or do otherwise than assist him in Post Office reforms by the suggestions he made.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthanked the hon. Member for the way in which he had spoken of him personally, and said he had to acknowledge that he had received nothing but kindness and consideration from both sides of the House in the discharge of his official duties. A number of questions had been put to him of varying interest, which were all worthy of a few words in reply, and as briefly as he could he would deal with those questions. He was not yet able to make any further announcement as to the Committee on rates of wages to Post Office employees. The Committee would see that it would take some time to form a Committee of that kind, composed of the persons they

  279
  all desired to see serving upon it, but that was less unfortunate than otherwise would be the case, because the officials of the staff interested would require some time to collect and frame the information they would desire to place before its members. The hon. Member for Hoxton had asked when the Report would be issued. Such a question was altogether premature. The time likely to be occupied by the inquiry must depend on the method employed by the members of the staff in presenting their cases. He hoped they would select people competent to speak on their behalf and to put their case within reasonable limits and without unduly prolonging discussion, so that there would be a Report before any long period had elapsed. At the same time he thought it was more important that the work should be well done, and that the inquiry should result in securing a satisfactory judgment, than that matters should be hastened so as to obtain any Report at a very early stage. The discussion this evening had been chiefly concerned with the interests and grievances of the public. These were too often omitted from their debates on the postal and telegraph services, but they did deserve some attention. After all, the Post Office existed for the service of the public; and, whilst their desire was that employees of the State should be well treated and that its service should be a good service, the raison d'être of the Post Office was that it should be of service to the public.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury called attention to the annual loss which was incurred upon the telegraph service as distinct from the postal service, and invited him to give to the Committee detailed reasons for the loss. The deficit was due to a variety of causes. He thought, in the first place, that the State paid an exorbitant sum when it originally bought the telegraphs. The Government of this country were more tender in regard to private interests than most other Governments were, and the result was that, when the State decided to take over the telegraphs, it had to pay a sum which not only forestalled future profits, but, he thought, exceeded any profits which could be
  280
  fairly taken into account at that time. In the next place, in recent years there had been two streams of public opinion constantly washing against the Post Office and producing their effect upon its policy. One was the demand, admirably represented by his hon. friend the Member for Canterbury, for greater facilities for the public in every respect. The other was the demand, represented on both sides of the House, for higher pay to the servants of the State in whatever position they served. If, during a period of years, they had a steady increase in the cost of labour and a steady reduction in the price at which they supplied their finished product or gave their service to the public, he was afraid the result was bound to be what they said in regard to the telegraphs—a deficit instead of a profit. But the House of Commons was master in these matters. It had to decide, in the last resort, whether it was satisfied with the treatment of the employees; and it must decide also whether the public ought to get increased benefits as senders of telegrams or whether they were to get; increased benefits as the owners of the telegraph system of the country. They could not have it both ways. They could not raise wages and increase the services rendered to the public and at the same time decrease the loss or turn the loss into a profit. The endeavour of his predecessors and himself had been to hold the balance fairly between these conflicting claims—to see that the State was not a discreditable employer of labour, to give to that section of the public which were their customers such facilities as they fairly could, and then to come to the House of Commons to support them when they refused, in the interests of the public at large, to confer extravagant benefits on particular individuals or classes.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. friend, but I do desire that he will tell the Committee the amount of money expended on the employees and the amount of concession given to the public. I can tell the Committee in a moment. It is £600,000 to the employees and about £20,000 to the public.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid his hon. friend had been good enough to save him the necessity of replying to the question.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if the £600,000 was for telegraph employees alone.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that the sum referred to was for postal employés generally. He thought that in some directions there were signs of improvement in their telegraph service. They were now embarking more and more largely on the telephone system, which he hoped would be a remunerative investment. He did not want the State to make an exaggerated profit out of the business it conducted; but, on the other hand, he held that if they gave up the idea of profit altogether they probably gave up also sound business management and the best incentive to economy and efficiency. He did not think they ought to supply to what was only a section of the public, after all, a great service at the cost of the public as a whole, or without making a reasonable return on the capital which the public as a whole had put into the business. If he was right in his expectations that their telephone service would prove to be remunerative, and he would do his best to make it so, the telephone being part of the monopoly of the Postmaster-General, that would come in to reduce the deficit on the telegraph service. It was true that already a reduction was made in the deficit by the telephone system, for they drew in royalties from the National Telephone Company something like £ 150,000 a year in aid of their revenue. He did not think that with the telegraph service in its present condition the Committee should expect that the Treasury, or even the Postmaster-General, should be willing to launch out in large fresh concessions involving greatly increased expenditure without commensurate return. His hon. friend had said they were collecting a revenue of something like £60,000 a year from those who registered telegraph addresses—a rather mean way of obtaining revenue, he thought—and that they ought to give it up and allow twenty words without addresses, or a less
  282
  number of words including addresses. He had found many difficulties arising out of the present arrangement, but he thought that nearly every difficulty he had to confront arose out of some concession made to the public demand by one of his predecessors. And when those officials, to whom he was so greatly indebted, and to whom his hon. friend did scant justice when he spoke of their efforts to serve the public, came to him with criticisms or with objections to suggestions which he made, it was only to save him from the fate of having added to the difficulties of his successors, as he was sometimes inclined to reproach his predecessors past and gone for having landed him in these difficulties. There was the £60,000 with which his hon. friend taunted him. He should be glad to drop that sum tomorrow if he could give up the registered addresses with it, and he should consider it the best stroke of business that any Postmaster-General had done for a long time. But he could not give up the registered addresses. It had got too firm a hold on the public. Even if he could do away with it for domestic purposes, he could not do it for foreign and colonial messages. But if his hon. friend thought that the £60,000 paid the Post Office for the trouble, the inconvenience, and the interruption of working which were caused by the system of registered addresses he made a great mistake. He should be very glad to get rid of registered addresses if he could.
  There had been recently introduced by the engineers of the telegraph service of the Post Office a switch-board something like the switch-board which was in operation in the telephone system throughout the country. The system hitherto had been that practically every branch office in London wishing to communicate with another district office had to telegraph into the Central Telegraph Office in London, the message had to be read off, written out, carried to another operator in the same building, and again telegraphed. That system was cumbersome, slow, and gave an added risk of mistakes; but there had not been business enough to enable them to run a wire between the offices. They had now, however, got this arrangement of a switchboard by which, say, Kensington, could be switched straight through to Chelsea, thus saving the

  283
  operation at the Central Telegraph Office. There had been difficulties in the way, but the engineers had successfully overcome them, and the system was working very satisfactorily in a great number of offices with a great saving of time in the delivery of messages and a certain saving of labour. As to the registration of addresses, he had looked very carefully into the matter. It must be borne in mind that there were thousands of them in London alone; a register had to be compiled and kept up to date in every office, and there were alterations to be made and circulated daily. If he could have seen his way to giving a free address with a slightly reduced number of words to the message, he would have done so gladly; but there were obstacles in the way, and he was quite sure he should have the whole commercial community against him in regard to such a change.
  He hoped he might be able to announce before very long some further reduction in certain of the rates to foreign countries. But it was not quite so simple a matter as his hon. friend the Member for Canterbury in his enthusiasm seemed to think; it was a matter of negotiation with foreign countries and cable companies. Very complex interests had sometimes to be dealt with. There were many things which he was prepared to do and to which he believed he could secure the assent of the Treasury without much difficulty; but the assent of foreign countries was also necessary. They must also bear in mind that the strategic and other interests of this country in the great cable system of the world must be considered. We were the pioneers of that system, and in that regard English enterprise, industry, and capital had no doubt done magnificent work. He should lose no opportunity that offered of securing a reduction In passing he must say that his hon. friend was over-sanguine as to the results of reductions, cable traffic did not respond rapidly to reductions in rates. The Australian traffic had made no great progress since the great reductions that had taken place, and the South African traffic was perhaps the one instance to the contrary. They must also remember that while 3s. 6d. or 10s. 6d. per word seemed a
  284
  monstrous rate to pay, yet that word, thanks to the use of codes and ciphers, generally conveyed a whole sentence, or as much as an ordinary Parliamentary report gave of five minutes' talk — and, if they considered it as a rate for information conveyed, the charges were by no means so monstrous as they appeared to be at first sight. Lord Balfour's Committee came to the conclusion that, speaking generally, the rates were not exorbitant. There were some exceptions, and to these he had been giving his attention. He could not at present give the Committee any further information; but he hoped, in connection with the International Telegraph Conference, that they might arrive at some further reductions. More than that he could not say.
  As to the other questions raised by his hon. friend, he did not propose at the present time to adopt the policy of purchase in regard to the Spanish cable. They were in communication with the company as to the terms on which the rates might be renewed, and would do their best to serve the public. As to the rates between mermany and Spain, it must be re-Gembered that the German Government subsidised their cable. With regard to wireless telegraphy, his hon. friend seemed to have rather inconsistent ideas. If he were quite as certain of the possibilities of the future of wireless telegraphy as his hon. friend was, this would not be the moment at which he should press upon his friends the claims of investments in cable shares. He did not think those who owned cable shares had any occasion to become frightened about their investments; but he did not know that it was a moment for launching out in great cable speculation. Before doing so he thought they might well watch the progress of Mr. Marconi's system. He was bound to say that scant justice had been done to the Post Office in this matter by various speakers. Long before the inventions of Mr. Marconi had reached their present point he received such facilities as the Post Office could give for his experiments. The Post Office did everything they could to assist what they thought might be a great progress in civilisation, and they had neither shown any disposition to strangle the invention at its birth nor to prevent its development and success.
  *SIR JOHN LENG: Then why the long delay with the communication at Poldhu?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would deal with that point later on: he was now on the general question. The Post Office had had no desire to strangle the invention or prevent its full development, but they had, however, desired not to bind themselves to give away the rights of the Postmaster-General in the same way in which they were given away in regard to telephones, before the importance of telephones was seen. For that action his predecessors and himself had never ceased to be criticised, and the Post Office had still to bear the burden. At present they knew very little about wireless telegraphy. We knew very little of the conditions under which wireless telegraphy would have to be worked. In most countries the Post Office was in the position of a monopolist; but in this country the monopoly of the Postmaster-General did not cover communications with a foreign shore or outside the three-mile limit. The Post Office, therefore, could not strangle the invention even if it wanted to. Their business communications had not been with Mr. Marconi, though personally his relations with that gentleman had been most friendly. They had been dealing with the company which possessed the inventor's rights. The company did not ask merely for what the cable companies had. They asked for an exclusive right to work wireless telegraphy in this country, and they asked for permanence. He could not give them either. He said he would give them a private wire at Poldhu; and when they applied for it they had that private wire, and they had had it for some time past. There was no difficulty at any time about the company's having their private wire on ordinary terms, or obtaining delivery of any messages sent to them from any point in this country, or having messages received at Poldhu put on the Post Office wires. But they asked the Post Office to become their agents for the collection of messages to be transmitted by their wireless system in the same way that anybody could hand in a message at any post office to be transmitted by the cable companies. He wrote explaining generally the terms
  286
  on which he was prepared to act, and laid down certain conditions he would have to enforce in order to prevent interference with the Admiralty for strategic reasons and to safeguard national interests. He further said they must satisfy his technical officers of what was disputed by him—namely, that the company were in a position to carry on their business and transmit messages from one side of the Atlantic to the other. That letter was written on March 31st last, and he was still waiting for a reply. He did not complain of the delay in the least; but he did complain that the delay should Le attributed to the Post Office. When they were in a position to write him to send down his technical officers, and when he was satisfied that the company were in a position to carry on the business, he would be prepared to meet them, but he was not prepared to collect money from the public until he was satisfied that the company could do its share of the work. The Committee would see that the conditions he had laid down were such as were necessary to safeguard the national interests, as well as the strategic interests, of this country. There was nothing to prevent the Board of Trade using the Marconi apparatus: indeed, he believed his right hon. friend the head of the Department was in communication with the company on the subject.
  As regarded the progress of underground wires to the North, in a statement he made to the Scotch Chambers of Commerce early in the year he explained what progress had been made in the past year and the programme for this year, which he believed would be fulfilled before the end of the year. He thought the Post Office deserved great credit for the constant progress that had been made in the scientific development of these underground cables. The sum provided for I this purpose during the last two years was £30,000 a year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided this year £130,000, and the fact that they were making rapid progress with this work in part accounted for the increased expenditure to which attention had been drawn. Another part of the increase

  287
  was due to the extension of the telephone system in London. Information had been asked for with regard to the progress of the London telephone system. Considerable difficulties had had to be overcome in connection with local authorities, and so forth, but he had had a good many interviews with local authorities, and was glad to say that the relations of the Post Office with those bodies were now on a much better footing than they had been hitherto, and he hoped that in the future there would be less friction than in the past. They had laid about 1,000 miles of pipes under the streets of London to carry the cables, and into those pipes they had already drawn over 100,000 miles of wires. The net result was that during the last six months there bad been a most rapid increase in the number of telephone subscribers and in the number of calls. Of course he had had complaints, but the friction had mostly been between the Post Office exchanges and the Telephone Company, and not in consequence of bad working on the part of the Post Office system itself. He regretted that the Post Office monopoly in this matter had ever been made the subject of licences to any private company at all. This was not a suitable matter for competition. It was one of those cases in which the public could only lose by competition and could only gain by a monopoly, and if there was a monopoly it ought to be in the hands of a public authority. In a great part of the country the licence of the Telephone Company came to an end in 1911; and he could not conceive that after that period any Postmaster-General would ever allow the system to pass out of his hands again. The Post Office were steadily extending their system in various directions. The Central London Exchange was, he thought, already the biggest exchange in the world, and they were looking forward to an enormous development in a few years.
  One other matter had been mentioned, viz., the International Telegraph Conference. That Conference was mainly concerned with the details of telegraph administration. These details had their interest for the public, as on them depended the smooth working
  288
  and efficiency of the international telegraph system, but at the same time they were matters of detail and not suited for discussion in this House. With regard to the question of the reduction of charge, they might obtain some advantage, but he could not say more at present. Then there was the question of the compulsory adoption of the Berne vocabulary for all codes. He had instructed the British delegates to oppose the compulsory adoption of that vocabulary. He could not say what the decision of the Conference would be; but he felt strongly that the disadvantages to the commercial community which would result from its adoption would far outweigh any possible advantages which it might have from an administrative point of view, and he hoped the Conference would come to the same view.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELpointed out that under the main heads of the Vote the money asked for was required for both telegraphic and telephonic purposes, so that it was impossible to tell the actual cost of either service. He hoped that next year the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to frame the Estimate in such a way as to separate the telegraph from the telephone charges.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would be very glad if he could do as the hon. Member suggested, but in point of law telephones were telegraphs, and it was by virtue of that fact the Postmaster-General enjoyed his present monopoly. Consequently the telephone service had always been treated as part of the telegraph system, and it would be impossible now to unravel the accounts which had been kept conjointly for so many years past. As far as the London system was concerned, however, he proposed to keep the charges separate, so as to be able to judge whether the charges made were fair, and whether they resulted in a profit or a loss.
  MR. FREDRICK WILSONurged that more liberality should be shown in encouraging the establishment of telegraphic offices in villages. He believed that if that were done the necessary guarantees would gladly be given.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he hoped that the Government would do nothing to identify themselves with the Marconi system of telegraphy as against other systems which had been more successful but not so well advertised. He submitted that the time had not arrived when the Government should identify themselves with any particular system; and he hoped that the House would be given an opportunity of considering the question before any large expenditure was incurred.
  MR. MARKHAMthought the statement of the Postmaster-General was an extraordinary one. Did the Department really not know what profit was made on the telegraph system, and what on the telephone system? There ought to be a profit and loss account of each service, otherwise the concern was not being carried on on sound business principles.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELLsuggested that the sender of a telegram should be allowed to insert in the form the time at which he handed in the message according to the post-office clock. He had had personal experience of the delay caused in the offices, a telegram which he had sent having been post-timed twenty minutes by the clerk. He desired to refer also to the giving of a contract to a firm in which a Member of the House had a direct pecuniary interest. By a statute of George III. Members were forbidden to have any such interest in Government contracts. This particular contract was for a number of telephone cabinets, most of which had had to be returned for alterations. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what were the prices quoted by private contractors as against those of Messrs. Maple and Co. As to the telephone charges, he believed the charge for a three-minutes conversation with Dublin was 5s. or 6s. This he thought was exorbitant, and ought to be reduced.
  MR. DALZIELreferred to the establishment of telephone call-offices in public-houses. Such an arrangement was exceedingly awkward, as persons desiring to use the telephone had to push their way through perhaps a dozen
  290
  people in the bar before they could get to the instrument. The public interest would be better served by other places, equally convenient, being secured for the purpose.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he entirely agreed with the hon. Member, and he would never establish a telephone call-office in a public-house if other suitable premises could be secured. But anybody in the London area could have a telephone at the message rate, and allow it to be used by the public.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether they could charge on the penny-in-the-slot system.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they could, and many tradesmen, especially in the suburbs, found it a great convenience and benefit to have a telephone and allow their customers to use it. He could not make a special law to prevent publicans doing the same as other people, but he could assure the hon. Member that no action had been taken by the Post Office to make publicans their agents in this matter. The points mentioned by the hon. Member for South Armagh had already been brought before his notice by Questions across the floor of the House, and he had already told the hon. Member that the cabinets had previously been made not by private firms, but in the Post Office factory, and that it would not be to the public interest to state the prices quoted by the different firms. The Act to which the hon. Member had referred had no bearing whatever on the case. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, as he had already stated, it would be impossible to analyse past expenditure, and say how much had been spent on the separate services, although he quite agreed that the more they could find out how much each service cost the better it would be.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS IV.
  2 £88,619, to complete the sum for British Museum.
  MR. SOARESdrew attention to the newspapers stored at Hendon, and said that speedy reference to the speeches of politicians was of considerable importance in these days. Before one could look up a speech of the Colonial Secretary, for example, and go to Hendon and back, its interest might be out of date. He asked for information as to the spaces acquired by the authorities, the number of officers lodged on the premises of the British Museum, and as to the purchase of plots of land for the purpose of extending the Museum. Were they establishing a system of residential flats for officials at the British Museum? That was a very important question, having regard to the risk of fire.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he was glad to notice that at last the catalogues at the British Museum had been attended to He complained, however, that the Government did not provide sufficient money to bind the books and papers at the Museum. The answer given to this complaint was that the money was given to the authorities to spend, and they dealt with the expenditure as they thought fit; but he had heard from the officials that the amount of money they received from the Government was not sufficient to enable them to have all the books and papers properly bound. As this was a great national institution, he appealed to the Secretary to the Treasury to see that a sufficient sum of money was granted to enable the authorities not only to catalogue the exhibits properly, but also to have the various books and papers properly bound, so as to preserve them. Many valuable books and papers had been lying there two and three years unbound, and they were rapidly deteriorating.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that it was a very reasonable and economical course to acquire land for the purpose of storing newspapers at Hendon. He thought that there was no danger about looking up the speeches of statesmen, and there were not many who had recourse to the British Museum for the purpose. He understood that progress was being made with the buildings at Hendon, and he indicated that the policy of late
  292
  had been not to have many persons living on the Museum premises. The hon. Member for Mansfield said that there was not enough money voted to enable the trustees of the British Museum to carry on the work of binding in an efficient manner, and that in consequence valuable papers were deteriorating. All he could say was that the allocation of the money voted was the business of those who managed the British Museum. He had received no such complaint as that to which the hon. Member had referred, but if it were brought to his attention he would do all he could to see that the papers of which the British Museum trustees were the guardians were properly bound, and looked after, and preserved.
  MR. SOARESasked if all the twelve officials lived on the premises, and was this number greater than last year? All the hon. Gentleman had said was that there was a tendency to reduce the number.
  MR. ELLIOTin reply was understood to say that the chief officers still lived on the premises and he did not think it was desirable that the whole of them should be removed from the British Museum. They could not be expected to sweep everybody out of the precincts of the Museum and make a clean sweep of the officials, for that would not be a wise thing to do. They were, however, moving in the direction of reducing the number of officials who lived on the premises.
  MR. WHITLEYasked for an explanation of the great increase in the salaries upon this Vote. This great increase could not be due to merely normal annual increases, and he thought they required some explanation.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Asked if the officials referred to actually lived upon the premises of the British Museum, were the buildings which they inhabited connected by bricks and mortar with the same building in which the priceless treasures of the British Museum were contained? If so there must be a very great danger from fire which could be

  293
  averted by providing residences within the precincts but not actually in contact and connected with the British Museum itself. He believed that some shops had been purchased on one side of the National Gallery in order to isolate that building from all danger of fire from domestic dwellings. If it was possible to spend money in this way for the protection of the pictures in the National Gallery surely the same thing could be done in regard to the British Museum.
  MR. ELLIOTwas understood to reply that it was necessary for some of the officials to reside in the Museum building, and that some of the officials had residences which were not actually connected with the Museum building.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked if the Secretary to the Treasury would make some inquiry on this point in order to remove these defects in case they existed.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he would do so. He did not at all complain that the matter had been raised, and he would always be grateful for any suggestions for the proper protection of the valuable collections at the Museum. With regard to the salaries he would remind the hon. Member for Halifax that the British Museum was every year increasing in value and importance, and, therefore, it was necessary that there should be a corresponding increase in the salaries and allowances.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £7,027, to complete the sum for National Gallery.
  MR HERBERT SAMUELasked what progress had been made in checking the danger of fire at the National Gallery.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he believed some progress had been made in removing buildings and in freeing the Gallery from the risk which undoubtedly might have been caused by the near presence of private property.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELLasked who was responsible for the pictures purchased with the nation's money.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that new pictures were purchased upon the authority of the directors of the National Gallery.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. £2,445, to complete the sum for National Portrait Gallery.
  5. £3,281, to complete the sum for Wallace Collection.
  MR. WHITLEYdrew attention to a very heavy charge for framing, in Item C, on page 385, He wished to know whether this amount was likely to continue to appear on the Estimates. They were asked to vote the sum of £1,900. That was a type of expenditure which ought not to be a permanently recurring one. He asked whether the hon. Gentleman could assure the Committee that this £1,900 would be the last of such large items, and whether the amount now to be voted would put the Collection in a satisfactory condition.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid the present amount was very much reduced from that of last year, but still it was far beyond what might be expected to be the normal charge. He believed there was to be some change in the management. He hoped and believed there would be a considerable reduction in the expenditure this year.
  MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid there was room for considerable economy in regard to the Wallace Collection, looking to the cost of that Gallery compared with others.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether the Board of Works was going to take over the Wallace Collection.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he understood that was so.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the Board of Works was hardly a suitable body to take over the Collection. If there was anything of that sort in the wind the hon. Gentleman should tell the Committee now. He asked whether there was any idea of interfering with the existing trustees.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he understood that it had been suggested that the Board of Works should undertake the management of the internal arrangements.
  Vote agreed to.
  6. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,780, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for sundry Grants in aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."
  *MR. BRIGGsaid that the term scientific investigation as applied to the grants which were made in this instance was an entire misnomer, inasmuch as a large portion of it was used for purposes which could not, by any stretch of imagination, be called scientific investigation. The amount expended by this nation as compared with other nations on really valuable scientific research was very small indeed. Of the £5,000 placed at the disposal of the Royal Society, from which grants were made for scientific research, only about £715 was devoted to the advancement of industry. That sum was expended in small grants of £7, £10, or £20 to men who might have valuable ideas, but before they received these sums they were obliged to submit the matters to the Committee of the Royal Society. He instanced what was being done by Germany in regard to aniline dyes, which were originally invented in this country, as showing that in the expenditure we made for scientific research we were behind other countries. Considering the valuable industries we had we ought to make larger grants for this purpose.
  *CAPTAIN C. B. BALFOURasked whether the maintenance of the Ben Nevis Observatory was provided for in the Vote. He understood it was the only high level observatory in Great Britain and Ireland. In France, on the other hand, there were several high level stations, which were considered to be of great value. There
  296
  was a question last year of the abolition of the Ben Nevis Observatory altogether. He hoped this was not contemplated.
  MR. DALZIELexpressed surprise that the Vote did not include the amount which he understood the Government contemplated authorising in connection with the Antarctic Expedition. He urged the Government, before absolutely committing themselves to the amount, to satisfy themselves that the expenditure which had already been incurred had been wisely incurred. Certain facts had been put before him tending to show that there had been an enormous amount of absolute extravagance.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid it would be perfectly right to inquire into expenditure after it was incurred, but he could not see how that could take place before it was incurred to get men out of the difficulty—into which they had gone by our assistance. The question of maintaining Ben Nevis Observatory was under consideration. The investigations for which it was established being complete, it was a question whether there was anything to be gained from the maintenance. It might be that not much more would be gained by maintaining the observatory on Ben Nevis than would be gained by having an observatory more conveniently situated.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the Secretary to the Treasury had made a general answer in regard to the assistance to be given to the Antarctic Expedition, but this question was much too important to be brushed aside by an answer like that. In the absence of any promise to make inquiry into the expenditure extravagantly incurred he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,680, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  MR. MARKHAMthought the Secretary to the Treasury must have forgotten the letter of the Prime Minister on the subject, which was on the same line as the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid, from the fact that the Prime Minister regretted the expense incurred it did not follow that we should refuse the necessary expense for rescuing the expedition in distress. It was no question of extravagance by the Government; it was not a Government expedition, but an expedition to the cost of which the Government contributed with others.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Motion for reduction was a protest against the refusal to make inquiry into the accusations of extravagance.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid there had been nothing more than a general statement; there had been no specific charge. If the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs would make a specific charge, and lay it before him, then possibly he might be induced to change his mind. At present he could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the insinuation which had been made with regard to the cost of the expedition having been grossly underestimated was made by the Prime Minister. Surely that ought not to be brushed aside by a general remark by the hon. Member. His hon. friend asked that before a further sum was granted for this purpose the accounts of the expedition should be closely looked into. While they all recognised that these unfortunate people should be rescued from the predicament in which they were now placed, there should be some guarantee given on the part of the Admiralty or the Treasury that funds should not be devoted to any purposes other than were absolutely necessary to rescue these navigators. He understood that a sum of money had been given to the Government for this very purpose, and that a further sum was proposed to be added.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is not on the Vote we are now discusing.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he noticed under item L, 6, that there was a heading "National Antarctic Expedition." He imagined there was only one "National Antarctic Expedition."
  MR. ELLIOT: That is last year's subscription to the expedition.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that if they were not allowed to press this matter now, might they get an assurance that a similar item would not appear on the Supplementary Votes until a more satisfactory explanation had been given to the questions put on this point. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could give any explanation as to the actual position of these unfortunate navigators, and for what purpose this money was to be spent?
  MR. DALZIELsaid that on a general Vote of this kind they were surely entitled to ask a question as to what was the general policy of the Government. Of course they were not going to stop to inquire into expenditure when life was at stake; but the suggestion that because public contributions had been given this was not a Government matter, was a most extraordinary position for the hon. Gentleman to take up. This was public money, and all he asked was that the hon. Gentleman would undertake that he would personally inquire into the charges of extravagance which had been made by the Prime Minister himself and into the accounts, and the manner in which the estimates of the cost of the Expedition had been prepared. That was what they had a Secretary to the Treasury for. They were not asking too much. They did not ask him to give a declaration that would bind the whole of the Cabinet; that was impossible for the hon. Gentleman to do, even with all his intellectual attainments It was in the interests of the public, and of his own Department, that the hon. Gentleman should undertake to make this personal investigation.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid it was quite clear now that the hon. Member did not think that the rescue should be made in any way conditional on this proposed investigation. He was very glad to hear that. He had not heard the Prime Minister's statement the other day, but he did not understand that the Prime Minister had made any charges of maladministration in respect of moneys already subscribed. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was the business of the Department to make investigation without any particulars being given. If the

  AYES.

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Brigg, John

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Crooks, William

  M'Crae, George

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ellis, John Edward

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fenwick, Charles

  Shackleton, David James

  Mr. Dalziel and Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Markham.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfleld-

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Joicey, Sir James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawson, Ja. Grant (Yorks. N R.)

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Flower, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Bignold, Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brassey, Albert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Garfit, William

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Bull, William James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Malcolm, Ian

  Butcher, John George

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Cavendish, V C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Chapman, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord. G. (Mid'x

  Myers, William Henry

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Randles, John S.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Denny, Colonel

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  hon. Member had a grievance and would lay before him facts and particulars which made it appear probable that there had been maladministration of funds, then certainly he should look into the matter, and, if necessary, press for a proper inquiry. Beyond that he could not go.
  Question put.
  Committee divided:—Ayes, 36; Noe3, 119. (Division List No. 115.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Talbot Rt. Hn. J. G. Oxfd Univ.

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

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  7. £77,100, to complete the sum for Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales.
  Resolutions to be reported.

  CLASS VII.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £27,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries:"—
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he wished to draw attention to the item of £431 for the Colonisation Board. This was a Board which was first appointed about seventeen years ago, when a grant of £17,000 was made to send out certain crofters from the Highlands of Scotland to places called Saltcoats and Killarney, in Canada. This Board was appointed to look after these crofters, and the cost of it had been £6,000, although the advances made to them for the purpose of obtaining implements, stock, and starting them in business only amounted to £10,000. In a footnote to the Estimate it was stated that annual Reports were rendered to
  302
  Parliament by the Board. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury when any such Report was rendered, for he had not been able to discover one, or what the Board had been doing, except expending every year £430. The matter was brought before the Committee in Supply in 1897, when Mr. Hanbury, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, promised that the proceedings of the Board would be brought to an end. The whole scheme of the Settlements at Saltcoats and Killarney had fallen through; it was a perfect failure; and the whole of the money had been practically lost, and yet they were spending £430 a year in continuing to look after the lost money! One gentleman was paid £100 a year as Secretary to the Board, and another gentleman in Canada received £250 a year, and £75 a year for travelling expenses, in looking after what and whom? In 1891, Dr. Clarke went out to Canada to see for himself what was being done, and he stated that so far as the Saltcoats Settlement was concerned every one of the crofters had sold up, and gone elsewhere. They were hopelessly bankrupt in 1891; and yet ever since then the Government had been paying hundreds of pounds every year. He wanted to know what the men who received that money did. According to a note in the Estimate they had to render annual Reports to Parliament. Where were those annual Reports? He had searched for them, but

  303
  could not find any Report later than 1897. How much money had they recovered? Of course the Secretary to the Treasury would get up in this case also and express his sympathy. But they wanted facts. They wanted to know what the Commission was doing, and if they had recovered a penny of money. What was the use of saying that annual Reports were to be presented to Parliament when they were not presented. It was bad enough that the money which had been advanced should be lost; but why should they go on year after year paying more money in the vain attempt to recover it?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to reply, as he was more familiar with the matter than his hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury. The question was an old one; though it was perhaps not amiliar to some hon. Members. The colonisation scheme in Canada was on the whole, no doubt, not successful. He was glad that the hon. Member had reminded the Committee of Dr. Clarke, because if anything was calculated to conduce to the failure of the experiment, it was the visit of Dr. Clarke and the speeches he made. He need not say anything more about that, as they all knew what Dr. Clarke's speeches were like. The hon. Gentleman would remember that a Commission was sent out to Canada under Professor Rankine to report on the state of affairs there. That Commission reported, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman read the Report. If not, he was charmed to find one Blue-book with which the hon. Gentleman was not familiar. He was speaking from memory,
  304
  but he thought the Report was presented to Parliament about three or four years ago, and he was sure that the hon. Gentleman's reading was not so far behind as that. The experiment was actually closed, in the technical sense of the word, as far as the Government was concerned; but certain people were left in the position of tenants. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there was no use in throwing good money after bad; but, at the same time, it would be utterly foolish not to collect the rents. The expenses in Canada were strictly limited, and were devoted to what he might call winding up the concern. The Government hoped that in two or throe years the experiment would cease altogether.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the Lord Advocate had given precisely the answer which he had expected from the Secretary to the Treasury. What he wanted to know was why Reports had not been presented to Parliament, although it was stated in the Estimates that an Annual Report was presented. He also wished to know what was the value of the property, and what amount of rent was collected? Were they paying £420 a year to collect £50? It was no use saying that the affair would be wound up in two or three years. In 1897, the late Mr. Hanbury said it ought to be wound up at once. Surely, if the Lord Advocate remembered the contents of the Report so well, he would be able to tell the Committee what was the value of the property. He did not find fault with the Lord Advocate, as the matter was sprung on him, and he could not be expected to know all the details. But they did expect that the Secretary to the Treasury, when he asked money for a

  305
  Commission, should be able to tell the Committee what that Commission was doing, and what value they were getting for the expenditure. They had received no information whatever on the subject, and he would move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,900, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. DALZIELsaid he thought the Committee was much indebted to his hon. friend for directing attention to a matter which, in his judgment, required the consideration of the Government. A note in the Estimates stated that Annual Reports were presented to Parliament; but Parliament had not received Annual Reports; and the Government were unable to give the Committee any information with reference to the present state of affairs. It was perhaps a small point, but it served to show how the Government regarded more important matters. He did not suppose that any Government ever had so many special inquiries on hand as the present Government, which ought to be known as the Government of temporary Commissions and permanent omissions. Whenever they got into trouble they forthwith appointed a Commission, which went on inquiring year after year. He wished to put a few questions to the Secretary to the Treasury. At what stage was the Historical Manuscripts Commission at the present time? What particular work had it been doing during the last year or two? The Sewage Disposal Commission was at work for a large
  306
  number of years; could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee when there was a prospect of that inquiry coming to an end? The public did not seem to take any very great interest in it. Then as to the Commission on the South African War. While the war was in progress they were assured that it was unpatriotic to ask any questions about the huge and admitted blunders which had been committed. They were told that when the war was over there would be a full and complete inquiry; and that responsibility for blunders would be placed on the proper shoulders. They had some difficulty in getting the inquiry appointed at all; and when they got it they found it was only to deal with certain portions of the war; and that the Commission was debarred from inquiring into many matters in which the country was interested. Therefore, the Commission could not be regarded as of a satisfactory character. Another complaint in regard to it was that it was in a position to practically cook the reports of the evidence. It might be that where the honour and capacity of some of the leading British generals were concerned, that all the evidence should not be published; but it was quite a different matter to keep back evidence with reference to salient points of the investigation. The inquiry had been conducted with closed doors. The representatives of newspapers had not been admitted, but had been supplied with reports cooked to suit the chairman and certain members of the Commission. Even when the Report was presented to Parliament, this House would not be in a position to judge of its value, as it would not have the evidence before it. Could the hon.

  307
  Gentleman tell the Committee the exact stage which this inquiry had reached? Had it completed its evidence; and how soon might they reasonably expect its report?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he had now in his hand the Report for last year of the Commission to which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had referred.
  MR. BRIGGsaid he thought that one item on page 504, namely, repayments to the Local Loans Fund, was misleading. The amount was £19,359; but a small note stated that that sum had been written off. The meaning of it was that bad debts had been contracted by the Government, and had now been wiped off as of no value. He should like to know how many more bad debts the Government had.
  MR. SOARESsaid he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could inform the Committee as to the present position of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis. Many thousands of people were waiting to know whether tuberculosis could be conveyed to human beings through milk. The Commission had been sitting for nearly two years; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to say that he expected its Report very shortly.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for the Keighley Division should rather be addressed to the Local Loans Fund Board. With reference to the South African Commission he knew, as a
  308
  matter of fact, that the evidence had been completed, and that the Commission was now considering its Report. As to when that Report would be presented, the Commission was entirely master of its own time and proceedings. With reference to the Tuberculosis Commission, he was not in a position to give any information as so when its Report would be presented. It was not a matter within his control.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that apart from the question whether hon. Members found Reports in the library or not, they expected that when the Government asked for money, that they should explain to the Committee what it was wanted for. He did not consider it was the duty of every hon. Member to ferret out such information for himself. He had now seen the Report mentioned by the Lord Advocate. It stated that of eleven settlers nine had discharged their debts in full, and that the other two estates were in progress of changing hands. Were they to continue to pay £431 a year while those two estates were changing hands? He was very much indebted to the Lord Advocate for obtaining the Report. They were now to spend £431 a year for the purpose of recovering—
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Twelve o'clock.