Commons Sitting of 11 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:
  Milford Docks Bill [Lords]; All Saints, Poplar (Rate Abolition), Bill [Lords] Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; South Wales Mineral Railway Bill [Lords]; Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords]; Harrogate Water Bill [Lords]; Pelican and British Empire Life Office Bill [Lords]; Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [Lords]; Wirral Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  283
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th day of May, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:
  Public Offices (Dublin) Bill.
  Scarborough Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Cork Harbour Bill; Coventry Electric Tramways Bill; Gorleston and Southtown Gas Bill; Hyde Corporation Bill; Nelson Corporation Bill; Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Exeter Railway Bill [Lords]; Faversham Gas Bill [Lords]; Hexham Gas Bill [Lords]; India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraphic Works Company Bill [Lords]; Life Association of Scotland Bill [Lords]; Lima Railways Bill [Lords]; North's Navigation Collieries Bill [Lords]; Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Read a second time and committed.
  Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Great Western Railway (Pension Fund) Bill; Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area) Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—
  Queensland Investment Land and Mortgage Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Sutton Coldfield to construct and work tramways, and to make further provision with regard to their electric light undertaking; and for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the Borough; and for other purposes." (Sutton Coldfield Corporation Bill [Lords.])
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Urban District Council of Rickmansworth to purchase the undertaking of the Rickmansworth Gas Company, and to supply Gas; and for other purposes." (Rickmansworth Gas Bill [Lords.])
  Sutton Coldfield Corporation Bill Lords]; Rickmansworth Gas Bill Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Coedmoeth; Pontycelyn; Rudry; Castle; Standish; Ossett Roundwood; Thornhill; Reservoir; Moira; Measham; Netherseal; West Elliott; Sirhowy; East Elliott; Bickershaw; Hindley Green; and Dechmont Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Logierait; Liff and Benvie; Kingoldrun; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Wesleydale; Largs; and Ayr; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Foveran; Chanonry; West Cambuslang; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Wheelton; Gravesend; Busby; Newton Mearns;

  285
  Stafford; Cleator Moor; Millom; Langley Mill and Aldercar; Great Horton; Hackleton; Walgrave; and Pilsley; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Pontycelyn; Rudry; Castle; Standish; Ossett Roundwood; Thornhill; Reservoir; Moira; Measham; Netherseal; West Elliott; Sirhowy; East Elliott; Dechmont; and Coedmoeth Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COUNTY COUNCIL (IRELAND) (SALARIES).
  Return [presented 8th May] to be printed. (No. 152.)
  ARMY (COMMISSIONS).
  Return [presented 8th May] to be printed. (No. 153.)
  VOLUNTEERS.
  Return [presented 8th May] to be printed. (No. 154.)
  MILITARY WORKS AND STORES.
  Return [presented 8th May] to be printed. No. (155.)
  JUDICUL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales, 1901, Part II. (Civil Judicial Statistics), edited by John Macdonell, Esq., C.B., Master of the Supreme Court [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DLSTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Durham altering certain Polling Districts in the North Western Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Straits Settlements Currency Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 384 (St. Lucia, Annual Report for 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 385 (St. Vincent, Annual Report for 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  LUNACY.
  Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between 1st October, 1902, and 31st March, 1903 [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Procedure of Ecclesiastical Courts.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, upon the resignation of Sir Arthur Charles of the office of Dean of Arches and Judge under the Public Worship Regulation Act, His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of improving the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Courts, modernising their procedure, and, if necessary, altering the duties, emoluments, and tenure of the officers; and whether, in the case of any fresh appointment, arrangements could be made for the next Judge under the Public Worship Regulation Act to assist the Judges of the High Court in their duties under Special Commission or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am far from suggesting the opinion that the present Ecclesiastical Courts might not be usefully reformed both as to their constitution and procedure, but I could not undertake to make substantive proposals on so difficult a subject in the near future. As regards the Dean of Arches the appointment rests with the two Archbishops, and Mr. Dibdin, K.C., has been appointed to the vacant office.

  The Navy List.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the Navy List for April the names of engineer captains and engineer commanders follow the names of lieutenants of the navigating and other branches; and whether he will arrange that in future in the Navy List the names of officers borne on the books of each of His Majesty's ships shall be entered in the order of their rank and seniority in accordance with the new scheme, including officers of all branches, engineers or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The arrangement of names of officers in the Navy List follows the ordinary practice, which is considered to be both reasonable and convenient. The names of the wardroom and gunroom officers, respectively, of different branches serving in His Majesty's ships have always been placed in separate lists, each list being arranged according to seniority. The duties performed by the officers of the Executive Branch, the Engineering Branch, the Royal Marine Branch, the Medical Staff, and the Paymaster Branch are distinct from one another, and the branches are therefore differentiated in the Official List.

  Pacific Cable—Interruption of Service.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state on what sections of the land line of telegraphic communication between the United Kingdom and Australia, viâ Canada and the Pacific Cable, the several interruptions have taken place; whether any section of the land line was specially laid in connection with the Pacific Cable; and, if so, what section.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) All the interruptions occurred on the land line between the cable station at Bamfield and Vancouver City, the western portion of which line was specially constructed for the Pacific Cable traffic.

  New Lighthouses in the Red Sea.
  MR. HELDER: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  288
  Affairs if he can state when the four new lighthouses erected by the Turkish Government in the southern portion of the Red Sea, and completed and tested in 1902, are likely to be lighted for the benefit of shipping.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) His Majesty's Government learn that the delay in putting the four new lighthouses referred to into operation, arises from a dispute between the Turkish Ministry of Marine and the Administration des Phares over certain items in the account presented by the latter for the construction of the lighthouses. The question of funds for working expenses, and for the salaries of the staff is also not yet settled. His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has represented to the Turkish Government the serious importance of putting the lights into operation at as early a date as possible; and the question will not be lost sight of.

  Mails to Scotland—Delays.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the times stipulated in the contracts with the London and North Western, the Caledonian, and the Highland Railways at which the Scotch mails leaving London at night are to be handed over at Carlisle, Perth, and Inverness, respectively; and if he will state the occasions during which these mails were late in being handed over, and the extent of the delays, from the 1st June, 1902, to the 31st October, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The down night mail trains from London for Scotland forwarded by the West Coast railways are due on week-days at 2.48 a.m. at Carlisle, at 5.54. a.m. at Perth, and 9.30 a.m. at Inverness. I am sorry to say that, owing mainly to the great increase in the quantity of the parcel mails conveyed, this train does not, especially during the summer season, keep good time, and that during the period referred to by the hon. Member it was late almost every day. Various alterations have from time to time been made in the service with the view of ensuring greater punctuality, but so far little improvement in this respect has been

  289
  effected. The matter is still under consideration, but I fear that the only effectual remedy will be to make a substantial reduction in the parcel mails forwarded by this train. The adoption of this course will to some extent affect the time of delivery of the parcels excluded, and the inquiries now in progress are being made to ascertain what parcels would sustain least delay in delivery if left behind for other trains. I have been relucant to authorise such an arrangement, but I think the punctual performance of the letter mail service should not suffer from the growth of the parcel mails.

  Mails to China—Conveyance by the Trans-Siberian Route.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any arrangements have been come to with the Russian Government for the conveyance of mails from this country to China and the Ear East by the Trans-Siberian Railway, having regard to the great saving of time effected in transmission by this route; and whether the mails from Germany to China are carried by the Trans-Siberian route.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am in negotiation with the Russian Government for the conveyance of the British mails to China and the Far East by the Trans-Siberian Railway, but have not yet been able to settle terms. I have reason to believe that German mails for China are likewise not yet forwarded by the Trans-Siberian route.

  Promotion in the Secretary's Department, Inland Revenue.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that clerks of five years service are appointed to principal clerkships in the Secretary's Department of the Inland Revenue at salaries from £600 to £700 a year; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider the advisability of introducing some less expensive method of promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot) It is true that, owing to the occurrence of an unusual number of vacancies, and consequently of an exceptionally rapid flow of promotion, some clerks of
  290
  the first division have obtained promotion to the rank of principal clerk after a service of five years. In no case has a clerk been promoted who was not, in the opinion of the Board of Inland Revenue, fully qualified to discharge the duties of principal clerk.

  H. M. S. "Canopus"—Boiler Repairs.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what repairs are required to the boilers of H.M.S. "Canopus;" and what the cost of the same will be.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The repairs to the boilers of H.M.S. "Canopus" will comprise the renewal of about 30 per cent. of the economiser tubes, the renewal of baffles of steam collectors and down-comer tubes, and general overhaul of casings, brickwork, etc. The estimated cost of carrying out the necessary work is between £6,000 and £7,000.

  Physical Training in Scotland.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Lord Advocate if he can state whether it is intended to adopt the proposal of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland to add a number of medical and sanitary experts to the inspecting staff under the Education Department.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am to refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Lord Advocate to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Renfrew on the 7th of May.†

  Arsenical Poisoning Commission Report.
  SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state when the final Report of the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning, appointed in January, 1901, is likely to be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that the Commission have almost completed their inquiries, and are about to prepare their final Report; but I am unable at present to state when it is likely to be issued.
  † See page 18.

  Alleged Undue Violence at Wandsworth Infirmary.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inquest on Michael Sadler, who died in the Wandsworth Infirmary on 20th April, at which evidence was given of violence on the part of the male attendants, and it was found by the jury that Sadler's death was hastened by undue violence; and whether further inquiry into the matter will be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been called to the inquest referred to, and I have applied to the coroner for a copy of the depositions. I am now in communication with the Guardians on the subject, and on the receipt of their reply and the depositions I shall consider what further action I shall take in the matter.

  Transfers of Voluntary Schools—Public Notice.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, if in the case of a proposed transfer of a voluntary school to the new education authority, it is the duty of that authority, or of the persons proposing to transfer the school, to give the public notice required by Section 8 of the Education Act of last year.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board are advised that the duty of giving the statutory notice of the provision of a new school required by Section 8 of the Education Act falls in every case upon the person or body proposing to provide the school. As the transfer of a school to the local education authority is to be treated as the provision of a new school the duty would, in the case of such a transfer, fall on the local education authority. The Board are further advised that the statutory notice required by Section 8 of the Act cannot be given until the Act is in operation, i.e., until after the appointed day.

  Agriculture and Technical Instruction in County Leitrim.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  292
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the County Council of Leitrim has levied a rate for the purposes of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act; and whether, considering that the larger part of the county is declared to be a congested district, he will state what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter; what has been the amount of money so levied; what sum has been received from the Department; and how have these moneys been expended.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The valuation of the congested areas in County Leitrim is £48,000, and of the non-congested areas £90,000. A penny rate over the entire county produces £575. Up to the 31st March, 1902, the schemes in operation in the county dealt mainly with live stock, to the cost of which the Department and the Congested Districts Board contributed pro rata. The amount certified by the Secretary of the County Committee to have been expended to that date was £159 8s. for live stock schemes and £20 for agricultural schemes. Of the former amount the Department and the Congested Districts Board contributed £88 11s. 2d., and of the latter the Department contributed one-half—viz., £10. The County Council is aware of the decision come to by the Congested Districts Board last year that it would not continue to make any further contributions towards county schemes after the 31st March, 1903. The unexpended balances of any contributions promised by the Board in respect of the rates raised prior to that date are, however, available for the promotion of approved schemes in congested districts. It was not until the 22nd ultimo that the secretary of the County Committee furnished a statement of his Committee's expenditure for the nine months ended 31st December, 1902. When the accounts have been submitted to investigation the Department will pay the balance of its contribution. In regard to Technical Instruction schemes no accounts were furnished by the secretary of the Committee until last month.

  Land Act, 1896—Holdings under Section 36.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of owners and occupiers who have availed themselves of the provisions of Section 36 of the Land Act of 1896 (59 and 60 Vic, c. 47); whether any inquiry has been made into the effect of the provision of the clause for fining down rent; and, if so, whether he will present to the House the report of any such inquiry, or any information relating thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) There has been only one case in which the provisions of Section 36 of the Land Act of 1896 have been availed of. In that case the original agreement was made in June, 1900, and the application, which was not under Section 36 but under the ordinary provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, was for the advance of the whole purchase money, £3,750, for the holding, the rent of which was £204. The parties were informed, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1888, that not more than £3,000 could be advanced. Ultimately the agreement was withdrawn, and in May, 1901, a new agreement was entered into under the 36th Section of the Act of 1896, and upon it £3,000 was advanced and a perpetual rent-charge of £34 was reserved, payable to the vendor. The Commissioners are not aware that any inquiry such as is referred to in the latter part of the Question has been held.

  Irish Land Bill—Leases over Ninety-nine Years.
  MR. KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the Land Bill introduced this session, tenants holding land under leases for longer terms than ninety-nine years or under fee farm grants, and who are excluded from the provisions of The Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891, by reason of their rents being less than the full agricultural rent of such lands, will be entitled to obtain advances for the voluntary purchase of such holdings; and, if so, will the Land Commission in such cases have power to compulsorily redeem any head rents or other superior interests affecting such property.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Advances under the Land Purchase Acts can, and frequently have been made, to tenants holding under leases for longer terms than ninety-nine years or under fee farm grants, and the Bill does not propose to make any alteration of the law in this respect. It is not clear what is intended to be conveyed by the latter portion of the Question. I would refer the hon. Member to Section 31 of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, which gives power to redeem superior interests, and to the provisions of the Bill with respect to such interests.

  Delay in Erection of Labourers' Cottages at Strabane.
  MR. M'FADDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of delay on the part of the contractors in proceeding with the erection of labourers' cottages in the Strabane (No. 2) Rural District, County Donegal, the contract for which has been entered into some three months ago; and if the Local Government Board will direct the District Council to take steps to compel the contractors to proceed to complete their contracts without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Clerk of the District Council states that the award of the arbitrator is before the solicitors to the Council, who are investigating the titles of the owners and occupiers of the sites. The Council cannot enter on the lands and instruct the contractors to commence work until the titles have been verified and the amount of the arbitrator's award paid.
  MR. M'FADDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint of the chairman and members of the Strabane (No. 2) Rural District Council, County Donegal, at its last meeting on Tuesday, 5th May, as to the delay of three months on the part of the Local Government Board and the Board of Works in replying to an application of the Council for a loan for the erection of labourers' cottages in the district; and if steps will be taken to expedite the granting of the loan.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) No complaint has reached the Local Govern-Board on the subject. In point of fact no formal application has yet been made to the Board for sanction to the loan in respect of the improvement scheme lately authorised.

  Salaries of Sub-Sanitary Officers in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return with reference to salaries of sub-sanitary officers in county boroughs in Ireland.
  The Return referred to was as follows:
  Sub-Sanitary Officers (Dublin, etc.)—Return of the number of Sub-Sanitary Officers employed by the respective Sanitary Authorities in the cities of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Londonderry, Limerick, Waterford, Galway, and Kilkenny; the salaries paid per annum to each of said Officers in each city; and the amount contributed to said salaries per annum to each city by the Irish Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) I have communicated the Return to the hon. Member. It is hardly of sufficient importance to lay upon the Table as a Parliamentary Paper.

  Extension of Blacksod Pier.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the extension of the Blacksod Pier will be included in the schemes to be assisted from the Equivalent Grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) No undertaking can be given. The matter will be considered with other applications for assistance from the moneys provided in the Bill.

  Extra Allowance for European Troops Serving in Somaliland.
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can take steps to place the Mounted Infantry, King's Royal Rifle Corps, which is the only European unit
  296
  in the force on service in Somaliland, and is drawing British pay and allowances, on the same footing as the Indian troops, who are drawing Indian pay and field batta.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Indian troops have been specially allowed to retain their Indian pay in order that they shall not suffer by reason of their employment outside India. It would be contrary to precedent to grant British troops Indian rates of pay, and the distinction has been observed in China and elsewhere where troops on the British and Indian establishments have served side by side.

  Army Chaplains—Established and Free Church of Scotland.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many acting chaplains are ministers of the United Free Church of Scotland, their names, and where they are stationed; also the number of chaplains who are ministers of the Established Church of Scotland, their names, and where they are stationed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The names and stations of the commissioned chaplains of the established Church of Scotland are as follows:—Rev. Dr. Robertson, D.S.O., Aldershot; Rev. W. S. Jaffray, Egypt; Rev. T. H. Chapman, Curragh; Rev. J. T. Bird, on leave from South Africa. The names and stations of the acting chaplains of the United Free Church of Scotland are not recorded at the War Office, and could only be obtained by calling for Returns from all districts all over the world.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Army Canteens.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Committee on Army Canteens.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It is hoped that this Report will be in the

    297
    hands of Members within the course of this week.

    Army Purchases in Ireland.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether steps have been taken to give the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland any further power to purchase goods locally; and whether instructions can be given to all officers to purchase locally goods which can be so obtained.
    MR. BRODRICK: Extended powers have been given to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland as to other General Officers Commanding to purchase locally. General instructions have also been given to officers entrusted with purchasing for the Government to buy, as far as possible, local produce—but the hon. Member will understand that due regard must be paid to the price demanded for such produce.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Does local produce include hay and oats?
    MR. BRODRICK: I should imagine the term includes all such articles.

    Australian Commonwealth—The Vondel Case.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to knowledge by Parliament of the constitutional position of the Australian Commonwealth as compared with that of the separate States, he will lay before Parliament his despatch dealing with the arguments of the Government of South Australia in the Vondel Case.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no objection.

    Transvaal Coal Mines.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the labour in the Transvaal coal mines is supplied by Kaffirs, he will say if difficulty has been experienced in obtaining such labour since the war; and whether he can state what the output of coal from the Transvaal mines has been since the 31st of December last and the corresponding output in 1899.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know the answer to the first part of the Question. In reply to the second part, the latest returns in my possession as to coal output are, for January and February, 326,000 tons. No similar figures for 1899 are available, but for the corresponding period in 1898 the output was 230,000 tons.

    Plague at Hong-Kong.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state to what cause the recurrence of plague at Hong-Kong is attributed; and how many deaths have resulted from this fresh outbreak.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of deaths from plague in Hong-Kong since January 16 has been 402. There is usually a recrudescence of plague in that colony at this period of the year, and I am not aware of the existence of any special cause for this year's outbreak.
    MR. WEIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Hong-Kong Council attribute it to rats?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe that in that matter they share the opinion of many scientific men that rats do spread disease.

    Russia and Manchuria.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I desire to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the denial by the Russian Government of the reports as to her intention not to restore Newchwang to China or to evacuate Manchuria, His Majesty's Government will seek to secure concerted action on the part of the United States of America, Japan, and England, with the object of arriving at a definite agreement with Russia for the prompt fulfilment of her assurances in regard to these questions.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): In reply to independent friendly communications which during the last few days have been addressed to the Russian Government by the Governments of the United States and His Majesty, the Russian Government have

    299
    intimated that they adhere to the engagements into which they have entered to evacuate Manchuria, though the evacuation has been temporarily delayed; and in particular they have explained, as the House is aware, that they have no intention of adopting any measures tending to exclude foreign Consuls or to obstruct foreign commerce or the use of ports. We have also received from our Consul at Newchwang information to the effect that the reports lately prevalent as to a Russian reoccupation of that place are without foundation. Under these circumstances, we see no sufficient reason for adopting the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    River Karun Navigation.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, can he state what has been done during recent years to improve and extend the River Karun navigation by means of a canal to pass the Ahwaz Rapids, or in other ways to increase facilities for water-borne traffic between the Gulf and the fertile districts of Western Persia; and has His Majesty's representative at Teheran tried to induce His Imperial Majesty the Shah to co-operate in this public work and thus facilitate commerce in that portion of his dominions.
    LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government are not aware that the construction of a canal at Ahwaz is contemplated. His Majesty's representative at Teheran, however, reported at the end of last year that the Persian Government were sending an engineer to the Karun to study the best means of improving the navigation. I need hardly say that subject to proper conditions, any proposal intended to give increased facilities to commerce in Southern Persia will have the support of His Majesty's Legation.

    Salonika Bomb Outrage.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any authentic information as to the number of people killed in Salonika by the bombs thrown by the Macedonian insurgents, and by
    300
    the Turkish authorities in the course of making arrests consequent on the explosions.
    LORD CRANBORNE: We have as yet no specific information as to the number of persons killed in Salonika by the bombs thrown by the insurgents. His Majesty's Consul-General at Salonika has come to the conclusion, after personal investigations on the spot, that not more than fifty Bulgarians have probably been killed.

    Coal Export Duty.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the quantity of coal shipped during the year ending 31st March last at declared values on export exceeding 7s. per ton, but not exceeding 8s.; and if he has any official information explaining why the quantity shipped at values between 5s. and 6s. was nearly four times that shipped at values between 6s. and 7s.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The quantity of coal exported during the year ended 31st March last, at values exceeding 7s. the ton, but not exceeding 8s. the ton, was 2,327,508 tons. I have no official information as to the reason for the larger quantities shipped at values between 5s. and 6s.; but the figures are not such as to falsify the estimates made.
    MR. D. A THOMAS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is an evasion of the duty.
    MR. RITCHIE: We always calculated that the results the hon. Gentleman deplores would follow.

    Vivisection at London University College.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of dogs which have been subjected to experiments at London University College during the year ending 31st December last; and the number of such experiments which were conducted without the use of anæsthetics.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The total number is 232. Of these, 155 dogs were operated upon in the Department of Physiology, all under anæsthetics. In the remaining 77 cases, the experiments, which took place in the Department of Pathological Chemistry, were of the nature of inoculations or feeding experiments, not involving any serious operation, and were conducted without the use of anæsthetics. It is a condition of such experiments that if pain ensues the animal shall be killed under anæsthetics as soon as the main result of the experiment is attained.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an experiment made on a dog, on the 2nd February last, at the London University College; and will he take steps to secure that such experiments shall be discontinued, or conducted only in the presence of a Home Office Inspector, and while the animal is under the influence of anæsthetics.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Inquiry into this case shows that during the whole of the experiment and until it was killed the dog was under anæsthetics. I am afraid that I cannot adopt the hon. Member's other suggestions.
    MR. WEIR: Was the experiment conducted in the presence of a Home Office Inspector?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: It was carried out by a medical man holding a licence, but not in the presence of a Home Office Inspector.

    Prison Treatment of Anti-Vaccinationists.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Henry Elderkin, who was recently sentenced to imprisonment under the Vaccination Act at Wellingborough, did not receive at Northampton Gaol the treatment of a first class misdemeanant as required by the Vaccination Act, 1898, but was obliged to wear prison clothes, stripped with ordinary prisoners, and his
    302
    measurements taken, put on prison diet, and refused books or permission to write letters, and otherwise subjected to all the treatment of an ordinary criminal; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such treatment of prisoners under the Vaccination Acts.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I almost think there must be some mistake. The inquiries which I have made show that the prisoner in question was treated strictly in accordance with the rules for prisoners of the First Division. He was not stripped with ordinary prisoners, nor measured; by his own choice he were prison clothes and received prison diet; and he was allowed library books. As his sentence was only one week, he did not become entitled to any privileges under the rule allowing fortnightly visits and letters, but he was allowed to receive a letter from his wife.
    MR. CHANNING: There must be some misunderstanding. I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with facts, and ask him to make further inquiry.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I thought there must be some mistake, as the hon. Gentleman's Question and my answer so entirely vary.

    Postal Employees Grievances—Proposed Committee on Wages.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford University I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the proposed inquiry into the grievances alleged on behalf of some of the employees of the Post Office, the case of the young women whose pay has been reduced from the standard fixed by Mr. Fawcett will be included.
    MR. BAYLEY: At the same time may I ask the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to include the sub-postmasters in the proposed inquiry.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): As stated by me in this House on the 30th ultimo, and for the reason I then gave, the scope of the proposed inquiry will be limited to the classes of established postmen, sorters (London), telegraphists (London), and sorting clerks

    303
    and telegraphists (provincial). Neither the case of sub-postmasters' nor the case of the young women to whom the Question of my right hon. friend for Oxford University relates will be referred to the Committee.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: May I ask whether it is to be understood that the right hon. Gentleman absolutely declines to make or even consider any enlargement of the list of classes in reference to the inquiry, for instance, those of auxiliary postmen, sub-postmasters and women?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Substantially that may be taken as my position. It is all important to the success of the inquiry that it should be of limited scope. It would be impossible for me to secure the services of busy men to undertake an inquiry of unlimited scope lasting over a great length of time. I am anxious that the inquiry shall not be unnecessarily delayed.

    Private Smallpox Hospitals.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of private establishments in Great Britain where smallpox patients are received.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): So far as I am aware there is only one private establishment in England and Wales intended for the reception and treatment of smallpox patients. As regards Scotland, the Question should be addressed to my right hon. and learned friend the Lord Advocate.

    Animal Vaccine Lymph.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of private establishments in Great Britain for the production of animal vaccine lymph.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I am unable to state the number of establishments of the kind referred to. The hon. Member will, however, find some information on the subject in an article in the Lancet of 7th June, 1902.

    Royal Edinburgh Asylum.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the West House of the Royal Edinburgh Asylum there are 142 patients in excess of the number which the building can accommodate, and that this overcrowding has resulted in an outbreak of dysentery; and will he state what steps it is proposed to take to obviate this overcrowding pending the erection of Bangour Asylum.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER: Under the auspicious circumstances of to-day perhaps my hon. friend will excuse my right hon. friend not being in his place. I will read his answer, which is as follows—I am informed by the Lunacy Board for Scotland that the dysentery has ceased for the last three months and that the overcrowding has diminished. The hon. Member will find full particulars of the action taken by the Board in pressing forward the construction of new buildings at West Bangour, in their annual Report just published. It is expected that these buildings will be ready in the autumn.
    MR. WEIR: What steps is it proposed to take to prevent overcrowding pending the erection of Bangour Asylum?
    MR. ANSTRUTHER: I must ask for notice of any supplementary Question.

    Customs Watchers' Grievances.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a Committee of Inquiry into the alleged grievances of the Customs watchers.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): Having regard to the improvements made in the pay and position of Customs watchers in 1900, at a total increased cost of £3,000 per annum, and to the large number of candidates for the post of watcher, I do not consider that any necessity exists, either for further concessions or for a Committee of Inquiry.

    Sunderland Institute for the Blind.
    MR. TOMKINSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the

    305
    Tonbridge Division of Kent, as a Charity Commissioner, whether his attention has been called to the case of the blind ship-fender makers employed at the Sunderland Institute for the Blind, who are at present locked out for their refusal to submit to a reduction of their wages by 27 per cent.; and, if so, whether he will advise the Commissioners to intervene on their behalf.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I stated in answer to a similar Question some weeks ago† that no part of the income of this institution is derived from any endowment, and therefore the Charity Commissioners have no jurisdiction. I have nothing to add to that answer.

    Eviction on the Warden Estate, Sneem.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since the introduction of the Land Bill the eviction has taken place on the Warden Estate of Michael Sheehan, of Letterfinish, near Sneem; whether he is aware that Sheehan offered to pay £20 out of the £24 for which he was sued; that the holding was bought in by the landlord, although other parties were willing to pay Sheehan a fair sum for his interest; and whether representations will be made so as to secure the reinstatement of this tenant.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Sheehan was evicted on the 26th March. The amount of the decree against him was £30 6s. 0d. He did not offer to pay £20, but the landlord offered to take that sum on account and to stay all proceedings. Sheehan rejected this offer. The holding was bought in by the landlord. I am unable to say whether other persons were willing to give the evicted tenant a fair sum for his interest. The Government cannot make representations in the direction suggested at the end of the Question.
    MR. FLAVIN: Out of 368 tenants on this estate only ninety-nine are eligible for benefits under the new Land Act. In view of the condition of affairs
    † See (4) Debates, cxviii, 1569.
    306
    will the right hon. Gentleman consider th advisability of not sending the constabulary to evict any more tenants on this estate?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Cooscroum Fishing Station and Coonana Pier.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board intend to carry out improvements in the fishing station of Cooscroum, County Kerry, to which their attention has been directed; and whether steps have been taken to repair the damage caused by storm to the fishing pier at Coonana.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Board has offered to expend a sum of £600 on work at Coonana Pier. It is not prepared to undertake the large expenditure which would be required for the construction of a work that would be really useful at Cooscroum, which is only three miles from Coonana.

    Gun Licences in County Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why Mr. John Galvin, of Kilnamona, County Clare, has been refused a gun licence.
    MR. ATKINSON: The father of the applicant is licensed to carry a gun on his farm, a small one containing about eight acres of tillage. The resident magistrate, as licensing officer, considers that one gun is ample to protect the farm from birds and vermin, and in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by law has refused to grant a licence to John Galvin.

    United Irish League Meetings at Birr.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a system of police supervision is still practised in connection with the meetings of the United Irish League at Birr; and whether, seeing that such proceedings have been discontinued in other parts of Ireland, he will direct their discontinuance at Birr also.
    MR. ATKINSON: The question is founded on a misapprehension. The supervision exercised at Birr merely consists in this, that the police direct their attention to matters which they consider to be of general interest. No change has been made in the police arrangements in this respect in other parts of Ireland.

    Belfast Constabulary and Motor Cyclists.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary have recently demanded the names and occupations of persons using motor cycles in Belfast.
    MR. ATKINSON: Complaints have been made to the Belfast police that motor cycles were being driven at an excessive speed through the streets, and that the riders refused to stop when requested to do so. The police have taken the names of persons using these cycles in order to supply them with copies of the Regulations issued by the Local Government Board on the subject.
    MR. SLOAN: The grievance is that the Royal Irish Constabulary make inquiries of people who have nothing whatever to do with the matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: If these cycles are ridden at such a rapid rate it is the duty of the police to find out who are the riders.

    Irish National Schools—Inspectors' Reports.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the inspectors of national schools in Ireland sent their Reports for the year 1901 to the Board of Education.
    MR. ATKINSON: Reports in respect to the inspection of schools were made as soon as practicable after each inspection. General Reports for 1901 were furnished at different dates in February, March, and April of 1902.

    Irish Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institutions.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the Royal Commission Report on Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institutions, he will consider their claims in the Development Grant Bill.
    MR. ATKINSON: The matter will be considered with other applications for assistance from the moneys provided in this Bill.

    Rent Appeals in County Wicklow.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several tenants residing at Kilbaylet, Kilcoagh, etc., in the County Wicklow, served notices over a year ago to have their rents fixed; and whether, seeing that the landlords continue to enforce payment of the old rents, he can state when the Sub-commissioners will sit in Baltinglass to hear these rent cases.
    MR. ATKINSON: The proceedings in these cases arose out of applications to have fair rents fixed by arbitration on the report of valuers. The valuers made their Report in May, 1902, but the tenants subsequently served notices requiring the cases to be heard. The hearing of a list containing cases from this district will be commenced upon the completion of the list now being heard at Carlow.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the date?
    MR. ATKINSON: I am afraid I cannot.

    Dublin Sorting Office—Supervising Duties.
    MR. NANNETTII beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that junior sorting clerks and telegraphists have been called on to perform supervising duties in the Dublin Sorting Office, and while doing so supervised their seniors;

    309
    and will he cause an inquiry to be made into this matter with a view to putting a stop to the practice.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the practice, not only at Dublin but at all offices, to require sorting clerks and telegraphists to undertake, when necessary, supervising duties as temporary substitutes. In this way opportunities of proving capacity and fitness for promotion are afforded. Occasionally it happens that some of the senior sorting clerks and telegraphists are manifestly unfit for supervising duties, and in such a case it may result that a junior has temporarily to supervise his senior. I do not propose to alter the practice.

    Counter Duties in the Dublin Post Office.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that arising out of the Tweedmouth Committee recommendations, authority was granted for the employment of seven clerks on the public counter duties of the General Post Office, Dublin, he will state the number of sorting clerks and telegraphists employed on these duties during the past twelve months and the number of days they have been so employed, and explain why the performance of those duties has been relegated to the officials of the lower class.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has been misinformed. No clerks for counter duties were authorised as a result of the Tweedmouth Committee recommendations, and there was at no time so many as seven clerks on counter duties. The number of clerks required for such duties was decided last year after very full consideration, and I am not prepared to re-open the question.

    Great Britain and France.
    MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to resolutions passed by Chambers of Commerce on both sides of the Channel in favour of the conclusion of a permanent treaty of conciliation between Great Britain and France; and,
    310
    if so, whether, in view of the friendly feeling now prevailing between the two countries, His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of entering into the necessary preliminaries to the negotiation of such a treaty.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As the House is aware, the Government have always been anxious that international disputes should, if possible, be decided and appeased by arbitral tribunal. My hon. friend uses the word conciliation, which, I think, is not the word used by the Chambers of Commerce to which he refers. If we can do anything to further that general policy in connection with France, we should, of course, be glad to do so.
    MR. BECKETT: May I point out that in all recent resolutions of Chambers of Commerce the word conciliation has been used.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman confine this policy to one country?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, our policy is a general one.

    The South African Garrison.
    MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Motion on the Paper relating to the force that is to be stationed in South Africa; and whether he is willing to give facilities for a discussion on the subject.
    The Motion referred to is as follows:
    Army Scheme (1901),—That three divisions of the Regular Army, or their equivalent in numbers, be stationed in South Africa, such force to be counted as part of the establishment proposed to be maintained in this country by the Army Scheme of 1901.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be inconvenient to put the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State down for discussion so early in the session. The House will probably desire at some later

    311
    period to have a discussion on that Vote; and I do not think we should put it down now. I am confirmed in that opinion by the recollection that no less than eight days, or two whole Parliamentary weeks, have already been devoted to the discussion of Army affairs in the course of the present session. There is an additional reason for the view I venture to take, which is that the subject to which he refers is one which for some time has been engaging the careful attention of the Government, and I should be sorry that any premature discussion should be taken upon it.
    MR. BECKETTasked for a promise that it would not be deferred till too near the holidays.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By holidays I suppose my hon. friend means the recess. That is a period, I am afraid, still painfully distant. But, no doubt, if there is any desire on the part of the House, as there probably will be, to have a discussion on this and on cognate subjects, a convenient Thursday will be found for the discussion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say what is the expectation of business for to-morrow and Wednesday, what Votes in Supply will be put down on Thursday, and, although the right hon. Gentleman seems to fight shy of committing himself to anything in anticipation of the greater recess, perhaps it would not be presumptuous to ask what the main business will be until the smaller recess at Whitsuntide.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope, as regards the last Question, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me a few days for consideration. With regard to this week, to-morrow we take the remaining Budget Resolutions, and I think I must ask the House to finish them to-morrow. The only Resolutions still requiring to be taken are those relating to the income-tax, tobacco, beer, and spirits, the sinking fund, and some smaller omnibus Resolutions. A discussion on the repeal of the bread tax in Committee
312
would be out of order. I conceive, therefore, that the most controversial part of the Budget discussion will have to be deferred until the Second Reading and later stages of the Finance Bill. If, through the ordinary channels, I can learn that I am justified in feeling secure that these Resolutions will be obtained by twelve o'clock to-morrow night I will not trouble the House by moving the suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule. Otherwise, I must be held as now giving notice of that Motion. On Wednesday the Second Reading of the Port of London Bill will be taken, and on Thursday the Shipbuilding Vote.
MR. FLOWER: Is it proposed to put down the Local Government Board Vote?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill be taken before Whitsuntide, and will it be proceeded with continuously. Such a course would be very convenient to Irish Members.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer definitely; but, sympathising with the view that when taken progress should be continuous, I think my desire to make that arrangement will necessitate the deferring of Committee till after Whitsuntide.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that one of the omnibus Resolutions referred to by the Prime Minister in his answer concerning the Budget related to the Inland Revenue in terms which raised the whole question of the finance of the country.
MR. RITCHIE: The omnibus Resolution enabling changes to be made raises no definite issue, and it would be contrary to precedent not to allow it to be taken as a matter of course.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It may have been allowed to pass without debate, but surely it would not be contrary to precedent to discuss it.
MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I say it would be contrary to precedent.

THE DIVISION ON THE TRADES DISPUTES BILL.
MR. LYTTELTON: I have been informed there was an error in the counting of the "No" votes in the division on the Trades Disputes Bill on Friday. The hon. Member for Derby and myself stood as tellers at the door of the "No" lobby, and without unduly depreciating our powers of counting it is probable that the lobby clerks' record of 256 votes, instead of 246 as was returned, is correct. I have communicated with the hon. Member for Derby in order that the matter may be submitted to the House, but as the hon. Gentleman is not in his place, I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, for advice as to the method in which the mistake can be corrected.
MR. SPEAKER: If both tellers come to the Table and state, not that they think it probable, but that they are satisfied that the correct figure was 256 instead of 246, steps can be taken to amend the Journal of the House.

NEW BILL.
  PURCHASE OF LAND (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  "To provide facilities for the Sale of Land to occupying tenants and others in England and Wales," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings; supported by Sir John Dorington, Mr. Spear, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Sir Lewis Molesworth, Mr. Powell-Williams, and Mr. William Mitchell; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

  SUPPLY [EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES 1903–4.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,267,500,
  314
  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 Post Office Services, the expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  MR. LOUGHsaid that when the debate was adjourned the other night he was about to call attention to one or two of the improvements in the postal service which the right hon. Gentleman had announced—improvements which certainly had not received the attention they deserved. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech said that some years had elapsed since any progress had been made by the Post Office in giving fresh facilities to the country, and he touched upon the programme of the reforms introduced by the Duke of Norfolk when he held the office of Postmaster-General. But he thought the Committee would deplore that the right hon. Gentleman's own programme was of such a limited character. What had he promised them? He was going to issue a great many more money orders; there was to be one for every 6d. up to £1. The only other promises the right hon. Gentleman made were that more consideration should in future be given to appeals for an improved service in the country, and that the charge for giving a receipt for a telegram should be reduced from 2d. to 1d. The old charge was most extravagant, and the smaller sum was quite ample, so that they had not much reason to be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. His final promise was that unopened telegrams should be allowed to be posted free of extra charge. That was the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's programme, and he repeated that the Committee had reason to deplore the fact that, seeing that for so many years the Department had done nothing for the public, the present proposals were so meagre. As the great convenience which the public had hitherto enjoyed of being able to resell small amounts of stamps to the Post Office was entirely to be taken away, the

  315
  public would lose rather than gain by the reforms which the Postmaster-General had announced. The present regulation was that stamps would be purchased back by the Post Office at a reduction of 2½ per cent., or 6d. in the £. Surely that was a profitable business to the Post Office as well as being a great public convenience. He believed that the abolition of the existing privilege would cause very great public inconvenience. The official notice issued with respect to the increased facilities for obtaining postal orders stated that a postal order might now be obtained for any sum under £1. But orders only for even sixpences were to be issued. For instance, an order for 14s. 9d. could not be obtained. He presumed that odd amounts were to be made up with stamps affixed to the postal orders.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes, Sir.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that as those stamps would be purchased back again, surely that was a breach of the right hon. Gentleman's new regulation. Again, instead of the seller of stamps receiving the money at once, it was to be remitted to him the next day. That also would be a great inconvenience. He certainly did not think the right hon. Gentleman had made out a good case for the change. He desired, however, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for one experiment he had made, at his request, in a very remote country district, where he had connected by telephone all the sub-post offices in a large area with the county town, and had thus provided the inhabitants with telephone communication at a very small charge. It was to be hoped that other changes would be introduced which the public would equally appreciate.
  The only other point he wished to touch upon was in connection with the steps which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take in order to deal with the men's grievances. If the right hon. Gentleman would give that matter a little more consideration he might perhaps be able to arrive at a solution much more satisfactory to Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to appoint a Committee of
  316
  outsiders, rather than a Committtee of Members of the House of Commons, to inquire into the grievances of the postal service. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech seemed to indicate that the Committee would be composed of great employers of labour, and he pledged himself not to place any departmental officials upon it. In considering this matter they had to remember that the Post Office had already badly failed in the attempt to settle these grievances, and there was a full acknowledgment of that in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Within a year of the issue of the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee, the investigation had to be reopened and a sum of £600,000 was as a result, added to the annual payments to the staff, and even then the discontent continued and the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there might in some cases, be ground for dissatisfaction. In view of that they ought to take steps this time to settle the difficulty once and for all. It had been said that pressure had been brought to bear on Members by the postal servants, but he thought that suggestion had been greatly exaggerated. The postal servants only totalled to about 10,000 or 180,000, including women and telegraph boys. Only about 40,000 or 50,000 had a vote, and it was ridiculous to suppose the small number who lived in a particular constituency could intimidate even the most timid Member of this House on such a subject. It had been suggested that the postal servants ought to be disfranchised in order to prevent them bringing this pressure to bear, but disfranchisement would not do away with the pressure. Considerably more pressure was exercised by those who had no vote than those who had. The question of pressure might therefore be put on one side, and the Committee should try and urge the right hon. Gentleman to make a clean settlement once and for all; and if the Committee assisted the right hon. Gentleman in the formation of the Committee he had promised, he did not think there would be much difficulty in arriving at a settlement. One objection to the Committee was, that none of the Post Office staff was represented upon it. Why could not there be two representative postal servants and two representative employers of labour, with an arbitrator between? That would give some assurance that the

  317
  matter would be fully dealt with. That suggestion had already been made to the right hon. Gentleman and he now appealed to him to give it his kindly consideration. One objection to the Committee was, that the grievances of the greater number of the postal servants were excluded from the scope of the Committee. The case of some 40,000 or 50,000 of the employees would be submitted to the tribunal, but with regard to the 21,000 sub-postmasters and the 81,000 auxiliary postmen, their case was not to be considered at all. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to widen the scope of the Committee so as to include the case of these other servants. Because he thought the constitution of the Committee was not satisfactory, and in order that the right hon. Gentleman should give some attention to what had been urged in support of its reconstitution, he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £6,267,400, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Lough.)
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid his first duty was to congratulate the Postmaster-General on the reforms he had instituted. Although those concessions did not cost the right hon. Gentleman a single farthing the public were extremely grateful because they removed very great annoyances. Whilst congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the removal of these annoyances, and before touching on the other cases of reform, he might say he regretted when the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the postal order reform he did not make it really complete by issuing a guinea postal order, which would be a very great convenience. The late Mr. Hanbury, whose memory was so dear to the House, when representing the Post Office in this House had said the reason why postal orders for a guinea were not issued, was that it was impossible to issue them without an Act of Parliament being passed for that purpose, but such a Bill if it were brought in would pass without dissent. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman either to bring in a Bill or allow one to be brought in and passed. This was a reform which the public had asked for for the last fifteen years. The House of Commons also regretted that the right hon. Gentleman
  318
  had said nothing with regard to another great annoyance to which this country was subject in respect of postal orders. By the postal orders law of this country if a postal order was not presented within three months it was subject to a fine. He held in his hands two postal orders which were obtained ten years ago and which had been lost by their owner. The owner had come across them recently and presented them at the Post Office. The postal orders were for 7s., and although the Post Office had had the use of the money for ten years they asked him for 7s. 2d. before they would pay him the 7s. This was a miserably mean action and one which the right hon. Gentleman would not be guilty of in his private affairs. It was usual in this country for a man to receive a liberal interest for lending money, but for any person who has had the use of money for a long period to refuse to return it without receiving some compensation was intolerable. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow this grievance to longer exist and that another year would not be allowed to elapse before it was remedied. A friend of his had written a letter to him stating that a poor man in the village presented a 2s. postal order, with 2½d. in stamps affixed, for payment, and the post office refused to pay more than 2s. 2d. He thought it was a mean, unworthy action, and one which the right hon. Gentleman would not think of doing in private business. In such cases the high and mighty officials behind the counter said, "We never pay halfpennies." There was one thing that ought to be done, and that was to exchange postal orders with the colonies and all parts of the Empire. He hoped the Postmaster-General would be able to do something in this direction.
  He would leave the question of postal orders for the present, and refer to the main purpose for which he rose. After struggling for many years they succeeded in obtaining penny postage to some of their colonies, but an extraordinary and ridiculous state of affairs followed the action of the Government. Although they could send a letter passing through France to any of the colonies for 1d., it cost 2½d to send a letter to France or Germany. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to establish universal penny

  319
  postage. He hoped the time would not be long delayed when this reform would be granted to all parts of the Empire. He urged the Postmaster-General to hold a meeting of the Postmasters-General of Germany, France, Belgium, and other countries, in order to see what could be done in the direction of establishing a penny postage between those countries. The King had just visited France and had met with extraordinary kindness, and lasting friendships had been sworn, but the best thing they could do to create good feeling between the Continent and this country was to make postal and telegraphic communication as easy as speech and as free as air. If they made communication between countries much cheaper, they would do much to obtain that peace and goodwill which they all desired so much to see. It would be a grand thing if the Postmaster-General could achieve the great distinction of establishing universal penny postage to all parts of the civilised world. They sent every year 2,500,000 pounds weight of letters to the Continent, but this was a mere bagatelle compared with the 20,000,000 pounds weight of circulars and printed matter. He had visited Berlin, and he knew the Postmaster-General in the United States was anxious to have a penny postage to this country. There was another reform needed which would be interesting to the Committee, and it was in regard to money order charges. It might not be generally known that the charge for a 5s. money order from this country to Paris was 6d., whereas from Paris to England the charge for the same order was only 1d. Men engaged every day in business in the City knew what a hardship it was to pay 6d. for sending 5s. to France, whereas the Frenchman only paid 1d. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to tolerate this annoyance any longer than was absolutely necessary. The charge for money orders to the colonies was much too high. He also thought telegraph and money orders ought to be brought to the residence of the receiver by the messengers of the Post Office. In many places the receiver had to travel long distances to the post office, and this was a great inconvenience. If he telegraphed a money order to Germany it would be taken charge of by the Post Office here and delivered at the residence of the receiver
  320
  in Germany, but a money order coming from Germany was treated quite differently. The Postmaster-General ought to overrule the officials of the Post Office in this country and devise some plan of delivering telegrams and money orders to the person to whom the money was payable. The charges for money orders to the Continent and Australia were unnecessarily high.
  There was another subject which had attracted a great deal of interest—he referred to a cheap agricultural parcels post. He would, however, leave it to those who would follow him in this debate to deal with that question, and he trusted that what they would have to say would lead the right hon. Gentleman to take some action in the matter. They wanted lower parcels post rates to all parts of the Empire. The charges to Aden were greater than to the Cape, and from Germany to the United States the rates were cheaper than from England to the United States. He knew that quite recently the greatest possible annoyance had been caused in England by the parcels post rates with the United States. For years they had been urging the right hon. Gentleman to establish such a service with the United States, and the charges were so monstrous and ridiculous that shoals of complaints had been addressed to the Post Office in regard to them. Germany had got cheaper rates and appeared to be getting on very well with them. There was another subject which would commend itself to hon. Members of the Committee—he referred to the value payable in the cash on delivery system. This system was in operation all over the Continent and it only wanted courage to introduce it in this country. The system worked well in Australia, where at first it was opposed by small shopkeepers, but they used the system now more than any other class of the community. He also thought that the minimum charge for samples ought to be reduced to one halfpenny. At the present time the Post Office would convey two ounces of printed paper for one halfpenny, but if the smallest scrap of the same paper was imprinted, or if it contained a scrap of Belfast linen for pocket handkerchiefs, it was treated as a sample and charged double rates. With regard to post-cards he thought they ought to be sold at their face value. They had repeatedly asked that post-cards should be sold at one

  321
  halfpenny each, but the greatest objection had always been offered to this proposal. He did not know why the objections raised twenty years ago should hold good now. What he complained of was that no poor man could go for a halfpenny post-card without being charged three farthings for it. Surely this change might be made in the case of an article which was bringing in a profit of £20,000 a year, and the richest Post Office in the world ought to be above wringing farthings from the poor. All charges for the printing of halfpenny stamps ought to be abolished, because gumming and perforation were saved. In Australia they never charged anything for printing stamps, and he thought this was a particularly scandalous abuse of official authority. It was monstrous to charge 20 or 30 per cent. above the cost for printing stamps on private post-cards. There was no other Government in the world which charged anything for stamping cards with a halfpenny stamp. He thought the charges for registration should be reduced to one penny for letters, and all postal articles. In reference to fines for insufficient postage he did not think they ought to exceed one halfpenny in England and one penny for foreign letters. He wished also to refer to the question of embossed stamps. Every year large numbers of embossed stamps, letters, and so forth were purchased. He knew one poor woman who cut embossed stamps from envelopes and used them, but the receiver was charged twopence. He did not think in such a case the twopence ought to have been charged, and the right hon. Gentleman would not have done such a thing in private business, where it would not be tolerated. Embossed stamps cut from destroyed envelopes ought to be perfectly valid if attached to other envelopes.
  There was another very important matter to which he would refer. In this great country they were amazed at the enormous increase in circulars and newspapers sent through the post. He thought the time had arrived for dividing the Post Office administration into three classes—the first class for letters, the second class for circulars, postcards, and newspapers, and the third class for parcels. Under such a system they could have their letters delivered about seven o'clock in the morning; circulars, postcards and
  322
  newspapers about eight o'clock; and about nine o'clock they could have the parcels post. There had been a good deal of correspondence with regard to the extraordinary number of postal carts which were running about the streets. It was desirable, if possible, to do away with these carts and establish Bulchellor's system for conveying the mails between the Post Office and the railway stations. He should like to have an assurance from the Postmaster-General that this matter would be considered in a favourable way. Another grievance which required redress was the absence of letter boxes on all through trains. In every other country in the world there were facilities for posting letters on trains, but in this country passengers had to rush to the parcels office, and even then there was a doubt whether the letters would go or not. If an arrangement could be made for having letter boxes on through trains, it would be a source of great satisfaction to the people of this country. It had been suggested that the railway companies might object to the proposal, but he thought that could be got over. He hoped his right hon. friend would introduce a reform in that direction. Better facilities might be provided than at present for obtaining stamps elsewhere than the post offices. He thought they might be sold at all railway bookstalls. He understood the fact that they could not be obtained at the bookstalls was due to the meanness of the Post Office Department in refusing to allow any remuneration whatever to the keepers of the stalls. He hoped something would be done to overcome this difficulty. Another cause of worry, trouble and annoyance was the extra postage charged in all cases on late letters for the Continent, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. When in Rome lately the system adopted there was explained to him. At the Post Office there were letter boxes for all the countries in the world, and letters could be posted in these boxes until fifteen minutes before the departure of the trains. The Postmaster-General of Italy told him that the system worked admirably. He suggested that an international postage-stamp should be established, or something equivalent to that. In the absence

  323
  of an international stamp he had suggested a remedy which could be easily brought into operation, and to which the present Postmaster-General's predecessors had turned a deaf ear. He meant the establishment at the great Post Office centres of a department for the sale of stamps of all foreign countries and all parts of the Empire. Some time ago he made an attempt to impress on the Postmaster-General the desirability of arranging for the registration of telegrams, but his right hon. friend declined to accede to that. Only the other day he came down to the House and announced that this would be agreed to. When any Post Office reform was suggested here was always a great deal of shuffling on the part of officials.
  He next referred to a matter which he hoped would be dealt with, on account of the inconvenience at present resulting from the practice in this country, namely, the impossibility of recalling letters after posting. It happened many times that senders of cheques and other communications wished to recall them after posting. That could be done in every country in the world except this. In those countries where letters could be recalled trouble and loss were often obviated. The postmaster asked the sender of the letter to fill up a form stating the contents of the letter. Then he opened the letter, and if he was satisfied that the applicant was the person entitled to get the letter it was returned, the postmaster retaining the envelope. Thousands of cases of wrong had been prevented in this way. He had appealed in vain to previous Postmasters-General to give facilities in regard to this, but it appeared to him that that they did not wish to be bothered about the matter. While he believed that the officials of this country were the best to be found in any part of the world, it was of advantage sometimes to bring pressure to bear upon them. He hoped that in this matter of recalling letters our Post Office would follow the example of other countries. When the new stamps were issued some time ago he suggested to the Postmaster-General that the penny stamp should be red, as it was formerly, but he was informed that it was impossible that this could be done.
  324
  The other day, however, it was done. The curious thing about our stamps was that they had a German look. He suggested that when new stamps were again issued they should bear some indication of the country of origin. Our postage stamps were the only ones in the world which bore no trace of the country whence they emanated. Another suggestion which he desired to make, and which he believed would be pleasing to all the King's subjects, was that at least one of our stamps should bear the portrait of our beloved and gracious Queen. He hoped that suggestion would commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad to say that recently there had been an attempt to improve the character of postmarks, so as to show the hour of posting and the town of origin. He asked his hon. friend to give the Committee some information as to what the Post Office might be expected to do in regard to letters containing lottery tickets, and letters containing immoral literature. The United States Post Office had effectually stopped their circulation.
  He now turned to a matter which had engaged the attention of a great number of people in this country. He referred to reports which had been made in regard to neglect, default, or larceny on the part of postal officials. It was far from him to in any way doubt the general integrity of the Post Office officials, but he was sometimes alarmed, in reading the Post Office Reports, to see the large number of employees who were convicted every year of Post Office offences. He knew the very large number of men engaged in the service, and that the enormous mass of letter carriers were men of high character; but when the convictions against them averaged three a week and a thousand had been dismissed in a year, that was a matter for grave consideration. It had been urged upon him that the high rate of misconduct was due to the employment of old soldiers in the Post Office service who had not been accustomed to Post Office work. Patriotism was all very well, and kindness to old soldiers was to be commended, but he thought that his right hon. friend should show his strength of character before giving way to the pressure from the military quarter of the House of

  325
  Commons and engaging old soldiers indiscriminately. The Postmaster-General laid it down that he was not responsible for any neglect, default, or larceny by the employees in the Post Office—in other words, that he was above the law. Only the other day a man was found to have 1,500 letters in his possession, most of them opened and all of them undelivered; and the Postmaster-General said he was not responsible, not even for the theft of postal orders. The Postmaster-General said that if he began to give compensation there was no saying to what extent it might be carried. But no other public carrier in the country claimed the same immunity. At any rate, the Postmaster-General should exercise more care in this respect than at present. He knew of a case where, through the blunder of a telegraph official, a man lost £1,500, and there were other instances where business men had been brought to ruin and the Bankruptcy Court through similar blundering. Some change should be made from this state of affairs by his right hon. friend. The letter boxes were the worst in the whole British Empire, or on the Continent. It was a marvellous thing that so few complaints were made in regard to them—only one or two a week. There were boxes in Vienna where the postmen never touched the letters. These were taken away in a skeleton box, and an empty skeleton box put in its place. His right hon. friend ought to introduce some such reform here. Then there was mother reform which he had not yet been able to get introduced. He meant the extension of the system of private letter boxes—for which a charge of a guinea a year was made at the large post offices—by means of which a man might go to these boxes at any hour of the night or day and get his letters. The system was universal in the Australian colonies, and visitors from these colonies and from the provinces here, felt the disadvantages of not having the system general, instead of having their letters delivered at hotels and boarding houses. The boxes would occupy no room to speak of, and they would be a great boon to visitors.
  He wished to refer to a matter which concerned few Members of the
  326
  House of Commons, but which was of great interest to travelers. We had a penny postage to India, Aden, Malta, Gibraltar, Hong-Kong and Shanghai, but the rate to Egypt was still maintained at twopence halfpenny. Thousands of people were anxiously waiting for this concession of a penny postage to Egypt, and he believed that the Postal Union were willing to agree to it. If his right hon. friend would only write to the Foreign Office and get them to assent to it, there would be an increase of five letters to one now sent to Egypt, and it would give an impetus to trade and good feeling. If letters could be sent for a penny postage to Hong-Kong Shanghai, and other places in China, surely the same rate could be charged for places at a quarter of the distance, There was another grievance. At present the weight or letters to all parts of the British Empire was restricted to half-an-ounce as against four ounces at home. The time had surely arrived when the weight should be increased from half-an-ounce to an ounce, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would push this reform on the great officials of the Post Office in this country Again, the question of the magazine post was a subject of great worry and annoyance. A newspaper of any weight so long as it was registered, and published at intervals of seven days could be sent for a halfpenny, but great magazines like the "Nineteenth Century," the "Fortnightly Review," and the "Contemporary Review," which contained articles of the highest educational value, were subject to full rates of eight ounces for a penny. It would be only fair and reasonable to abolish this ridiculous anomaly.
  He now turned to a matter which caused more annoyance than anything brought to his attention. As to the Post Office regulations, it was well known that no two men in the Department agreed as to their meaning [Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN dissented]. A lady might send an invitation to an At Home for a halfpenny; if the words "At Home" were printed it was all right; but if they were written the communication was liable to a surcharge. The other day a

  327
  thousand circulars were sent out containing the words "with thanks" and the recipients were fined a penny each. In another case circulars were charged double postage because they contained the word "gentlemen." That case was, he understood, now the subject of an inquiry; and he trusted before the debate ended that the Committee would have an assurance from his right hon. friend that it would not occur again. The Consul-General of Odessa was charged letter postage on a cheque book and used cheques, which was a peculiarly mean action. A lady had a letter returned to her from the Dead Letter Office and because it contained a 2s. postal order she had to pay 2d. for it. Why should not a chess problem be permissible on the back of a postcard? Again, in France and Germany when soldiers and sailors were sent abroad they were allowed free postage. A similar concession to British soldiers and sailors would be an enormous advantage, and would enable them to keep up correspondence with the old people. It would only cost a few hundred pounds sterling per annum; and he hoped his right hon. friend would consider it, and be able to give a satisfactory answer. Then as to the payments that were received by the Post Office Savings Bank, a poor man offered a deposit of £1 1s. 10d., the guinea was accepted, but the 10d. was refused on the ground that the Bank did not take pence. He thought the Post Office should be above that. Why should they not receive pence? He hoped that that was an action on the part of the Savings Bank which would not commend itself to his right hon. friend. With reference to the mail contracts, an extraordinary state of affairs had arisen. Australia now refused to receive mails which were conveyed in ships carrying black labour. Again, the system of charging for sites and buildings out of revenue was not business. With reference to the Post Office surplus, he wished to know was there to be a limit to the voracity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why should not part, at least, of that money be used to improve postal facilities. England was the only country in the world which had not a Government printing office. Why should not his right hon. friend take action as
  328
  regarded the printing of stamps, and establish even a small printing office? No country paid so much for printing and received such little value. England paid for her stamps double what the United States paid. As regarded the Insurance Department of the Post Office he did not think that there was any other Department worse managed. It was admitted that it ought to be placed under the control of an experienced manager. There was a great field for improvement there. With reference to the Post Office Guide it took about one and a half hours to find out when the mails were dispatched to any particular country. Every official in the Department mourned the absence of a proper guide. The other day the editor of a great paper offered a reward to any person who could explain the meaning of a passage in the present Guide; but no one appeared to know what it meant. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was appointing a Committee of five members to look into the grievances of the employees of the Post Office. He would ask that the right hon. Gentleman should also appoint a Committee of five to inquire into the grievances of the public. If the right hon. Gentleman did the one it was only fair that he should do the other.
  CAPTAIN NORTONcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General upon the speech he made on the previous debate, and the success it had met with, and upon the reforms he had instituted in the way of postal orders and the re-addressing of telegrams and sending them by post, but thought the restrictions upon the purchase of postage stamps was a mistake. He thought the issue of the sixpenny postal order would do much to reduce the grievance of which he complained. He desired to point out that the Committee granted in answer to the memorial of the postal officials, was not the Committee which they had demanded. When the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor established the Norfolk-Hanbury Committee, he had ventured to predict that it would not be successful because the men had no confidence in it. That prediction had come true, and he ventured to make a similar prophecy with

  329
  regard to this Committee. All the postal employees demanded was that their grievances should be dealt with by the House of Commons, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the late Mr. Hanbury, had distinctly stated to these employees that the House of Commons was their Court of Appeal. The right hon. Gentleman said the House of Commons was not the proper body to deal with these questions. If that were so, why was this Vote brought before the House? The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to the question of Members on both sides of the House coming to him for protection. That was very startling, because the reason they were there at all was that they might represent every section of their constituents. Although he welcomed the Committee he did so only because it proved up to the hilt that the grievances, which had been denied year after year, were such as required rectification. But, on the other hand, he denounced the Committee as valueless inasmuch as it was giving the postal officials what they never asked for, and it did not deal with the most important question, namely, the question of civil rights, the question of combination, and of special leave with a view to enabling the postal officials to carry on their organisation. With regard to that the late Postmaster-General gave them every reason to hope that he would consider the question, and now it was ignored. With regard to other sections of the community being in a similar position to the postal officials the hon. Member for West Islington had pointed out that only 40,000 were organised out of 170,000 postal officials, but presuming they were organised he submitted they were within their rights to appeal to their Members. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in connection with this matter, and he (Captain Norton) looked upon it as a slight to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I say, therefore, that so long as I hold the office of Postmaster-General, and I speak with the authority of my colleagues, that we are unalterably opposed to any Select Committee of the House of Commons regulating the wages in the Post Office. And if I am opposed to a House of Commons Committee fixing wages I am still more opposed to thrusting on the House of Commons or any Committee the duty of regulating in all its details the daily administration and work of the Post Office."
  330
  No one had ever suggested anything so wild as that they should interfere with the daily administration of the work in the Post Office. If the postal officials were such terrible tyrants he hoped they would take note of the fact that they could never hope for fair play from the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman appointed a packed jury of five individuals to deal with a fraction of the question, and went on to say with reference to the Committee—
  "If I am fortunate enough to obtain the services of gentlemen who will give the time and experience which are necessary for this inquiry, I shall hope they will be aide to give me a general opinion in the scale of these classes, and that in the light of the standard so set up I shall be able to deal, if I am then in office, if not, my successor will be able to deal, with the claims of the minor classes."
  In other words, he was going to take shelter behind this bogus Committee. It was, in fact, Lord Roberts and South Africa over again. He was going to appoint five members, possibly sweaters, to determine the rate of wages, that was to say, to assist the House to carry out the Fair Wages Resolution. It would be an astounding thing if the postal officials accepted any such bogus arbitration. If it was to be a Board of Arbitration, why should not they have five postal servants added to the five employers of labour? Moreover, these gentlemen were unknown to them. All they knew was they were not to be members of the present Civil Service. It was possible they might be ex-members, as if a man who had spent his entire working life swathed in red tape would be more likely to feel unfettered and untrammelled in dealing with these matters than one who was still in the Civil Service. This Committee was stillborn, if not an abortion, and the only gratification he had in connection with it, was that it gave some hope that there was the possibility of the birth of a sound Parliamentary Committee at some future day.
  With regard to disfranchisement, that was the most astounding thing he had ever heard of. It was true that quite recently in the Australian Colonies, owing to the great growth and power of Government employees, they had sought a remedy by giving to the various Government employees a Member of their own — but they had never suggested disfranchising them.

  331
  If they disfranchised the postmen, they must disfranchise all civil servants, municipal servants included—they would have to go further, they must disfranchise even the publican, down to the potboy, because their trade was protected by the State. It would be found very difficult to draw the line. He maintained that the electorate was too narrow as it was, and tens of thousands of workmen throughout London were disfranchised because, owing to the necessity of their occupations and callings, they were obliged to migrate from point to point. He maintained that they were there as representatives of the taxpayers and were their employers. The right hon. Gentleman was practically their manager, and his duty was not to appeal to these outside gentlemen but to the House of Commons, who were virtually his employers. They asked for a Select Committee which should deal with all the grievances of all the employees, and not an outside Committee over which they had no control, and which was to deal with some 50,000 of the postal servants, while it ignored 120,000 or more, who were amongst the poorest, the worst paid, and the least able to protect themselves. In the course of the debate the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who, with the skill of a great lawyer, came to the support of the right hon. Gentleman, had said there was nothing improper in what was suggested. No, but there was something highly imprudent, inasmuch as it would have no result and was not what they demanded. The hon. Member for Plymouth also said the right hon. Gentleman only sought advice. Yes, but he sought it in the wrong quarter, and that was what they objected to. He appealed to business men and asked them what they would think if they were colliery owners and their manager had a dispute with their men and went and consulted some other colliery manager in some other part of the country. Within a fortnight every man would be out of the mine. They would say they did not care what the other managers might think, they were dissatisfied and appealed to their own employers. That was precisely the position of the postal service. That House was their Court of Appeal, and was one to which they had a right to turn. Although he welcomed
  332
  the fact that it was admitted that there were grievances amongst these officials, he should like to point out that they had been unfairly and unjustly dealt with up to the present time. Take the case of the wages of the telegraphists. Not long ago the case which he made out for them, namely, that they had been practically duped into the service, inasmuch as, owing to certain rules and regulations made by the Post Office, they were never able to rise to £190, the maximum which they were promised; the proof that there was something in his contention was that the majority against him was only thirty-one, and since then their case had been brought up again and arbitration had been suggested; but the right hon. Gentleman had declined it, very wisely from his own point of view. He objected to this proposed Committee in the first place because it was not what the men asked for, namely, the decision of their employers; secondly, that the most numerous and most poorly paid body were excluded. He would give an illustration. He had had put before him the fact that some 600 women, now employed in a most important branch of the Post Office, when they were first employed were given a living wage of £65 a year, increasing by a yearly increment. It had been pointed out by a previous speaker that these women had had their wages lowered in spite of the fact that since these initial wages were first fixed at £65 rents had increased enormously in London, and the scale of living generally had increased. Their wages had been lowered by £10. They presented their petition to the late Postmaster-General and received no redress Their case was brought before the House, and the only thing he could say was that there were women doing similar work who were not better paid. He was sorry the hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincoln was not there, because he employed a number of women to do somewhat similar work and he paid them considerably more than the Post Office, in spite of the fact that the Post Office demanded from their women not only that they should be highly respectable and educated up to a very high standpoint, but in addition, that they should be of sound physical

  333
  health. Yet these women had been working for the first four years of their service undoubtedly at a sweating wage, and they were not to be considered at all by the Committee. How could a successful result be hoped for from this Committee? Only one grievance was to be dealt with—that of wages, which was the smallest grievance of which the men complained. It was what he would call a bastard Arbitration Board, and would never give satisfaction. It was as if a poor Irish Roman Catholic peasant, charged with some political offence, was promised trial by jury, the jury to consist of north-country Orangemen. The idea was too absurd. It was, so far as the men were concerned, a packed jury, and they would have nothing to do with it. He denounced it as a sham, and he would go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINhad no reason to complain of the tone and temper with which the announcement of the Committee had been generally received, but he thought he had reason to make some comment upon the tone and temper displayed by Captain Norton. He had denounced it as a bogus Arbitration Board, a bastard Committee, and a prejudiced and partial body, and thus he illustrated his fitness, as a Member of that House, to give an impartial judgment on these Gentlemen.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Certainly.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member does not know who are going to form this Committee. He does not wait to know in order to denounce it in this way.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: They are not Members of the House of Commons. That is sufficient.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What a liberal minded view. No one was to be trusted but a Member of the House of Commons, and, he presumed, no Member of the House of Commons who did not express his conviction, and even his prejudice, as the hon. Member had done. He thought that in the proposal he had made he had found a means of arriving at a decision upon this
  334
  difficult and complicated question, which would satisfy the great mass of public opinion as to the justice or otherwise of the complaints so constantly and so continuously made, and it would be a very good guide to the Postmaster-General, who was responsible in the first instance for seeing that fair wages were paid. It had been said that this Committee was not the Committee for which the men had asked, and that that in itself was sufficient to condemn it. If that were entirely true he did not see that that was sufficient to condemn it. It appeared to him that the employees of the Post Office were not entitled to be the sole judges of what action the Postmaster-General should take. But it was not quite true that this Committee was not such a Committee as the men had asked for. What was asked before all other things was an independent inquiry, and their complaints about the previous Committee was that it was almost wholly made up of permanent officials of the Government, and that it contained in its ranks the then permanent Under Secretary of the Post Office, and a permanent Under Secretary of the Treasury, and, however distinguished these gentlemen might be as servants of the State, they were too deeply prejudiced by their official work and official habits to bring an impartial judgment to bear upon the question before them. He utterly differed from that view, and, except for some phrases which had been used in the debate, he should hardly have thought it necessary to say that he thought the criticism of their impartiality quite unfounded. But however that might be, that was the objection taken by the staff to the constitution of the previous Committee. What they asked was that they might have a Committee which should be independent and not constituted wholly or with a large part, of official members. Such an independent inquiry he proposed to give. His object in appointing the Committee would be to obtain gentlemen whose names would command the confidence of the House and the public. He could not at present say, for he had made no progress at present with the constitution of the Committee, who these gentlemen would be, but he deprecated and condemned the violence of

  335
  language and prejudice and passion with which Captain Norton had denounced this Committee before it was appointed, and with which he sought to discredit its judgment before it had begun its work. For his part, he was confident that by men of both political parties, he shouldebe supported in his decision to take the question of the wages of the servants of the Post Office out of the sphere of party conflict and get a verdict which would be received with confidence. Further criticism had been made upon his reference to the Committee. In the first place, in regard to the subject to be referred; secondly, that it was limited in regard to the classes of men whose wages would be considered. On the first question he could do no more than repeat in a few words the reason he gave the other night which had influenced him in regard to that matter. The hon. and gallant Member opposite quoted a passage from his speech, in which he stated that he was opposed to referring to any Committee the organisation, distribution, and conditions of daily work of the Department, and he said—"Was there ever such an absurd suggestion made by anyone?"
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that nobody had ever made such an absurd suggestion, and naturally the responsibility for it would have to be borne by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member said that no Member of the House had ever made such an absurd suggestion as that, and that the responsibility for it devolved upon him. If the hon. and gallant Member fully accepted the logical conclusion of his statement, his appeal to have all the further questions which had been in dispute between the Post Office servants heard before the Tweedmouth Committee, and which had been made matters of complaint to successive Postmasters-General, referred to this Committee, could only arise from an imperfect knowledge of what Post Office administration was, or of what were the difficulties and conditions under which it had to be carried on.
  With regard to the subjects to be referred to the Committee, he could only
  336
  repeat the reasons which he gave the other night as having influenced him in this matter. In spite of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said, he ventured to say that the major part of the complaints would disappear when once the question of the wages was set on one side. The question of leave for attending trade organisation meetings was a simple matter, and could be dealt with by him in a couple of sentences. It did not really require a Committee to decide whether a fortnight's leave on full pay every year or fourteen working days on full pay, with ten days special leave upon providing a substitute, was an unreasonable amount of leave for men engaged in that class of work in the Post Office. He contended that the Post Office leave was not only reasonable but very generous, and he did not believe there was any parallel to it in private employment. If the ten days special leave they were allowed to take was not sufficient in which to do the work of the Associations, it was not unreasonable that the Postmaster-General should ask them to give up some part of their full-pay holiday to that purpose instead of demanding a further portion of the time which ought to be given to their primary duty—namely, their Post Office work. A stronger case in appearance had been made out in regard to certain excluded classes of Post Office servants, and several hon. Members had spoken to him about this matter privately. Perhaps it would save time if he said what his answer had been. If they took some of the large established classes of Post Office servants—sorters or telegraphists for instance—it was contended on their part that they gave the best working years of their lives to learning a business which had no market value outside the Post Office employment; that the Post Office was, so to speak, the monopolist of that kind of labour, and that the time they had given to learning the Post Office business was itself a disqualification for them turning to any other kind of work. But to that consideration had to be added the fact that when they had served for some years they were making good a right to a pension should their health give way, or when the time arrived for their retirement and it might be very well

  337
  argued, and with great force, that these servants could hardly freely dispose of their labour, because they would sacrifice too much by leaving the Post Office, even if the Post Office did underpay their servants. Compare their case with that of the auxiliary or assistant postmen, who were employed only part of their time, and with the sub-postmasters whose case had been mentioned. The auxiliary postman, by the nature of his duty, was not giving a full day to the Post Office service, nor was he wholly dependent upon the Post Office for his living or remuneration, for at any moment he could give up his employment without making any sacrifice except the emolument he had hitherto drawn from the Post Office. If they were paying less than he could obtain for equally agreeable work elsewhere, he could not believe that they would continue to retain his services any longer. He was free to go into the open market under no disability of having to serve the Post Office, and no such hold as the pension system gave, retained him. What was the case of the ordinary sub-postmaster? He was a shopkeeper, who, in addition to his business, obtained an agency for the Post Office. [An HON. MEMBER: He saves the Postmaster-General a rent.] But the hon. Member did not suggest that he did that for philanthropic purposes. In the first place, having to keep his shop open for certain hours, he could add to the profits of his business through the commission the Post Office paid him and he did it; secondly, for a very good reason—which was less easy to translate into terms of money but which formed a large pecuniary benefit—because having the Post Office in his shop brought customers for other things. He did not think the general scales of remuneration for sub-postmasters were anything but fair, or that there would be any justification for raising them, while there was such a tremendous demand for those appointments whenever they fell vacant. There was hardly one of those offices fell vacant without two or three different men being recommended to him for the vacancy. These sub-postmasters, who brought every scrap of influence they could to bear in order to get these Post Offices, turned round whenever they had been fortunate enough to be
  338
  selected and told the House of Commons that the Post Office had inflicted a grievance upon them by giving them an appointment which somebody else would be glad to take if they would give them up. [An HON. MEMBER: Because they did not know the results.] When they knew the results they could give up the business in a moment. They had their other work, and if the Post Office business did not pay them let them give it up. He knew there were many others who would be willing to have them as a means of increasing their income. Therefore these were not at all the same reasons as there were in regard to the established classes, whose wages he proposed to refer to this Committee. But there were other smaller classes, like the sorters or the sorter tracers. He felt it to be of the utmost importance, if the Committee was to be satisfactorily constituted, that the work should not be intolerably expanded, that the inquiry should not be made too wide, and that undue labour should not be imposed on its members. He had chosen great classes of established servants, and he thought that the report on their wages would in itself be a sufficient indication and guide as to the wages of the other classes referred to. With such advice and recommendations as he would receive from that Committee, he did not think that either himself or his successors in office would have any difficulty in adjusting, if adjustment was necessary, the wages of the other minor classes. He attached enormous importance to keeping this inquiry within reasonable bounds and not putting an undue strain upon the members of the Committee, thus preventing some of the best men from serving who would otherwise be obtainable. He hoped that was all he needed to say upon this matter.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word or two about the personnel of the Committee?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought he had made it perfectly clear that his desire was to have an independent Committee. The Post Office employees, after the Tweedmouth Report, complained that no Committee was independent upon which the officials

  339
  of the Post Office might sit. Therefore they must be held to that condition, and if it was not independent with one kind of civil servant sitting upon the Committee it would not be independent with another kind. He thought the Committee he suggested would be equally independent of departmental influence and of political pressure. He intended it to be a Committee sitting to give a judgment, and not a Committee sitting to advocate the interests of one side or the other. The course he was adopting would exclude from the Committee either a representative or advocate of the staff and also a representative or advocate of the Postmaster-General. He had tried to secure an independent Committee, excluding anyone who would be suspected of departmental influence or any of the other influences to which he had alluded. His hon. friend the Member for Canterbury made a long speech in which he touched on a large number of subjects, all of which he dignified by the name of postal reforms. There were one or two of these subjects with which he ought to deal, and first of all he would speak with reference to the change in the postal order system. His hon. friend was anxious for the issue of guinea postal orders; but that would require statutory authority, and if his hon. friend would introduce a Bill for the purpose it would have his warmest sympathy. It was a mistake to suppose that the restriction on the repurchase of stamps by the Post Office would be any inconvenience to the public. The introduction of the 6d. note and the 6d. rise in postal orders up to £1, with the liberty to affix stamps up to 5d. to the face of an order, would afford the opportunity for sending small remittances and would take the place of remittances by means of stamps. The change he had proposed was generally welcomed as removing or lessening a great temptation to dishonesty on the part of young people employed in business. He could hold out no hope of the adoption of the suggestion to remove the three months time limit from postal orders. To do so would be to put the Post Office in the position of a banker. The system of postal orders was established to afford facilities for sending small remittances; it was never intended that these orders
  340
  should be a form of currency; and if they were allowed to pass from hand to hand the Post Office would be deprived of the commission on the issue of new orders. His hon. friend referred to the question of universal penny postage and said it was ridiculous that one should be able to send a letter to India for a penny while unable to send it for the same amount across the English Channel. The Imperial penny postage so far could not be considered remunerative from the revenue point of view, nor was it so intended. It was established to promote facilities for the cultivation of closer relations with our fellow-subjects beyond seas; it was justified by its political and Imperial results rather than by financial results. On the ground of cultivating closer relations with our colonies the penny postage could be justified; but there was no justification for the enormously greater sacrifice that would be involved in making the rate universal for postage with all the nations of the world. The money order system was now the subject of inquiry by a departmental committee, and that inquiry was not yet completed, and all he could say was that he had hopes that the Department might be able to make some changes which would be in the direction of giving greater facilities to the public, but it would be very rash for him to speak on the subject until he was in possession of fuller information. His hon. friend also referred to the subject of a parcel post with the United States, and he contrasted the arrangement which had been made with an express company in America very unfavourably with that made between the German Post Office and the United States Post Office. It was no fault of the British Post Office that a parcel post convention had not been concluded with the United States. More than once the United States Government had been approached on the subject, but that Government had not seen their way to enter into such a convention until quite recently. In the circumstances, the best arrangement possible had been made with one of the great express companies, which gave greater facilities than the public had had before. Since then the United States Government had expressed willingness to enter into negotiations,

  341
  which were now proceeding. As the hon. Member for Canterbury was not present, he would not go over the whole list of what the hon. Member described as postal reforms.
  There appeared to be considerable misconception on the part of the public as to the financial results of the halfpenny post. Suggestions were continually made to him that if he would only extend the halfpenny post in this, that, or the other direction, an enormous business would be done, and doubtless with commensurate results in revenue. Practically all the halfpenny postal business was carried on at a loss. It was not a question of weight, but of handling. Postal packets could not be collected and delivered by the Post Office so that there should be any profit obtainable out of the halfpenny. Possibly the expenditure and revenue on post-cards might just about balance, though he was doubtful about this. But the halfpenny was the charge for carriage through the post, and he could not agree that in addition the material should be supplied free. A large trade had developed in private post cards, and any proposal to issue cards free would meet with considerable opposition; and, as it would mean a loss of revenue, it was a step he was not inclined to take. Speaking generally, the halfpenny post was unremunerative, and when he was asked to extend it to all magazines and bonâ fide periodical publications, he could only say that the financial results would be so serious that he was altogether unable to assent to a proposal of that kind. He did not understand how it could be justified without a further extension to books and tradesmen's catalogues, which were as much a means of spreading business as the advertisements tradesmen inserted in magazines. A limit, it had been said, should be placed on Post Office revenue, beyond which the growth should be devoted to postal reforms. For his own part he thought that those who made the revenue of the Post Office by the transmission of their correspondence through the post were entitled to a fair proportion of the additional profits in the shape of additional public facilities. He held, unlike his hon. friend the Member for Canterbury, that the Post Office always ought to be a revenue earning
  342
  Department. The Committee would be under a great misconception if it supposed that the proportion of the total revenue of the country which was contributed by the Post Office was a growing one, or that the proportion of profit obtained by the Post Office was greater in regard to its turnover than it had been in past times. On the contrary, there had been a steady decrease both in the proportion of national expenditure met out of the Post Office surplus and the proportion of every £1 of Post Office revenue which went to the Exchequer. He thought that at the present time it was about 4s., and that twenty years ago—though he was a little afraid of fixing dates from memory—it was 6s. 8d. At any rate, he was perfectly confident that there had been a steady decline in that proportion. First of all, he thought it was right that the public who used the Post Office should share in the prosperity of the Post Office, and have such increased facilities from time to time as could be afforded; but he did not think it would be right to sacrifice all idea of making the Post Office a revenue earning Department, or of giving up this great source in relief of the general taxation which had to be borne by the public. [An HON. MEMBER: What about postal orders for the colonies?] That was a matter which he had under consideration, but in regard to which he could not make any announcement at present. There was an obvious difficulty in having a general interchange of the infinite series of different forms of postal orders in the British Colonies all over the world. He would be very glad if the issue of postal orders could be extended so as to facilitate their use between this country and the colonies, and, as he had said, the matter was under his consideration. He knew the importance of many of the other questions which had been raised by his hon. friend the Member for Canterbury, but he was unwilling to weary the Committee by going further into them at the present moment.
  MR. TENNANTsaid he could not help thinking that it was a pity the hon. Member for Canterbury had not been present to listen to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman

  343
  the Postmaster-General, because if the hon. Gentleman had been in the House probably the Postmaster-General would have still further enlightened and interested the Committee upon the many points raised in the encyclopedic speech of his hon. friend. He himself would have been interested to hear from the Postmaster-General what answer he would have given as to charging penny postage to Shanghai and Hong Kong, and 2½d. to Egypt. Other points made by the hon. Member for Canterbury were that the Postmaster-General was responsible not only for the Teutonic appearance of our penny stamps, but also for the continuous dishonesty of some of the officials on the Post Office staff. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could not be held responsible for that.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would permit him to say a word on that subject which he had overlooked. He meant the reference of the hon. Member for Canterbury to the character of the staff and the number of dismissals that were made from it. The total number of dismissals from the staff of 180,000 men was, he thought, last year, about 1,000. Well, that was 45 per cent. of a half per cent., which he thought the Committee would acknowledge to be a very small proportion. As to what had been said by his hon. friend in regard to ex-soldier candidates for positions in the Post Office service, he thought that when they were first tried credit was given rather too easily to the recommendation of military officers who were anxious to obtain employment for the men who had served with them; but greater care was now being exercised in the selection of these old soldiers for the Post Office service.
  MR. TENNANTsaid he was sure that the Committee had heard with great satisfaction that statement by the right hon. Gentleman. A question had been raised by his hon. and gallant friend about the disfranchisement of this class of civil servants; and he was bound to say that he had been rather surprised that that matter had been raised the previous week by his hon. friend the Member for Battersea. He could assure
  344
  his right hon. friend the Postmaster-General, that, so far as the county which he represented was concerned, no such pressure as had been alluded to, had ever been brought to bear upon him from the Post Office officials. Another matter to which his hon. and gallant friend had alluded, and which was of great importance, was the scale of pay of the women employed in the postal older clearing house and the savings' bank department. That was a class who felt much aggrieved that their wages had been reduced suddenly and without reason assigned. Up to 1897 they were paid at the rate of £65, with an annual increment of £3; but that rate had been reduced to £55 a year with an annual increment of £2 10s. a year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdissented.
  MR. TENNANT: Do I understand my right hon. friend to say that no salaries have been reduced?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No existing salaries were cut down: but the scale of payment of new entrants was altered.
  MR. TENNANTsaid that that did not alter the fact that the scale of payment of women in the department which had hitherto been £65 per annum was reduced to £55 for new-comers. The point really was, did they get as good a class of women for that reduced salary? Were women of education and some degree of standing encouraged to apply for these posts? He could not help thinking that it was a bad precedent for the Government to set—to make a profit out of the wages of the women they employed. He had in his possession a statement issued by the Association of Women Clerks in the Post Office, which showed that on an average their weekly expenditure was 7s. 6d. for rent, 5s. 6d. for board at their residence, and 4s. 6d. for board at the office. Their outlay for travelling expenses was 1s. 6d., and 2s. for laundry. That came to more than £52 a year for living and other necessaries, leaving only £3 a year for the annual holiday, recreation, and the hundred and one demands on a woman in employment.

  345
  He was bound to say that that wage did not seem sufficient to give to this particular class of women, if they wanted to get good women and improve their quality. An hon. Member said that the manners of some of the women employed in the Post Office left something to be desired. He did not wish to minimise that complaint. He thought that in some cases the charge was justified. But that did not apply to the class of women to whom he was alluding—the women in the Post Office Savings' Bank and the Postal Order Clearing House—who had to do responsible work in which very large sums of money were involved, and who did not come in contact with the general public in the same way as the other class to which reference had been made. He sincerely trusted this matter would be referred to the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. Perhaps he was rather late in the day, but might he ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this class of women to whom he was referring had been specially referred to the Committee, or did they only come under the general headings to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to refer them specially to the Committee.
  MR. TENNANTsaid that in that case he should be forced to support the reduction moved by his hon. friend. It appeared to him that there was a very strong case for these women, and he sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman had not a closed mind on the subject; because the reduction in their salaries had excited a great deal of attention and had created much agitation.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that he had been engaged for a considerable time in pressing upon the Government and the House the necessity for granting a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the grievances of the postal staff; and he could not say that he had received with any satisfaction the original announcement of his right hon. friend as to the composition of the Committee he proposed to appoint. Still less did he think that the statement the right hon. Gentleman had made
  346
  that day had given him hope that the proposed Committee would really make a settlement of what had long been a troublesome subject to the House of Commons. The narrow scope of the reference to the Committee, and the exclusion from its consideration of the class mentioned by the hon. Member who had just sat down, would, of necessity, lead to further agitation, and therefore there would be no solution of the difficulty which they all desired to put an end to. He was bound to say that, believing there were many real grievances right through the postal service, he felt that the scope of the proposed inquiry was far too restricted, and that they would be forced to demand further consideration for the excluded classes. There could be no ground for excluding the "tracer" class of telegraphists from the inquiry and the women referred to, both of whom were of the less organised and silent class and who it might have been expected would, on that account, have obtained a sympathetic hearing from the head of the Department. He felt that in preventing the Committee from considering the claims of these persons, they were practically putting a premium, on agitation within the postal service. The hon. Member for West Islington and the hon. Member for Newington denounced the Committee in strong language and maintained that a Parliamentary Committee would be a more proper tribunal. He did not wish to associate himself with all the strong language that had been used; but he would say in perfect sincerity that he was at a loss to understand why a Parliamentary tribunal should be such a bad one; or why hon. Gentlemen should have to seek the protection of his right hon. friend against their constituents. He had taken a somewhat active part in connection with the redress of Post Office grievances, and he had never received a communication from any of his constituents who were postal servants, on the subject. There were 180,000 postal employees distributed all over the country. Therefore, their power over Members of Parliament was practically a negligible quantity; and it was only by becoming acquainted with the hard facts in their own constituencies that hon. Members

  347
  had been led to take up Post Office grievances.
  It had been said, not only this year, but in previous years, that the Postmaster-General in approaching the question of the pay and condition of service in the Post Office should have regard to the pockets of the taxpayers. That seemed to him to be a very obvious principle; and one which he should have thought would apply not only to the question of wages but also to the general administration of the Post Office. He should like to point out to his right hon. friend an instance, within his own knowledge, which pointed to the necessity for economies in the telegraphic service, and which economies would do something to provide funds for better pay for the staff without recourse to the public purse. In a house in the country in which he was born there was a Post Office telegraph installed. A few years ago, at the suggestion of the Post Office authorities, that telegraph was converted into a telephone. But now the authorities refused to allow telegraph messages to be telephoned. Instead, telegrams were brought up from a railway station three miles away at a cost to the State of 7d. and, as regarded himself, the loss of several hours in delivery. He managed, however, to get quick replies and at the same time effect an economy for the State of 7d. on each message. There was a friendly fishmonger living in the town, and if he wished to get a prompt reply to telegrams he sent the telegram addressed to the care of the fishmonger who telephoned it to him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That will arise on the Telegraph Vote.
  MR. HAYsaid he was merely giving an illustration as to how the Post Office expenses in the particular office to which he was referring could be reduced. The result was that the Post Office wasted money where it might be saved, or fairly expended in improving the conditions of service of the postal staff. In stating that the unestablished class would not be included in the terms of reference to the Committee, his right hon. friend added that they could leave the employment of the Post Office at
  348
  any time, and find a living wage in another sphere. But that did not appear to him to be an answer to the grievances of which the unestablished class complained. Surely, the Post Office should carry out the principle laid down by the Prime Minister two or three years ago that the State should be a model employer; and it was because he believed that there was a considerable number of men and women employed in the Post Office on the unestablished staff, whose pay and conditions of service were not such as a model employer would permit that he would vote for the reduction. The history of the question showed that the Government had never, of its own accord, proposed a single improvement in the lot of the postal employees. It was, therefore, idle to dispute the right of these men and women to an inquiry. If the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee were reasonable it was quite clear that the treatment of these men and women up to that time had not been reasonable. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have restricted the range of the inquiry, and that the time of the House of Commons would have to be taken up in considering the demand of the persons who were excluded for a redress of their grievances.
  MR. DELANYsaid he could not understand why the right hon Gentleman, when he recognised the necessity of appointing a Committee, went outside the House of Commons. Surely there were Members of the House of Commons who were independent, and who had a practical knowledge of all matters to be considered. He wished to call attention to certain postal appointments which had been made in Ireland. He did not wish to misrepresent the action of the right hon. Gentleman or his Department, but his view was that such appointments were given in Ireland mainly to Army pensioners and to police pensioners. If he were wrong he was open to correction; but he would cite an instance which occurred in his own constituency. There was a vacancy in Castletown, and a policeman's wife was appointed to it. A memorial was signed by the parish

  349
  priest, the County Councillors, the District Councillors, and other representative men, and sent to the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the appointment of a Mrs. Murphy, who occupied very suitable and central premises. But notwithstanding that memorial, the policeman's wife was appointed, although she was living in a small hut.
  MR. SCHWANNsaid the House and the country owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Canterbury, whom they acknowledged as the author of a great number of the best reforms which had been undertaken by the Post Office for twelve or fifteen years past. Whilst congratulating the Postmaster-General on the great ability which he had brought to bear on the administration of the Post Office, he could not help thinking the right hon. Gentleman was too prone to work the Post Office as a revenue producing concern. That, in his opinion, was an entirely wrong principle. The public who largely produced that revenue ought to share in it to a much larger extent, in the shape of reforms. The Post Office ought to be a model employer, and, while dealing generously with the public, ought also to take care of the employees. The postmasters and sub-postmasters numbered something like 22,000, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not bring the grievances of these officials within the scope of the Committee. In a great number of cases those who had become sub-postmasters had had to abandon that position owing to the smallness of the remuneration. The postmaster at Bradford, who retired a week ago, had stated that he had eighty sub-Post Offices under his charge, the whole of which, with the exception of fifteen, had changed hands. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if they did not like the position of sub-postmaster they could give it up, but it was not an easy thing for a small tradesman who had paid £5 for a safe, and £1 1s. for having a letter box fitted into his window, and other little expenses in altering his premises for the purpose of a Post Office, to throw up his position and sacrifice the £8 or £10 he had paid. Seeing that it cost the
  350
  Post Office £50 to transfer a Post Office from one man to another, would it not be better to give a little better pay and make it worth a man's while to keep the position rather than make a transfer. Having regard to the new issue of postal orders he would also like to know whether postmasters and sub-postmasters would have to give a further guarantee. They now, as he understood, gave a guarantee for £200. There was a general feeling also that an increased commission should be given to sub-postmasters with regard to postal packets. The increase to four ounces for letters was a great benefit to the public, but the sub-postmasters, who had to weigh the packets in order to see that they were just under four ounces weighed the same number of packets for one penny as they did when they were smaller. As a matter of fact there was throughout the postal service an impression that, while there had been some reforms, what was given with the one hand was taken away with the other. He therefore urged the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question whether he could not bring the case of the postmasters and sub-postmasters under the Committee. He repudiated the suggestion that the House of Commons could not produce a Committee to suit the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of this kind. There would be no difficulty whatever in forming a Committee of five, six or seven members which would be absolutely impartial, and in the decisions of which the Post Office officials would have some confidence. With regard to pressure, he had received no pressure of any kind from the Post Office officials. He had had pressure exerted against him by publicans, brewers, and Church committees, but such pressure he had always disregarded. He would also like to know whether the question of allowances would be reconsidered. Allowances, it would be remembered, were granted to men who were brought into the inside service from the outside, and thus debarred from participating in the Christmas boxes The Tweedmouth Committee said that system of allowances should be reduced, but the Post Office had abolished them altogether. That was another of the reductions in the emoluments of

  351
  the Post Office officials which gave them the impression that what was given with the one hand was taken away with the other. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to clear the minds of men of all feeling of discontent. The price of lodgings and house rent had increased to a large extent, and he trusted the inquiry of this Committee would be so thorough and satisfactory that nothing would be heard of further complaints for many years.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that some years ago he was interested in a system under which the postage of parcels was paid on delivery, and it would be interesting to hear from the Postmaster-General whether any steps were likely to be taken towards the introduction of such a system. It would enormously develop trade, and be of special value in connection with agriculture, fishing, and similar industries, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a favourable reply.
  MR. HARMSWORTHthought that a very inadequate reason had been given for the delay of the mail trains to which he had directed attention in a Question to the Postmaster-General.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had satisfied himself by careful inquiry that the time allowed for stoppages was insufficient for the mail labour which now arose at wayside stations. In the main, it was not the fault of the railway company, and he would see whether a remedy could be devised by separating the traffic in some way.
  MR. EMMOTThoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to get the impartial Committee he was seeking. Personally, he was not an advocate of a House of Commons Committee for this particular purpose, but the success of the inquiry depended on whether its personnel commanded the confidence of the parties concerned. Many business men were not impartial when a question arose between employers and employed,
  352
  and it would certainly be more difficult to get five impartial business men than to get five impartial Members of the House of Commons. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, if he found any difficulty in forming his Committee, would not adhere too strictly to his self-denying ordinance. It might be possible to have two partisan members of the Committee, or at any rate two impartial Members of Parliament, who would be quite as good as anybody from outside. He suggested that a representative of the employees should be appointed, even though he sat as an assessor without a vote. But he could not agree that no pressure was put upon Members, because a great deal of his time was taken up by communications from Post Office people, and the lesson he drew was that they had, or thought they had, some grievance. Unless, therefore, the Committee commanded their confidence, its decision was not likely to settle the matter. With regard to the salaries of women clerks, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision not to refer the matter to the Committee. It was difficult to understand why the scale of payment for beginners had been reduced. The expense of living in London for a single woman was considerably higher than it used to be, and many appeals had been made, but without result. £55 a year was not a living wage for single women of the class the Post Office required. These clerks were appointed after examinations which were held all over the country, and frequently girls were brought up from the country to London without in the least knowing how high the cost of living was, and they then found that the salary was quite inadequate. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would either deal with the matter himself or refer it to the Committee.
  MR. MARSHALL HALLthought it would be a pity to interfere with the constitution of the proposed Committee, but he thought the scope of the inquiry might be well extended so as to include women. They had to guard against rendering the work of the Committee nugatory, and unless the tribunal had the confidence of the employees it would do no good whatever, because the employees would say they had not had a proper hearing.

  353
  The suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham was a very good one, and its principle might be extended so that the employees should not only be given a representative on the Committee but should also be allowed to nominate the man they wished to represent them. Whether the representative sat as an assessor or not, was really immaterial, because if they had somebody in whom they had absolute confidence to watch over the proceedings, they were much more likely to be satisfied with the result of the inquiry. There was one other matter to which he wished to refer. Some years ago there were in the corner of all stamps some little letters, by means of which it was possible to tell at what particular time a particular stamp was printed. When stamps were used for revenue purposes it was sometimes very material to ascertain definitely when a stamp was issued, because by that means it was possible to tell approximately about when a document was brought into existence. He had recently had an instance in the Courts where receipts were put forward which were brought into existence two years after the date they purported to bear. Such a thing would have been almost impossible if the stamps had had the date in the corner in the way he had described, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to revive that custom.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid the Postmaster-General was hardly correct in his statement that a postman could split up his annual leave for the purpose of attending the meetings of his Federation. He had to take his leave whenever his superior officer directed, so that he could not have a day now and a day at another time to augment the ten days special leave. If the right hon. Gentleman would increase the special leave he would deprive the men of a strong ground of complaint. If a man in the north of Ireland had to attend a meeting to be held on a Sunday in London it was necessary for him to leave home on Friday evening, and he was unable to get back until the following Tuesday. It therefore took him four days to attend one meeting, and as the Federation had four meetings in the year that meant a total of sixteen days. If the Postmaster-General would extend the
  354
  special leave from ten days to sixteen days it would be a great boon to the men. It was all very well to say that there was no opposition to combination on the part of the men, but if the rules of the Post Office made combination so difficult, the right to combine became a farce. Another point in the matter was that a postman who left his duties to attend the meetings of his organisation had to pay for a substitute, but at the same time receive no pay himself. This was a severe restriction, which might very well be relaxed. The men were very hard worked and as a rule extremely honest, and some consideration should be shown to them. By the rules of the Post Office only persons in the employ of the Post Office were entitled to make representations to the Postmaster-General. That made it more difficult for postmen to attend to their business, and if the Postmaster-General would consent to listen to a representative of the men it would do away with much of the necessity for the men to leave their work and appear themselves. With regard to the proposed Committee, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the officials asked for an independent Committee, and that he was going to give them a Committee which was independent, because it was not composed either of Members of the House of Commons or of officials connected with the Post Office. Surely he did not suggest that he could not get an independent Committee composed of Members of Parliament. If his only purpose was to get an independent Committee, why did he say it was to protect Members of the House from the importunity of postal officials? Personally he had never been annoyed by communications from Post Office employees, but he had been annoyed by the Women's-Right's man and still more by the Deceased-Wife's-Sister's man. Other Members, however, might have had a different experience. The reference to the Committee was so limited in its scope that the inquiry was certain to leave many sores untouched. As proposed it would deal with the wages of only 45,000 out of 180,000 pesons, so that about 135,000 would still be dissatisfied, with the result that the

  355
  agitation would go on until eventually another Committee was appointed. As a tribunal was being set up it was a pity so to restrict the terms of the reference, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would yet reconsider his decision.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that two points had been raised to which he had not before referred, and as to which the Committee were entitled to a reply. With regard to whether pensioners and Army men should have a preference over other equally deserving local inhabitants, all he had said was that he would not exclude any man because he was a pensioner or had been in the Army. With regard to the introduction of the "Cash-on-delivery" system, he could assure his hon. friend the Member for North Islington that personally he was favourably disposed to its introduction. He thought it would be a great benefit to the public, and not least to the smaller consumer, producer, and dealer. He was sorry to say, however, that that was not the universally accepted opinion, and when some time ago it was thought that the Post Office might carry out this reform, the Postmaster-General of the day was overwhelmed with protests from District Councils, and other local bodies, against the introduction of a system which they thought would serve the interests of the big men in the big towns at the expense of the little men in the little towns. Even the Chambers of Commerce carried by a small majority a resolution protesting against the introduction of such a system. Under these circumstances all he could say was that if the public desired this reform they would not find him unfavourably disposed towards it. He believed it would be a great advantage, and if there was a general desire for it, he thought the Post Office might be able to undertake the extra work. With regard to the printing of revenue stamps to which the hon. Member for the Southport Division had referred, that was rather a matter for the Inland Revenue authorities. He would call their attention to the matter, and see whether anything could be done.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement with regard to the fourteen days leave.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had already dealt very fully with the matter, and the discussion would never be brought to an end if hon. Members controverted his statements and expected him to re-argue the case. The hon. Member had said that the postal officials were not generally allowed to split up their annual leave, and that therefore it was useless to them for the purpose of attending to the business of their organisations. He shared the desire of the hon. Member that that business should, if possible, be conducted by postal servants. He had received a great number of applications from postal servants, who put their grievances before him with admirable clearness, and it was much more satisfactory for him to deal with the men directly than through any outsider. He could therefore assure the hon. Member that he had not the least desire to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of the men themselves conducting the affairs of their organisations. But the men had represented their case rather differently from the hon. Member, because their complaint had been, not that they were unable to use their annual leave for the purpose, but that they were obliged so to use it, and that it was very unfair to expect them to give up any part of what ought to be their holiday for the purposes of attending to the work of their organisations. A service like that of a Post Office required a certain amount of regularity, and unlimited special leave could not be given. The present limit had been fixed in consequence of abuses of the previous system. He did not think it was an unfair allowance, and he really could not undertake to revise it. This Vote had now been under discussion for a considerable time, and he ventured to appeal to the Committee to allow a division to be taken on the reduction which had been moved.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid there was a growing feeling of disappointment that the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman was going to appoint was not to be a Select Committee of Members of this House. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could have

  357
  obtained all the impartiality he could obtain anywhere else, by appointing Members of the House. He hoped, if the Committee was formed in the way that had apparently been decided, the right hon. Gentleman would take care that one of the five members would be a representative of trade combination — someone accustomed to deal with trade matters from the point of view of the employees. In that way he would obtain more confidence for the Committee than if he appointed only a Committee of what he described as business men. They did not want another Tweedmouth Commission. They wanted this matter settled once for all. He thought also that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the position of sub-postmasters. He was glad to hear the Postmaster-General say that he was considering the position of the smaller sub-postmasters throughout the country. They were a most deserving class, and if the right hon. Gentleman could devise some means of giving these sub-postmasters some consideration for length of service, he would make the service all the more popular. He had himself occasion lately to look into a case where a man had been for fifty years a sub-postmaster. He had done his work with great efficiency, and at considerable pecuniary sacrifice, and when he retired he was not eligible for a pension, and there was no means, or, at all events, willingness, on the part of the Postmaster-General to recognise his long and praiseworthy service. If the right hon. Gentleman could find some means by which that could be rectified, he would do something for which those interested would be grateful. He thought also that the women in the service ought to receive some consideration from the right hon. Gentleman. The wage at present was not sufficient to induce the best class of women to come into the service.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They are very anxious to get into it.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid they were no doubt very anxious to get into it, but they did not know how far £55 a year went in a place like London. They were discontented afterwards, and it was discontent in the service that the right hon. Gentleman should try to avoid. It was one of the worst elements they could
  358
  have in a public Department. He thought the young women should have better remuneration for their services. He was sorry to say that the Committee must go to a division on this Vote as a protest against the right hon. Gentleman's unyielding attitude on the repurchase of stamps. By the proposal he had made, he was doing something which was very hard on the poor, and interfering with trade, especially the trade of the smaller and poorer class of tradesman. He could not see why they should be charged 5 per cent. instead of 2½ per cent. as formerly on stamps re-purchased. Now that the Post Office had decided not to re-purchase less than one pound's worth, it would be easier to receive the stamps in bulk than in the small lots hitherto accepted. Poor persons, such as agricultural labourers, who received remittances of 1s. 6d. per week from their children, would be unable to receive them in stamps and realise them at the Post Office. The senders would have to pay a ½d. or a 1d. to get a postal order. He thought that would cause vexation. He was sure, also, that small traders would be vexed by the attitude the right hon. Gentleman had taken in this matter. A more cumbrous method than that proposed in connection with the re-purchase of stamps he could not conceive.
  MR. NANNETTIexpressed regret that the Postmaster-General had not acceded to the appeal made to him to extend the scope of the inquiry. The Committee which had been promised would not meet the requirements of the case. He might tell the House that the grievances felt by the postal servants in Ireland were deep. They were told that the Committee which the Postmaster-General had promised to appoint, was to be an impartial Committee, but he believed that, so far from dealing with the case, it would have the effect of accentuating the grievances of the men, and that the complaints would all come up again next year. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded in very severe terms to the speech of the hon. Member for West Newington. He did not know whether the right hon.

  359
  Gentleman had informed himself with reference to the feelings entertained by the postal servants with reference to the promised inquiry. He knew from correspondence he had had from people in his own country that this inquiry would give no satisfaction. It was simply throwing dust in their eyes, and so far from the right hon. Gentleman gaining credit for establishing the Committee, the postal servants would rather make their arguments stronger for the redress of the grievances of which they justly complained. It was said that the Committee was to consist of business men, but the House did not know who these men would be. He did not believe they could have an impartial inquiry unless they had on the Committee a Member of this House or a representative of the postmen themselves, who would be able to give a sympathetic ear to the grievances. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had read the official journals with reference to this matter, but he thought the course taken by the Postmaster-General was a thorough vindication of the strong line followed by the hon. Member for West Newington. He would read to the House the opinion of the Dublin men. They said—
  "Inadequate wages does not by any means constitute the only grievance of postal employment. The promotion question, the proper sanitation of Post Office buildings, the pernicious system of secret reporting, civil rights, etc., are all matters of urgent importance, and must be looked into."
  Nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman ignored all these claims and promised a Committee for the purpose of looking into the question of the wages of the section of postal servants who were best able to look after themselves.
  What was to be done for the young men coming into the postal service? Young men in Ireland came into the Post Office service and received the magnificent salary of 6s. a week, and on becoming proficient they got 12s. He was struck with the observations of the hon. Member for Canterbury when he alluded to peculation on the part of postal servants. The hon. Member suggested that this might be due to the appointment of soldiers and men of that kind. He himself would not say that an old soldier was more susceptible to temptation than others, but his
  360
  own opinion was that the frauds were due to the system under which they paid men the starvation wage of 12s. a week. It was not creditable to the State or the House of Commons that there should be men well out of their teens, in the postal service receiving 12s. a week—a wage which was not equal to that of a street scavenger. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take his information from the official mind in this matter, but rather from the men who were most interested in the matter. Let the Post Office appoint a Committee satisfactory to the men, and not one like the Tweed mouth Committee, which would be discredited from the very first. The proposed Committee would be discredited, and he warned the postal servants to have nothing to do with it. They had gained a point in bringing the right hon. Gentleman to see that there were grievances Let a full measure of inquiry be granted, and not merely an inquiry in regard to one item picked out. The Postal Servants' Committee in Ireland said—
  "It is difficult to say whether this Committee will be accepted or not by the Joint Committee of Postal and Telegraph Associations, but if we may be allowed to express our own humble opinions on the subject, the acceptance of such a Committee would considerably retard the final settlement of the postal question. The proposal is simply a red herring drawn across the track, and should not be touched with a forty-foot pole."
  He would now read the opinion of Englishmen with reference to this Com mittee—
  "This very doubtful concession is calculated to secure the safe passage of the Post Office Vote, throw dust in the eyes of some of our Parliamentary friends, and defeat the object for which we have so long striven."
  He hoped the postal servants would take to heart the opinion given by their organisation, and have nothing to do with the Committee which was to be appointed to deal with one particular subject.
  "We say plainly that the Committee the Postmaster-General proposes to appoint will not be acceptable to us. It is not the sort of tribunal we should have confidence in; the scope of its inquiry will be too limited, and its power to see that its recommendations are carried out will be nil. Inadequate pay is not the only grievance of postal servants; there are other evils equally serious that demand reform."
  He appealed to hon. Members whether it was fair for the right hon. Gentleman to complain that the time of the Committee

  361
  had been occupied for four hours last week, and four hours again that day, when he offered a Committee of Inquiry which could not be acceptable to those most interested in it. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General meant well, but he should get himself out of the hands of his officials, who did not really wish to see this great question settled. The action of the right hon. Gentleman proved that the Tweedmouth Commission had been a failure, and that the wisdom of the men had been justified. The proposed inquiry could not end the matter; the agitation would come on again and again until the Government did what was right to a much maligned body of men. This was a question which vitally affected Ireland. It was not a simple question of the appointment of Mrs. Murphy. He protested generally against the manner in which Post Office appointments were made in Ireland. Mrs. Murphy's case was only typical. It was only those who had the biggest interest with the right hon. Gentleman who got the best appointments, and not those who had given the best years of their life to the service. That was not a system to induce the best young men to enter the service. He had brought the matter before the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, and he knew that in reply, the right hon. Gentleman had not given him his own views, but the stereotyped answers of the officials. Take the cases of the young men in Dublin who had served all their lives in the Post Office, and who knew their business well; but just because there was an individual who wanted to
  curry favour with the "powers that be," a bad mark was made against them. Was it to be conceived that there was not a person on the whole staff of the Dublin Post Office who could be promoted to a responsible situation? The young men on the staff had been educated in the best schools and were of the very best material in Ireland, but they had no chance of gaining promotion if they had not the knack of making friends with their superiors, and strangers were put over their heads. He had no fault to find with Englishmen getting appointments in Ireland if they were the best appointments, but he objected to Englishmen being pitchforked into positions over the heads of Irishmen who had given their whole lives to the service of the State. The same complaint as he now made had been made by the leading merchants and citizens of Dublin, but no redress had ever been vouchsafed to them. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General would widen the scope of the inquiry, so that the grievances of the young men in the Post Office service in Ireland should be ventilated.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 78.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bill, Charles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Allsopp, Hon George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bowles, Lt,-Col. H. F. (Midd'x

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Brassey, Albert

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Billiard, Sir Harry

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

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

  Cranborne, Lord

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Bigwood, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. O.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, JaGrant (Yorks, N. R.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lockie, John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Russell, T. W.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

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

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Garfit, William

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Strutt Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Percy, Earl

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

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Kimber, Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wylie, Alexander

  Knowles, Lees

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Camp

  Younger, William

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. Stalybridge

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Doogan, P. C.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Duffy, William J.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Austin, Sir John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Edwards, Frank

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bell, Richard

  Ellis, John Edward

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Joyce, Michael

  Burns, John

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burt, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Cremer, William Randal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leng, Sir John

  Crooks, William

  Grant, Corrie

  Levy, Maurice

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Lough, Thomas

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Lundon, W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Delany, William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  364

  365

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

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

  Murphy, John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Toulmin, George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rigg, Richard

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Tully, Jasper

  Norman, Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Runciman, Walter

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

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

  Schwann, Charles E.

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Dowd, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  O'Mara, James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mr. Weir and Mr.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Butcher.

  Question put accordingly, "That a sum not exceeding £6,267,400 be granted for the said service."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 199. (Division List No. 79.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Austin, Sir John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bell, Richard

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rigg, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leamy, Edmund

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Crooks, William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Leng, Sir John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

  Lundon, W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Toulmin, George

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Tully, Jasper

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Norman, Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Young, Samuel

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Mr. Lough and Captain

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Norton.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Flower, Ernest

  Myers, William Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gardner, Ernest

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Garfit, William

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Percy, Earl

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

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Purvis, Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Remnant Jas. Farquharson

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Bigwood, James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Bill, Charles

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Helder, Augustus

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middx.)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brassey, Albert

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Russell, T. W.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Bull, William James

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

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

  Johnstone, Heywood

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kimber, Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

  Knowles, Lees

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Lockie, John

  Valencia, Viscount

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Younger, William

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Milvain, Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINclaimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly, "That a sum not exceeding £6,267,500 be granted to His Majesty, to complete

  369
  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 Post Office Services, the expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and
  Government Annuities and Insurances, and the collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 95. (Division List No. 80.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Arnold-Forster Hugh O.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Garfit, William

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Percy, Earl

  Bignold, Arthur

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bigwood, James

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bill, Charles

  Hamilton, Marq, of (Londondy

  Pretyman, Ernest George.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middx.)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brassey, Albert

  Heath James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Helder, Augustus

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Bull, William James

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Keswick, William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Knowles, Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lockie, John

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Younger, William

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

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  O'Mara, James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Austin, Sir John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Bell, Richard

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burns, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Law, H. Alex, (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leamy, Edmund

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crooks, William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Dunn, Sir William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Ellis, John Edward

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Murphy, John

  Young, Samuel

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Norman, Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grant, Corrie

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Mr. Schwann and Mr.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Weir.

  It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  OLD BRIDEWELL BURYING GROUND BILL (LORDS) [BY ORDER].
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. PAULTONsaid he hoped that the terms of his Resolution would make it plain to the House on what grounds he desired to move the rejection of the Bill. With the details of the Bill he was not concerned,
  372
  but the question of principle. He objected to it because it sought to enable a private landowner greatly to enhance the value of his property by converting into a building site, land which he was debarred by existing public statutes from utilising for that purpose. This land formed part of Old Bridewell Hospital which for nearly 200 years had been used as a house of correction, and this particular portion was used as a burial ground for prisoners and other persons. The site was closed as a burying ground by order of the Home Office in the middle of the nineteenth century. The validity of the order was contested, but the decision upon that point was entirely immaterial to the question which he had to ask the House to decide. In 1892 the Home Secretary made an order for the removal of human remains buried in this place, but the ground was then and had always been an open space, and as such it came under a series of public statutes dealing with open spaces.

  373
  In 1881 the Metropolitan Open Spaces Act was passed to facilitate the acquisition of disused burial grounds and other lands for use as public gardens and spaces, and in 1884 a further Act was passed which made it unlawful to erect any buildings upon a disused burial ground. This legislation was strengthened in 1887 by an amending Act in which the meaning of the words burial ground was defined in such a manner as unquestionably to apply to the land which was now the subject of discussion. It was not necessary to labour the point, because it was obvious that if the owner had any title to build on the land he would not have come forward with this Bill. The sole purpose of this Bill was to exempt a particular owner—Lord de La Warr—from the provisions of the Act, and thus to enhance the value of his property. Parliament had followed a definite and continuous policy in this matter, and he hoped that it would not be departed from. He trusted they would maintain the broad principle which they had laid down. Whether an open space was required in this neighbourhood, which was now the centre of the printing trade, was quite immaterial to his argument; if the land adjoined Hyde Park the argument would be the same, that Parliament ought to sustain and defend its own clear and definite policy on this matter. This was no small question. There were still some 170 disused burial grounds within the metropolitan area which might be affected by the Bill, and if Parliament passed this measure it would be open to the owner of any of them to ask for a similar exemption. It was quite possible that Christ's Hospital might be quoted as a precedent for the course the promoters desired to take, but Christ's Hospital afforded no real precedent for such a case as this, inasmuch as no question of public benefit or utility could be adduced in support of this proposal to enhance the value of a private estate. He most earnestly urged Members who had regard to the policy of maintaining open spaces to support his Motion. He begged to move.
  MR. COHEN: thought the poverty of the case of the promoters of this Bill was shown by the facts that
  374
  they relied on the case of Christ's Hospital. But in that case the House departed from its ordinary practice because of the great public interests involved. The very assertion of that case would imply that unless public interests were affected the sacred principle of Parliament would not be abrogated. He seconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House declines to sanction a Private Bill, in contravention of general public statutes concerning open spaces, for the express purpose of enhancing the value of a private estate.'"—(Mr. Paulton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid he did not rise for the purpose of stating the case of the promoters of the Bill. He had not been instructed by them in the matter, but he had had the advantage of having them before him as well as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and it might therefore be convenient if he placed his views before the House. It seemed to him the point at issue was whether this particular ground was or was not, a disused burial ground. If it was, no doubt the contention of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was correct; but it seemed to him that if that view were adopted by the House very great injustice would be done. For this reason it appeared that the predecessors in title of the present owner let the land, not for the purpose of being used as a burial ground but for eleemosynary purposes. A very great number of years ago the leases were from time to time renewed, and came to an end only a short time ago. Without consulting the owners in fee, without even informing them, the lessees buried a certain number of persons in a portion of the land, and it was now claimed that this land was set aside as a burial ground and had become such within the meaning of the statute. He ventured to say that the Acts quoted by the hon. Member could never have contemplated such a state of things as

  375
  this that had arisen. Every ground on which cricket was played was not a cricket ground, and every piece of ground on which a burial had taken place was not a burial ground. A place where a murder had been committed and the murdered person had been buried did not become from that fact a burial ground. The words, "burial ground" must have some legal meaning; it must be a ground set apart for that particular purpose with the owner's knowledge and consent. If he let the hon. Member opposite a town house having a little garden at the back, and if through domestic affliction the hon. Member utilised that garden for the purposes of burying the deceased, would the hon. Member claim that that ground was a burial ground within the meaning of these Acts? It would be done without his knowledge or assent as the owner, and against his wish. If that were so, he would be deprived of the rights of ownership in fee of that land, and it would be impossible for him at any future time to erect a house upon it. The facts of this case reminded him of the Chinese custom. The Chinese, he believed, attached very great sanctity to any place where a Chinaman was buried, and if they wanted to stop any public improvement or the making of a railway they proceeded to bury a certain number of Chinamen on the spot, and for all time the place became sacred. It seemed to him that in this matter the City of London had been following Chinese tactics. As there appeared to him to be a doubt as to the law in this case, he submitted that the House should send the Bill to a Committee, and as the matter appeared to hang entirely on the interpretation of statutes which, after having heard the statements of the promoters and the statements of the Opposition, seemed to him to be in doubt, and that it was not an easy matter for a layman to solve, he suggested that if the House sent the Bill to a Committee upstairs, they should specially add to that Committee two or three legal gentlemen of large practice who would be willing to devote a couple of hours to the matter, which he believed could be easily settled in a day. If his suggestion were carried out he would personally see the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, point out the
  376
  nature of the Bill to him, and ask him whether he could not see his way to select two gentlemen of undoubted legal ability and large practice who would be willing to give up an afternoon to the consideration of this highly technical question.
  LORD BALCARREShad no doubt whatever that this was a matter which ought to be settled by the House itself, and not by a Committee. The proposition of the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means was a rather curious one. His proposition was that they should incorporate two or three lawyers of large practice into the Committee, but there was no guarantee that the incorporation of any such Members would strengthen the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was extremely doubtful as to whether it was a burial ground, but the promoters had no doubt upon the subject, for they called it a burial ground in the Bill, and they came here with this Bill because, believing it to be a burial ground, they wished to get a better title. He ventured to assert that the case put forward by the Chairman of the Committee was wholly illusory. Was it conceivable that burials could have taken place in that ground secretly between 1699 and 1844? There was a curious passage in the preamble of the Bill as presented to the House of Lords. On page 2 it was stated that the piece of ground being of great value as a building site, licence had been obtained from the Home Office for the removal of the human remains therefrom, with a view to the utilisation of the land for building purposes. That was an allegation that the Home Office gave permission to remove the remains, in order that land of great value might be used for building purposes. He ventured to say that sanction was given for no such reason, and to have given it would have been to override the statute. He thought the promoters of the Bill deserved the severest censure for putting such a misleading statement in their Bill; in another place, on page 3 of their statement, they alleged that it was only by a stretch of imagination that this place could be regarded as a burial ground. But his reply was that it was a burial ground, and as that was the crucial point at issue a decision on it ought to be come

  377
  to on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. There was no need whatever to send it upstairs. This was purely a question of principle. If they passed the Bill that day they would virtually be passing its preamble for the Committee upstairs, and they would be sanctioning the principle of allowing a public Act to be overridden for the private profit of an individual.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he had always felt that the House was at a disadvantage in discussing the merits of a Private Bill with the whole House, and, in considering whether or not a Bill should be given a Second Reading he attached the greatest weight to the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, who was better versed in the practice and in the facts than they were. Without expressing any opinion on the point whether or not this was a burial ground within the meaning of the Act, he felt this was a fair case to go before a Private Bill Committee, and he held, therefore, they ought to accept the advice of the Chairman, and send the Bill upstairs. They had this further fact that the Bill had come down from another place where it was fully discussed before a Committee. It would, therefore, be a strong measure now to refuse it a Second Reading. The hon. Member, in moving the rejection of the Bill, drew a somewhat lurid picture of the terrible dangers they would be bringing upon their heads by reading the measure a second time. He talked of fatal precedents, and alarmed some of his hon. friends to such an extent that they were disinclined to trust a Committee. These fears were, he thought, wholly visionary and unreal. What were the real facts? His hon. friend founded his Motion on the only ground possible: he alleged that the Bill was in contravention of a public general statute. If he could establish that he had a good case against the Bill, but he had failed to do so.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Why is the Bill wanted?
  MR. BUTCHERsaid the Bill was required because doubts had arisen as to whether this place came within the provisions of the Open Spaces Act. It would be for the Committee upstairs, after hearing the evidence, to decide whether
  378
  or not this was a burial ground within the meaning of the Act. As to whether the Bill was in contravention of a general public Act, that was a legal point. The facts before the House showed that it was a doubtful question. The land, they were told, was never consecrated and never set apart as a burial ground. If that were the case then there was absolutely not a shadow of foundation for contending that it came within the statute Again, the question arose, if the land had been set apart as a burial ground, whether it ought not to be preserved as an open space for ever. These were questions as to which grave doubts existed. Let the House consider, if it should turn out that the facts presented to the Committee upstairs should show that the land had really not been set apart as a burial ground, what a gross injustice it would be doing the owner of the property by preventing him building upon it. Further than that, if the land ought to be set apart as an open space, within the meaning of the statute, the public had absolutely no right over it, and no access to it.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid the last speaker in his concluding sentences had declared that this could not be an open space because it was not accessible to the public, but he must be as well aware as any Member of the House that there were plenty of open spaces on which no building could be placed. The Chairman of Committees had given them some most interesting statistics, and had dealt with the question whether this piece of land was really a burial ground. But it was a most extraordinary thing that if for two or three centuries burials went on in this ground under the eyes and supervision of a quasi-public body they were so absolutely private that neither the public nor the Government of the day knew anything about it. The right hon. Gentleman had referred them to Chinese tactics and had suggested that the Corporation went in for the same mode of procedure, and he wound up by saying that the Bill ought to go before a Committee, and, with the assistance of two or three lawyers, could be settled after a couple of hours' discussion. But

  379
  the Courts were open to the persons interested, and that was the authority to which they ought to appeal. Neither the Corporation of London nor the London County Council was opposing this Bill in a selfish or cavilling spirit. It was purely upon principle that these great representative bodies were acting, and it was a matter of pure indifference to them whether it was a question of a small area of 748 yards, with a small residential population around it, or of a large area and teeming population. As a matter of fact the needs of the population were of far greater moment in the City of London, small as might be the residential population, because there were thousands of employees to whom a few yards of open space were of vital importance. They were, therefore, taking up this question as custodians of the public interest. In 1887 an Act was passed, and added to the Bill of 1884 which embodied as "Burial Grounds" any ground, whether consecrated or not, which had been set apart for the purposes of interment. This greatly strengthened the Disused Burial Grounds Act of 1884. They contended that the Old Bridewell burying ground came within the meaning of that Act. The promoters of the present Bill stated that no steps had been taken hitherto to secure this old ground as an open space. But it was only when this was attempted by the introduction of this Bill that such an opportunity arose. For many years the space had been carefully kept under supervision, and it was probably owing to the efficiency of that supervision that the introduction of this Bill was rendered necessary. What was Parliament asked to do? It was asked to abrogate the provisions of a public Act for the pecuniary benefit of an individual landlord, to take a course, in fact, which Parliament had refused to adopt over and over again. He might, perhaps, be permitted to quote two important instances in which Parliament had shown its determination not to depart from the Act of 1884. In 1886 the Charterhouse desired to build upon a portion of their burial ground in the quadrangle, and this the House refused to sanction. In 1898 the Inner Temple desired to get the leave of Parliament to build over a portion of the Temple Gardens fronting the Embankment, and this was refused,
  380
  it being held that the Thames Embankment Act of 1862 provided that the land should be preserved as an open space. The Corporation, as the sanitary authority for the area in which this land was situated, and the County Council, as the authority for the enforcement of the Burial Ground Act of 1884, opposed this Bill, not on account of the amount of land involved, or on account of the resident population, but because they felt that the Bill was wrong, and because if Parliament permitted it to proceed it would create a precedent which it would be very difficult indeed to upset in the future.
  He would like to correct some of the inaccuracies which had been promulgated with regard to the City of London, in the statement issued by the promoters of the Bill. The Corporation, it was said, were the owners of a large estate adjoining the land referred to in the Bill, and had during the last twenty years leased nearly the whole for building purposes without setting aside any portion as an open space. But this was not a parallel case, for the Embankment site of the Corporation never was a burying ground, and it was never subject to any Act of Parliament. It formed a portion of the security upon which the Corporation had borrowed money for works of public utility, and they were bound to use the land to the best financial advantage possible. It was further asserted that the Corporation themselves built upon part of the old burying ground of Bridewell, and that they had placed bodies there without authority under their lease. This was quite erroneous. These acts were done not by the Corporation of the City of London, but by the governors of Bridewell Hospital who formed a separate and independent body, although bearing the name of a Corporation. As a matter of fact the Corporation of London had not even a majority on the governing body of Bridewell Hospital, and no part of the income of the hospital, whether derived from land or otherwise, was in any way under the control of the Corporation. Reference had also been made by the promoters to the action which Parliament took recently with regard to Christ's Hospital. This again had nothing in common with the present application. Parliament gave effect to a scheme which had been passed more than ten years before. It was a scheme

  381
  for the benefit of a great charity—one of our greatest—to enable it to continue its useful career for the benefit of the community in general. No one deprecated the removal of Christ's Hospital from Newgate Street more than he did himself, but the scheme was one for the public good. He trusted that the House would see that the Bill was propounded, not for any great public use or for the extension of the happiness of the community, but merely to try by a small Act to override the Acts of 1884 and 1887 for the benefit of an individual landowner. He, on behalf of the City, gladly supported the Amendment, and hoped the House would decline to set such a precedent as the Bill would create.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTONcould not conceive a piece of land that could be preserved as an open space with less utility than the piece here concerned. It was situated in the heart of the newspaper world, where residents were getting fewer and fewer. On public grounds he objected to its preservation as an open space. If the Bill passed, the ground would in a very short time be covered with a mass of buildings which would bring in a large contribution to the rates, in which a large number of people would be employed, and from which, if they were put to the same use as surrounding buildings, would issue a large amount of general wisdom, philosophy, and information.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the City Corporation, as the sanitary authority for this particular district, was supported in this matter by the London County Council, the authority under the Burials Act for the preservation of disused burial grounds as open spaces. The Bill was opposed to public sentiment, to the objects of the Burials Act of 1884, and to all the statutes dealing with the preservation of disused burial grounds. The very fact that the Bill was called the Bridewell Burial Ground Bill, disposed
  of the hypothesis advanced with much ingenuity by the Chairman of Committees.
  MR. HELDERpointed out that the Bill had been before the House of Lords, and it was only fair that the usual course should now be followed by sending it to a Committee of the House of Commons. The ground had never been open to the public, and a careful examination of the case would show that it was really a piece of private ground which might very properly be built upon.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the only question before the House was whether or not the Bill should go to a Committee. Whether it was a good or a bad Bill did not at present concern the House; that question could be decided only by a Committee before which evidence could be adduced and the whole matter inquired into. By agreeing to the Second Reading the House would not be giving an instruction to the Committee to sanction the principle of the measure; they would simply say it was a matter for inquiry. The proper course was to send the Bill upstairs.
  MR. CAUSTONheld that this was a question, not for the House of Commons, but for the Law Courts. If the piece of land was a disused burial ground it ought to be kept as an open space; if it was not, let it be built upon, and then the Law Courts could decide the question. As a London Member, knowing the value of these open spaces in crowded districts, he would certainly do his best to preserve disused burial grounds as open spaces for the people of London.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 71; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 81.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Coghill, Douglas Hairy

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Brassey, Albert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. P.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Forster, Henry William

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Valentia, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Myers, William Henry

  Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Percy, Earl

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Heath, James (Staffords N. W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Law, Andrew Dollar (Glasgow)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Mr. Butcher and Mr.

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Cum. Penr.

  Rutherford, W. W. Liverpool)

  Henniker Heaton.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allen, Sir William (Gateshead

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Fenwick, Charles

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Ffrench, Peter

  Rea, Russell

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Reddy, M.

  Austin, Sir John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flower, Ernest

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Garfit, William

  Rose, Charles Day

  Bell, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bull, William James

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Burns, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Caldwell, James

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Sullivan, Donal

  Chapman, Edward

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Crean, Eugene

  Leamy, Edmund

  Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leng, Sir John

  Ure, Alexander

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Levy, Maurice

  Wallace, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Longh, Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Younger, William

  Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Mr. Paulton and Mr. Alban

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Norman, Henry

  Gibbs.

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Edwards, Frank

  O'Dowd, John

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Resolved: That this House declines to sanction a Private Bill, in contravention of general public statutes concerning open spaces, for the express purpose of enhancing the value of a private estate.

  SUPPLY [EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £536,790, 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 expenses of the Post Office Packet Service."
  MR. WEIRcomplained of the miserable service and insufficient accommodation provided by the Post Office Packet Service to the Western Islands of Scotland. He thought a Department which was making £4,000,000 a year profit ought to spend more upon the services in the poor districts. He could not understand why the Post Office should be so mean and niggardly towards the Western Islands of Scotland. Was it because they were represented by only a few hon. Members in the House? If they were represented by as strong a body as the Irish Members they would have no difficulty in wringing out of Ministers a little more money to help them. In the Island of Lewis there was a population of 30,000 people, and during the fishing season he had seen the mail steamer there overcrowded with fishermen and girls to such an extent as to be positively dangerous in rough weather. If any disaster did happen to those steamers the responsibility would lie upon the heads of those who employed such wretched old timbered-up steamers for carrying the mails. The North British Railway had been voted £260,000 for the development of industries, and yet they refused to contribute a farthing towards assisting the fishing industry. The Post Office ought to insist upon the North British Railway acting more generously in regard to the conveyance of the mails. Some of the mail packet steamers provided the most wretched accommodation for second-class and steerage passengers, and they had occasionally to be packed like herrings in a barrel. It was disgraceful that such a state of things should be allowed, and proper arrangements should be made for the comfort of the passengers. It was the duty of the Post Office, in making their contracts, to
  386
  see that the steamers not only gave proper facilities for carrying His Majesty's mails, but also provided proper accommodation for the public. The mail steamers were invariably late, with the result that the mails were not delivered at Stornoway and other places at the proper time. How could they expect rotten old boats like those employed, to keep proper time? Monstrous charges were made by these steamers for short runs. If there happened to be a few sheep or bullocks to be brought from some of the other islands the mail steamers were told off to pick them up, instead of being kept for the special work for which they were paid. The steamers now employed by the Post Office were totally unfit for the work, and better provision ought to be made. Miserably small subsidies were paid all along the line, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to put his hand into his pockets more liberally and provide better subsidies. He moved a reduction of Item A by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A be reduced by £100, in respect of contracts for conveyance of mails in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Weir.)
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the contention of the Post Office was that they were already paying more in subsidies than the returns of the service justified. He did not think that that was a fair contention. He did not think that even the Postmaster-General would contend that the mails should be conveyed at the cheapest possible rates irrespective of all other considerations. The Post Office ought to do all it could to further the material welfare of all portions of His Majesty's dominions. There was a totally inadequate mail service to Lerwick. There were during certain times of the year only three mails in the week, and it was said that sometimes they practically all arrived together. Lerwick was the capital of the important county of Shetland, and the material prosperity of the whole county was deeply bound up and centred in a mail service more suited to the circumstances and requirements of the people. The service from Lerwick

  387
  to Fair Island was also very irregular and unsatisfactory, though the subsidy in this case was ample, he believed, to give the residents of Fair Island a much better service. The service between Thurso and Kirkwall and Stromness was also very often hours late, and he believed the fault was at this end, and the railway companies should be compelled to keep their regular hours or else the delay in arriving at Kirkwall and Stromness was not only inconvenient but dangerous. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to improve the services. He was sure the great attention which the right hon. Gentleman was paying to his Department would lead to a much better state of things if he would make inquiries into this matter.
  MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he must congratulate the Postmaster-General on the great improvements that had been made in the last two years. On one island in his constituency the news of the death of the late Queen was not received until nine days after it occurred. Since then, he was glad to say, the island had been given a telegraph station. The irregularities of which they complained were chiefly due to the steamer service, which was a monopoly. He wished to support the Post Office and the right hon. Gentleman in trying to get a better service in the Western Islands. They had now got a much better train service, and if they could only induce the proprietors of the small steamers to improve their service by providing better, safer, and faster boats they would be satisfied. No doubt the service did not pay the Post Office, for they paid £3,000 a year for a service to Stornoway, and they only got about £1,200 a year out of it. He, however, desired to support the Post Office in trying to break down this monopoly.
  MR. CULLINANcalled attention to the mail service between England and Ireland for which the sum set down in the Vote was £98,000. Undoubtedly the service was very good, but it was very often late, and in recent times, especially in the south of Ireland, there had been serious complaints regarding the late delivery of mails. This
  388
  was owing to the lateness of the boats on their arrival at Kingstown. The trains carried the mails to the towns on the main lines, but on the branch linen when the trains were late there was no means of conveying the mails without delay. The result was that the mails were eight and ten hours late at several important towns in the south and west of Ireland, and that meant a delay of twenty-four hours for business people. The Post Office gave a large subsidy to the railway companies. The Great Southern and Western Company was allowed a delay of forty minutes at Kingstown, but only a delay of twenty minutes was allowed at Limerick Junction. He asked the Postmaster-General to see that there was uniformity in the time allowed for the delay of trains, so that the mail service might be carried out more effectively.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES, referring to an item of £4,660 for outward New York Saturday mails, stated that this item related to the Cunard system, and he therefore presumed that he was in order in discussing the Cunard Mail Service. It must be admitted that we had not a good mail service as regards speed of delivery from this side to New York. We had not taken advantage of the best means at our hands. On the North German Lloyd and other lines they had post offices on board, and the mails were sorted before arriving at New York. By this means, when those steamers arrived in New York the mails were delivered much quicker than those by the Cunard Line. On the latter line there was no means of sorting the letters, and the mails were forwarded to the Central Office in New York on arrival, whereas the mails by those lines which sorted the letters en route were forwarded to their respective post offices, and thereby delivered some hours earlier. He had taken the trouble to get from the Postmaster of New York a statement giving the date and hours of arrival and hours of delivery at New York of the mails by the Cunard Line and also those by steamers with travelling sorting offices on board. This statement showed that there was a good deal of delay in the deliveries through the sorting not

  389
  being done on board the Cunard Line. He had forwarded this statement to the Postmaster-General when he was representative in the House of the Postmaster. It was hardly fair to British owners that this should be so. He felt that British owners should receive every advantage in these days of keen competition. More especially was this sorting arrangement necessary in the case of the Cunard Company, as their steamers as a rule arrived on Saturday, the day on which the outgoing mail steamer sailed. He had himself suffered a good deal of inconvenience in New York through this delay in the delivery of the Saturday's mail, as it had been the sole cause of his being unable to reply to correspondence by the outgoing steamer of that day. The next mail steamer generally left New York four days later, so the urgency of this question was manifest. He appealed to the Postmaster, whom he felt sure was anxious to have an arrangement up to-date, to take this matter up. He looked for a satisfactory reply, in which event he would not support the reduction proposed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the question of the mail services to the western islands of Scotland had come before the House on numerous occasions. He appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, who had frankly expressed his knowledge of the difficulties with which the Post Office had to contend. These difficulties were very great indeed. Other Members who spoke on the same subject had shown no appreciation of what the Post Office had done or of the difficulties.
  MR. WEIR: I received many benefits for the Western Islands before the right hon. Gentleman became Postmaster-General, and therefore I did not think it necessary to thank him for favours which I received from other hands.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was worth while to get that assurance from the hon. Member. If hon. Members who complained had been in his position they could not have done more than he had done. He thought the principles which ought to guide the Post Office in these matters were
  390
  common property in all quarters of the House. They all recognised that the primary duty of the Post Office was to convey the mails, and not to run steamers for passenger excursions or for cargo. They considered that in making arrangements for the carriage of the mails they ought as far as they could, without unduly trespassing outside their proper sphere of influence, and without involving an undue burden on the taxpayers, to endeavour to make the mail service as useful as possible. The hon. Member for Ross-shire and the hon. Member for Orkney had said that in dealing with remote districts with a scattered population, the Post Office authorities ought not to limit their consideration of the facilities to be provided to the question of the revenue that could be secured. What the Post Office did in regard to these remote districts was to spend part of the money made in the large centres of population in providing postal facilities for them. The revenue derived from the conveyance of correspondence to and from the remote districts went but a small way to meet the cost, and the only question for the Post Office was the amount they ought to pay for that service. He was glad to hear both the hon Member for Orkney and the hon. Member for Inverness-shire acknowledge that the subsidies paid by the Post Office with regard to certain services were good and ample, and they were supported by the hon. Member for South Tipperary in regard to the service from Holyhead to Kingstown. The real difficulty in regard to the Western Islands was one which was known to all Members who were acquainted with the district. It was that the service of boats was practically a monopoly in the hands of one firm, who, by their power of controlling business and by the fact that they and they alone, could offer to traders the facilities which traders must have, were really in a position, he would not say to impose any terms on the Post Office, but to resist some petitions which he should think might reasonably be accepted if there were a little healthy competition. He did not himself think that the service was carried on with the enterprise and vigour which were necessary to a successful undertaking,

  391
  and he did not believe that it could be maintained indefinitely under present conditions. All he could say for the Post Office was that they would gladly take advantage of a better service if they could get one. When the hon. Member for Ross-shire came to him on the subject he frankly pointed out the difficulty in which the Post Office found themselves and he invited him to use his influence with railway companies and shipping firms with the view to inducing them to start a rival service. The hon. Member went to the North British Railway Company, the Highland Railway Company, to traders, and to landlords, and he came back empty-handed. If none of these people would look at the question of starting a rival service, he must not blame the Post Office if they could not bear the whole cost of doing so. He was very much in the same position with regard to the mails to Orkney. There he would gladly give a better service if he could obtain one at a reasonable cost. The price they had to pay now was out of all porportion to the revenue derived from the service, and he had not seen the opportunity of getting a better one at any price which he could look at. He had not had his attention called to the services between Kirkwall and Thurso, and Shetland and the Fair Isle until now, but he would look into these matters. The irregularities in the Irish mail train service, of which the hon. Member for South Tipperary had complained, were now receiving consideration. The delays were in some measure due to the abnormal pressure of traffic on the days when the American mails were carried.
  MR. CULLINANsaid the American mails came one day in the week, but the missing of the branch line trains occurred as frequently as four days a week.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was aware it was not all owing to the American mails, but that was one of the difficulties. He thought it might be possible to meet the difficulty. In regard to the service generally the Post Office authorities did their utmost to secure punctuality and despatch in the running of mail trains, but their powers over the railway companies were not so drastic as some hon. Members seemed to imagine.
  Motion by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR JOHN LENGcalled attention to the mail services between the United Kingdom and the United States. During the past winter there had been more complaints than for many winters past, of the slowness of the boats which had been put on for the services. On seventeen occasions the boats crossing westwards had taken more than ten days, while owing to the careful selection by the Department at Washington none of the boats coming eastward had even once taken that length of time. This showed that there was not the same watchfulness on the part of the postal authorities at home as in America, in the despatch of the mails. Slow boats had been put on and kept on the passage for a much greater length of time than in previous years. So much was this the case—he regretted it very much from the point of view of the prestige of our mercantile marine—that those who desired to have communications delivered with ordinary rapidity now almost invariably selected the German boats for sending their letters. The British lines should keep up their speed, instead of slowing down as they had been doing. Some time ago there was considerable excitement as to the transfer of several British companies to an American interest. He regretted to say that it was the boats of the companies whose interests had been transferred to the other side of the Atlantic that were most to be complained of in this respect. Although there were differences of opinion with regard to the policy of giving an increased subsidy to the Cunard Company, many heard with satisfaction of the arrangement which had been made with that Company to put first-class boats of the greatest speed on that passage. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was in a position to state if other arrangements had been made with the Cunard Company, if the new vessels were contracted for, and if their construction was to be proceeded with. He did not wish in any way to reflect upon the Post Office further than to say that there was room for more attention being paid to the selection of the boats which carried the mails in winter.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIESsaid he wished to suggest the institution of a travelling sorting office on the Atlantic passage, but he would save the time of the House by not speaking again on the subject, as he understood the Postmaster-General would now reply to his recent speech on this subject in the discussion just closed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could assure the hon. Member for Dundee that it was his desire to use British ships in carrying British mails for the benefit of British trade, but the Post Office were bound at times to employ foreign ships. He believed that the mail service to which the hon. Member had referred had not been altogether satisfactory this winter. Too many of the fast boats had been laid up, and they had been too much dependent on the slower boats of the White Star Line for the Wednesday mail service. The new agreement with the Cunard Company was still matter of negotiation between the Government and the Company, and only that morning he had been dealing with proposed mail clauses for incorporation in the contract. He hoped they should come to an agreement soon, and, in accordance with the promise given by the Prime Minister, the House of Commons would have an opportunity of discussing it. While negotiations were proceeding he trusted the Committee would not expect him to make any further statement on the subject. The hon. Member for Carmarthen was anxious that arrangements should be made for a travelling Post Office on the Atlantic-passage so that the mails might be sorted on shipboard. He believed he was right in saying that very little would be gained by such an arrangement, at all events as
  394
  regarded the mails coming from America to this country. We could deal so very rapidly with the mails when they arrived on this side that very little time would be saved by a travelling Post Office on shipboard. It was not quite the same as regarded the voyage to the other side, and it was quite true that the mails on the outward voyage would be able to be dealt with more rapidly than under present conditions. From time to time the Post Office had made inquiry as to what rates would be charged for accommodation on board these large fast steamers. Of course the accommodation required would be very considerable and very expensive in the fast liners; but neither his predecessors nor himself had yet seen any compensating advantages which would accrue from the great increase of expense involved. He was trying to find out whether in connection with the new contract some arrangement could be made for a Post Office of the kind. Hitherto he had not been successful, but the negotiations were not yet concluded, and he could promise the hon. Gentleman that he would not lose sight of the matter.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIESasked whether the Postmaster-General could inform the Committee what space would be required on shipboard for a travelling Post Office and what would be the extra expense
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not give any figures.
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid he wished to refer to the India and China mails and the slow speed of the British vessels. The P. & O. had perhaps the slowest mail steamers which went either to India, China, or Australia. The

  395
  speed was only twelve and a half knots, and any one could see that such a slow rate was altogether inconsistent with modern requirements. It was much less than that of the German boats, and the reason was that the P. & O. obtained such a large subsidy from the Post Office that they were able practically to drive every competitor out of the field. The P. & O. received a subsidy of £245,000 for the India and China mails, and £85,000 for the Australian service. In addition to that the P. & O. Company got £12,000 to £13,000 from the Admiralty under the absurd view that practically every mail steamer should be put on the list of armed cruisers, whether they were suitable or not for the purpose. The result was that the Admiralty were saddled with slow-going vessels. That was why the two new Cunard steamers were to be built to be equal to the German quick mail vessels. So far as speed was concerned, the British mail steamships were greatly behind those of other countries, and he was glad that the matter was to be dealt with by the building of two new swift vessels for the Atlantic passage. At the present moment we were sending our mails to Peking viâ Shanghai. The P. & O. boats took thirty-two days to go to Shanghai, and other six days were consumed in forwarding the mails up to Peking. Now, letters were being delivered within nineteen days by the Siberian railway. He understood that the contract with the P. & O. Company expired within two years, and he hoped that the Postmaster-General would, in considering the renewal of any contract, take into view the altered circumstances of the case. When the railway through Manchuria was in fair working order,
  396
  the mails could also be sent to Japan in nineteen days. Germany was our great competitor in trade with the Far East, and if she could send her letters in nineteen days, whereas ours took forty days, it was obvious that that was not a position in which this country should be allowed to remain. In 1867 the amount of the mail contract for India and China was £450,000 a year, and the speed was slow. Ten years later, a new contract was entered into at the reduced rate of £360,000, and the speed was increased. Ten years later the contract was renewed at £265,000, while the speed was again increased. It had been long ago pointed out that while the speed increased, the less was the subsidy given. Quite naturally so; because at first the trade between this country and India was comparatively small. But the trade doubled within twenty years, and in order to cater for that traffic, the P. & O. Company were compelled to increase the speed of their first-class ships. The P. & O. Company had a capital of £2,300,000, and the amount which the Government paid that Company in subsidies would cover a dividend of 15 per cent. on their capital stock. That gave the P. & O. Company an enormous power over every other competitor. The P. & O. Company came to an arrangement with the German and French Companies, whereby the Bombay trade was left in the hands of the P. & O. Company, allowing therefore, the German and the French shipping companies to beat the British in the China trade. There was no reason whatever why British vessels to India and China should be slower than the vessels of any other country. A year and a half ago he was on board a P. & O.

  397
  steamer on the China station, and the captain found he was going too fast, and accordingly slowed down to half speed so as not to get into port that night but the next morning. The reason was that the contract was coming near to an end, and that if the Post Office asked for increased speed the Company might ask for an increased subsidy. It was of the greatest importance to have speedy communication between this country and India; and it was because of the slow speed of the P. & O. steamers that a great impetus had been given to the German Baghdad railway route to the East. The Postmaster-General should press the P. & O. Company to give a greater speed than at present. It was perfectly true that they gave the speed provided for by their contract. When that contract was being entered into Sir Thomas Sutherland stated in the House that there need be no fear of the speed of other lines, because the P. & O. Company would be compelled by the competition to keep up with the increases of speed on the other lines. That prediction, however, had not been fulfilled. When he was in India eighteen month ago he found complaints universal against the monopoly and the high rates of the P. & O. Company. Now, we had a fleet which was practically doing nothing in peace times. Why should not our fast cruisers and scouts be utilised for carrying the mails? He ventured to say that if a contract were offered to other people than the P. & O. Company they would build vessels to steam eighteen or twenty knots an hour for the mail service.
  He would like to know whether the Postmaster-General had made any arrangements for carrying letters by the Siberian Railway to China. At present letters took nineteen days to Peking by that route, but the time would be shortened immediately
  398
  when the railway round the great Lake Baikal was completed, and the permanent way was improved. At present the speed of the railway service between St. Petersburg and Irkutsk was nineteen miles an hour, and after that fifteen and a half miles an hour, but it was obvious that when the improvements in the line were made the speed all through would be increased, and the time for the journey to Peking reduced to nine or ten days, which would also be the period for a service to Japan viâ the Manchurian Railway. It was to the interest of this country to have the speed of the mail steamers to India increased to nineteen or twenty knots per hour at once, and if that were done cold water would be thrown on the projected Baghdad railway, and we should have an all-British service mail between British ports. He did not mention these matters from any point of hostility to the Government. The contract was there when the Postmaster-General came into office; but he would point out that on every occasion since 1867, whenever the contract was renewed the amount was always a great deal less. In 1867 the Government paid a subsidy of £450,000 a year. Ten years afterwards the amount was reduced to £360,000, and ten years after that there was a further reduction of £100,000. It was obvious, therefore, that the contract should be for a short period, and that they should not allow any shipping company to secure a monopoly. At present officers proceeding to India had to travel second class, because the fares were so high. That was because the Company had a monopoly as the result of the subsidy paid to it. He hoped that the Postmaster-General would be able to give the Committee some information with regard to the mail service to the East, and how the matter was likely to be dealt with.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he agreed that this was one of the most important mail services. Notice had been given to terminate the existing contract, under the provisions of the contract, in order that the Government might consider what arrangements might be made for the future. It was a service in which Australasia and the Government of India and our colonial dependencies in the Far East were interested as well as ourselves, and they would have to be consulted. They, as well as the Post Office at home, shared the desire of the hon. Gentleman that in the new contract we should obtain greater speed at a lower price. A great number of questions, some of them of great importance, arose under this contract; and he proposed to refer them for consideration, in accordance with precedent, to an inter-Departmental Committee, in which the other offices concerned, the India Office, Colonial Office, Admiralty, and others, would be represented, as well as the Post Office; but the Committee would not expect him to lay down any hard and fast lines at that stage. Wherever it was possible he preferred to send British mails by British routes; but if the Siberian Railway offered a regular service which was much more expeditious than we could obtain by sea, he had no doubt we should be obliged to make use of it. Communications were now passing with the view of seeing on what terms the Siberian train service would be at our command for the purpose of sending mails to Peking and the Far East. The Government had not yet been able to come to any agreement with the authorities, and he was therefore not
  400
  able to make any more definite statement on the subject. It was suggested that the Post Office followed some foolish notions of its own in regard to the services to the Admiralty to be covered by the mail subsidy. It was entirely for the Admiralty to say what ships were required as armed cruisers or mercantile cruisers. The only desire of the Post Office in this matter was to make the service as useful as it could be made to the nation in all respects, and the Committee would rightly blame them if in making a mail contract involving payment of a considerable subsidy they did not consult the Admiralty as to any conditions they would like to have inserted. Nothing was paid for ships for naval purposes which the Admiralty did not think worth having. Messrs. Holt's offer, which had been referred to, was to build for a portion of the service a special class of ships, carrying nothing but mails and the attendants. Whether arrangements of that kind would be very fruitful, and what margin of staff they would have to allow for sickness on the voyages, the Committee could form as good a guess as he could; but an inter-Departmental Committee had come to the conclusion that it would be undesirable to entertain this service, because it would be useful for the mails only and afford no correlative or collateral advantage such as our ordinary mail services did, and would be more expensive. There were many questions which would have to be carefully considered before a new contract was made; and he had little doubt, if they could not fulfil all the expectations that were entertained in some quarters, that at all events they would be able to secure a

  401
  better service than it was possible to obtain when the present contract was entered into five years ago.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid he wished to submit a point of view which ought to engage the attention of the Committee. Up to 1861, the mail subsidies were always charged to the Admiralty; and he thought the Committee would agree with him that the whole of the mail service to India should not now be charged to the Post Office. Mail subsidies were given for four reasons; first, to encourage shipbuilding; second, to maintain the British dominion of the seas; third, to provide an auxiliary naval force; and fourth, to carry the mails. The Committee, he hoped, would agree with him that the subsidies should be put on a proper basis and not charged entirely to the Post Office. As regarded the American mail service, 3s. per lb. was paid to British ships, and only 1s. 8d. to foreign ships. The Committee should be quite honest, and at least not charge the Post Office with the extra 1s. 4d. That should be charged to some other Department. With reference to the P. & O. contract, the Company could not be expected to do more than they were doing at present. They were now more than fulfilling their contract with several days to spare, but he hoped his right hon. friend would be able to get better terms. But did his right hon. friend expect competition? Did he think he would secure competition against their astute friend, Sir Thomas Sutherland. Although the P. & O.
  402
  fulfilled their contract to the letter, the result of that contract was to practically put away all British competition. Only the other day the British Consul in Japan reported that passengers were dissatisfied with the P. & O. and were travelling by the German and French steamers. A very large proportion of Australians also travelled by the French and German vessels, which supplied the only competition to the P. & O. That was the state of affairs; and he thought it was utterly useless to expect that they would ever be able to get competition against the P. & O.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he wished to know whether the Departmental Committee which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to set up would merely consider the renewal of the contract with the P. & O., or would it have the power to consider generally the question of the better conveyance of the mails to India, Australia, and China. The P. & O. had had a monopoly for a great number of years, and had neglected the China service in order to maintain the monopoly between this country and Bombay. They were a trading company, and no one could blame them for that; but it was almost inconceivable that during the principal part of the passenger season they did not run a weekly service to Bombay. It was impossible to get a weekly service from London to Bombay without a change of steamers. That ought not to be. A company enjoying such a large subsidy ought not to put its passengers to such inconvenience. For his part, he thought that they should do away with the subsidy altogether. They did not pay a subsidy to carry the mails to Cape Colony.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the difference there was that the Cape Government made the contract, and the Home Government paid the Cape Government. The Cape Government paid the subsidy.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he thought he was right in stating that in former days they did not pay any subsidy for the conveyance of the mails to the Cape. Certainly, the postal service to the Cape was a great deal better than the service to India. If the whole matter had been thrown open to competition during the last twenty years they would probably have had a much better service to India than they had at present. He did not think that the P. & O. Company had any claim on the consideration of the Postmaster-General. Again, he would ask whether the Departmental Committee would consider the whole question de novo or would merely negotiate with the P. & O. for the renewal of the contract.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Committee would not accept any offer until they had reported to him. They would consider any offers for an alternative service that might be submitted to them, and that might appear to them to be desirable.
  MR. BUCHANANasked if an alternative service would be invited.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he would be delighted to hear from any company which was prepared to make an offer, without sending out invitations.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the usual practice of the Post Office was to give notice to terminate a contract two years beforehand, and to invite tenders. He thought the Postmaster-General ought now to invite tenders from companies willing to tender, in order that they might be able to make the necessary preparations. In any event, he did not think the Postmaster-General would have any difficulty in getting an extension of the contract for one year, as the new contract would certainly not be as favourable as the existing contract. They were in this position with regard to the mail service to the East, particularly to China—the P. & O. only supplied a fortnightly mail; the Germans and the French also supplied a fortnightly mail each. This country was, therefore, in a position to send six mails to China every month. They paid no subsidy for four of these mails, although they paid £245,000 a year to the P. & O. for the other two. It was only the subsidy given by the Government that enabled the P. & O. to pay 15 per cent. dividend.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  COAL MINES (CERTIFICATES) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Twelve o'clock