Commons Sitting of 14 April 1904

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.:—Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]; Elysée Palace Hotel Company Bill [Lords]; Gosport Water Bill [Lords]; Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [Lords]; Matlock and District Gas Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords]; Milwr and District Mines Drainage Bill [Lords]; New River Company Bill [Lords]; Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords]; University of Leeds Bill [Lords]; Victoria University of Manchester Bill [Lords]; West Metropolitan Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords]; Yorktown and Blackwater Gas Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time Tomorrow.

  SITE FOR DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL BILL [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 29th day of March last, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Site for Duke of York's School Bill [Lords].
  St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Corporation of London (Southwark and other Bridges) Bill. Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Thurles Urban District Council Water Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table. and to be printed.
  Young and Bell's Patents Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time
  Appleby Corporation Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 5).
  Mr. COMPTON RICKETT reported from the Committee on Group No. 5 of Railway Bills, That the parties opposing the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. Harry Noriss, Superintendent L Division Metropolitan Police, Kennington Lane, S,E., was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he

  183
  had been instructed to move that the said Mr. Harry Noriss, do attend the said Committee upon Monday, 18th April, at eleven of the clock.
  Ordered. That Mr. Harry Noriss do attend the said Committee on Group No. 5 of Railway Bills upon Monday next at eleven of the clock.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  Petition from Cromarty, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Bottisham; Largs; Basingstoke; High Bentham; Failsworth (two); Massingham; Forest Gate; Woodbridge; Beccles; Aldborough; East Dereham; Sidcup; Hindley (two); Hindley Green; Hornsea; Dalkeith; Bracknell; Holt; Slough; Little Hulton; Sunbury-on-Thames; Wymondham; Hathersett; Blackley (two); Colne; Ripley; Worsbro'Bridge; London; Blaina; Trinant; Tredegar; Worthen (two); Pennerley (two); Perkins Beach (two); Aston; Wattlesborough Heath; Pontesbury; Snailbeach (two); Minsterley; Westbury; Meadow Town; Brynmawr; Stamford; Leeds; Beccles; Norwich; and Bournemouth; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from High Wycombe; Deptford; Sheffield; Lichfield; T mworth; Mexborough; and Brierley Hill (two); to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE).
  Petition from Luton, for withdrawal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
  Copy presented, of Sixth Report of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board to the Secretary for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW MEDICAL RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of Departmental Committee appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland. Vol. II., containing Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Promotion of Assistant Clerks—Medical Examination.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that Second Division clerks, on promotion to the First Division, are not required to pass any further medical examination, he will put assistant clerks who are promoted upon the same footing.
  {Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Civil Service Commissioners will not in future require a fresh medical examination in the case of the promotion of assistant clerks to the Second Division, provided that there is nothing in the report as to the candidate's health received from the department in which he has been serving, and nothing in the previous medical history of the candidate

  185
  which renders it desirable that a fresh medical inquiry should be held.

  Anthrax in Norfolk.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been called to the increase of anthrax in Norfolk; and whether, to aid in checking this and other contagious diseases, the Board of Agriculture will give compensation to the extent of one-third of the value of all cattle dying of such diseases where the cases have been duly and properly reported to the authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The position of Norfolk with regard to anthrax in recent years shows no very material change. The number of outbreaks reported was ten in 1901, nine in 1902, twelve in 1903, and six during the current year. Under the law, as it at present stands, compensation is only payable where animals are slaughtered to prevent the spread of infection. Slaughter in the usual manner is not to be recommended in cases of anthrax, where all spilling of blood should be avoided. The payment of compensation in cases in which animals die from anthrax and other contagious diseases would entail a very considerable charge upon public funds without any equivalent advantage to the public. I am afraid there is no probability of our being able to submit any proposal to Parliament in the direction suggested.

  Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland)—Amount Available for Distribution
  MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state what amount was available for distribution amongst the local authorities for the financial year ending 31st March last, under Section 2 (5) of the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended by the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The amount available for the financial year ended 31st March last cannot be
  186
  stated at present as the final payment for that year into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account has not yet been made.

  Solicitors Struck off the Roll.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask Mr. Attorney-General if he will state what is the number of solicitors who have been struck off the roll for malpractices in this country during the past five years.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) The following are the particulars of solicitors struck off the roll for malpractices during the last five years:—

  Year.

  After Conviction.

  Under Solicitors Act, 1888.

  1899

  7

  15

  1900

  13

  21

  1901

  5

  26

  1902

  7

  17

  1903

  6

  19

  38

  98

  Total 136

  Emigration and Immigration Statistics and Board of Trade Report thereon.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the statistical table relating to emigration and immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1903, and the annual Report to the Board of Trade thereon, will be circulated to Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I hope that this Report may be distributed in about a month's time.

  Exports of Wheat and Flour from India.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the ports from which wheat and flour have been exported from India for the year 1902–3, and to which countries and ports have they been shipped, together with the respective quantities of wheat and flour.

  187
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The exports of wheat and wheat flour from Indian ports during the year 1902–3 were as follows:—

  Wheat.

  Wheat Flour.

  cwts.

  cwts.

  From Calcutta

  1,052,978

  68,859

  From Bombay

  390,748

  553,024

  From Kurachi.

  8,848,234

  96,188

  From Madras

  81

  3

  From Burma ports

  109

  3

  It is impossible to state to what ports these exports went, but the quantities exported to various countries are returned as follows:—

  Wheat.

  Thousands of cwts.

  To United Kingdom

  6,683

  To Belgium.

  878

  To France

  23

  To Egypt

  2,346

  To Aden

  17·5

  To Arabia

  .170

  To Hong-Kong

  19

  To Persia

  93

  To Turkey in Asia.

  18·5

  To Australia

  25

  To other countries.

  19

  Wheat Flour.

  Thousands of cwts.

  To British East Africa.

  88

  To Egypt

  7

  To Mauritius

  112·5

  To Portuguese East Africa

  8·5

  To Aden

  150

  To Arabia

  136

  To Ceylon

  114

  To Straits Settlements

  5·5

  To Persia

  82·5

  To other countries.

  14

  The exports to Egypt include large quantities consigned to Port Said to await orders as to ultimate destination.

  Prosecution of Mr. Tilak.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if
  188
  he will state what expenditure was incurred by the Government of Bombay in the prosecution of Mr. Tilak; and, having regard to the fact that the action resulted in a complete acquittal, will he state on whose advice the prosecution was undertaken.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the strictures pronounced by the Chief Justice of Bombay on the criminal proceedings taken under the sanction of Government against Mr. Tilak for forgery and perjury; whether he is aware that this prosecution, which ended in an acquittal by the High Court, lasted over one and a half years, at a cost to the Government of about a half lakh of rupees; whether he will state who are the persons responsible for the prosecution and what notice is being taken of their conduct; and what compensation will be paid to Mr. Tilak.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Chief Justice of Bombay, as reported in the newspapers, overruling the judgment of the Court below, which had been adverse to Mr. Tilak. I have no official information on the subject, but I understand that the proceedings were instituted, not by Government, but by the direction of a district Judge, who considered that Mr. Tilak had given false evidence in a case that was tried before him. This direction he had power to give under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and the fact that the Court of Final Appeal took a different view of Mr. Tilak's conduct does not appear primâ facie to be a ground for compensation.

  Indian Police Commission—Issue of New Orders.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India when the issue of his orders on the Report of the Indian Police Commission may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have not yet received the opinion of the Government of India, which has been in communication with the various local

  189
  governments and administrations on the subject of this Report. Until I do so, it is impossible for me to say when the issue of Orders upon it may be expected.

  Irish Water Bailiffs.
  MR. WILLIAMREDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Technical Department will instruct the Shannon Hoard of Conservators, known as the Limerick Board of Conservators, to discontinue the practice of employing as water bailiffs persons who had previously been prosecuted, convicted, and fined by the Killaloe Bench of Magistrates for illegal fishing.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Water bailiffs are appointed by the local boards of conservators, and the Department exercises no control in the matter. I am inquiring, however, as to the matters of fact alleged in the Question.

  The King-Harman Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the issue of a circular by the firm of Messrs. Whitney and Moore, Solicitors, Dublin to those tenants on the King-Harman (Kenagh) Estate, who refused to sign purchase agreements in consequence of the prices asked by the vendors of the estate, threatening to apply to the Estates Commissioners to exclude them from the purchase unless they sign said agreements within ten days; and, if so, will he state what action he intends to take to preserve the rights of such tenants so threatened.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of the circular in question. Before allowing the holding of a tenant to be excluded, the circumstances of the case will be carefully considered and investigated by the Commissioners.

  Mr. John Robinson's Farm at Ballinacross
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. John Robinson, sub-sheriff of county Longford, has
  190
  offered to sell his farm at Ballinacross, county Longford, through the Estates Commissioners, for the benefit of the evicted tenant, Miss McGweney, who is living in poor circumstances in the neighbourhood, the price to be left to arbitration; and, if so, will he direct the Estates Commissioners to communicate with Mr. Robinson with a view to the acceptance of his offer, and the restoration of the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No such offer has yet been received by the Commissioners. If one be made the application of the evicted tenant's representative will be considered.

  Imprisonment of Soldiers in Devizes Gaol.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the offences for which twenty-six soldiers, during the year 1903, were sentenced to imprisonment in Devizes Goal were of a civil or military character; and whether it would be possible, in the latter case, that imprisonment for such offences should be carried out in a military prison.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Of the twenty-six soldiers committed to Devizes Civil Prison during 1903, twenty were convicted of offences of an ordinary criminal character which necessitated their serving their sentences in a civil prison, four of the remainder wore convicted of offences of a military character prior to the 31st February when the new regulations came into force. Under those regulations such prisoners would now be committed to a military prison. The remaining two prisoners were committed to Devizes Prison in error, and, on the error being discovered, they were transferred to a military prison.

  Report on Trinidad Riots.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state when the Report of the Chief Justice of British Guiana relative to the disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad, will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Further Papers relating to the disturbance

  191
  at Port of Spain in March, 1903, including the Report of the Chief Justice of British Guiana, have now been laid.

  Use of Plague Serum in Johannesburg.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the results of the serum inoculation for plague in India, he will prohibit the use of plague serum in Johannesburg.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not prepared to interfere with the local medical authorities in this matter, and I am not aware of any reasons for the suggested prohibition of the use of plague serum, to which no objection is taken by my medical advisers.

  Income-Tax Deductions from Salaries of Army Civilian Clerks in South Africa.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that civilian clerks engaged for duty with the Army in South Africa are charged for income-tax, which is deducted from their salaries; and that these clerks were engaged in South Africa, and are domiciled there, where they pay rates and taxes; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the money which has been deducted refunded.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Civilian clerks engaged for duty with the Army in South Africa draw their salaries from Imperial funds, and consequently are liable to income-tax, subject to the usual abatements, under the Income-Tax Laws.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Finance.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War have the arrangements yet been settled to ensure the financial control of the Treasury and of this House under the new financial scheme recommended by the War Office Committee of Three; is it intended that the Treasury, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the Public Accounts Committee shall exercise the same powers as at present, that the Estimates shall be presented in
  192
  their present form, and the sums voted be appropriated as at present by the Appropriation Act; or, if any changes are proposed, what are those changes; who will be the accounting officer for Army expenditure under the new scheme; is it proposed that the four Military Members of the Army Council, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, or the eight Major-Generals of districts shall have any power of deflecting moneys voted, from one Vote to another, without the assent of the Treasury; and can he undertake that an opportunity shall be given to this House of discussing and expressing its opinion upon any proposed financial changes before these are carried out.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The financial control of Parliament and the Treasury will remain unchanged. The Treasury, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the Public Accounts Committee will exercise the same powers as at present. It will be necessary to rearrange some of the Votes, but the Estimates will be presented in practically the same form as at present, and the sums voted will be appropriated as at present under the Appropriation Act. The Director of Army Finance will be the accounting officer for Army expenditure. Neither the Major - Generals nor the Army Council will have any power to deflect moneys voted from Vote to Vote or Sub-head to Sub-head, without Treasury sanction.

  The Pompadours.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, taking into consideration the restoration of numerical titles to battalions of the Line, he will favourably consider the claim of the 2nd Essex to be recognised under their old name of Pompadours, and to wear the purple facings they have borne from 1780 to 1881.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Apart from any question of the restoration of the numerical titles to regiments of the Line, the title of "Pompadours" for the 2nd Essex has never been officially

  193
  recognised. As regards the facings it would appear impracticable to give one battalion of a regiment different facings to the linked battalion.

  Fatal Accident at Rathcoursey Beach.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the verdict of the jury at the coroner's inquest recently held at Rathcoursey, county Cork, in connection with the death of Naval Pensioner Daniel Driscoll by the explosion of a live shrapnel shell; whether steps will be taken to give effect to the recommendation of the jury, with a view to prevent similar accidents in future; and whether the claim of the widow and children to compensation will be favourably considered.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A full report of this matter has now been forwarded and is receiving careful consideration.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the War Office recognise their responsibility in the matter. This beach is frequently strewn with shells and the authorities do not take the trouble to warn the public of the danger of handling them.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is a legal question. If the facts were as stated I should have thought warning was given.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman no such steps are taken by the military authorities
  MR. FLAVIN: Cannot you make use of the shells in Tibet.

  The Sunken Submarine.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the reasons for the failure of the Admiralty salvage appliances to raise the Submarine Al luring the one or two days of fair weather immediately succeeding the location of the vessel after the disaster which befel her.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The weather at the time referred to was not favourable for the employment of lighters for raising the wreck, as the swell caused the wire hawsers to carry away, and thus prevented the attachment to, and lifting of, the vessel.

  Boers and the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY - GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the opposition of Generals Botha and Delarey and the Dutch element in the Transvaal to the Chinese Labour Ordinance has been practically withdrawn.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): My hon. friend will understand that the answer to this Question must be in some sense a matter of opinion. I should like to say that on 23rd January last a very important and representative meeting of the Boers was held at Pietersburg. The chairman of that meeting said:—"The importation of Chinamen in no way affects the Boers, and I advise you to leave it alone." He went on to say in another part of his speech that if the Kaffirs could be made to work the labour question would not arise. At the conclusion of that meeting a letter was read from General Botha in which he said "that matter (referring to Chinese labour) was one which the Government of the country must settle for themselves." My own opinion, firmly held, is that these extracts which I have read correctly represent the attitude of the Boers themselves.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get the same hon. Member to put another Question on this subject a little later on.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the evidence on which he bases his answer before the House?
  MR. LYTTELTON: It is in the Blue-book, and has been in the possession of the House for some time.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY - GORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the number of Kaffirs is totally insufficient at the present moment?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Plague in Hong-Kong.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received a report on the plague from the Governor of Hong-Kong; and, if so, can he state the number of cases of plague reported there during the first three months of this year, and the number of deaths.
  MR. LYTTELTON: According to the weekly telegraphic reports from Hong-Kong on the subject, which are regularly communicated to the Press as soon as received, there have been eleven cases of plague and eleven deaths at Hong-Kong this year up to the 9th of April. I have received no detailed report as to the occurrence of plague during the current year, but I have given instructions that a report of the acting medical officer of health on the epidemic of plague during the first seven months of last year, which has just been received, should be sent to the hon. Member.

  Canadian Steel and Iron Bounties.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the amount per ton granted by the Canadian Government in the shape of bounties on the output of the Canadian steel and iron industries; and what representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Canadian Government with a view to the reduction of any such bounties.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Chapter 6 of the Canadian Acts of 1897 fixed the bounties on iron and steel as follows:—$3 a ton on steel ingots manufactured from ingredients of which not less than 50 per cent. of their weight consists of pig-iron made in Canada; $3 a ton
  196
  on puddled iron bars made from Canadian-made pig-iron; and on pig-iron manufactured from ore, S3 a ton on the proportion produced from Canadian ore, S2 on the proportion produced from foreign ore. During the year ending on the 30th June next, the bounties are fixed by a subsequent Act at 90 per cent. of the above rates, and they will be gradually reduced to 35 per cent. of the above rates in 1907. No representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Canadian Government with a view to the reduction of these bounties.

  Suez Canal Convention
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain the grounds on which His Majesty's Government have agreed by their joint Declaration with France, of 8th April, 1904, that the execution shall remain suspended of the last sentence of Paragraph. One and the whole of Paragraph Two or Article VIII. of the Suez Canal Convention of 29th October, 1888. which paragraphs prescribe for the meeting once a year of the Agents of the signatory Powers, under the presidency of a Turkish or Egyptian Commissioner; have any, and, if so, which, of the other seven out of the nine Signatory Powers of the Convention been consulted respecting the alteration thus proposed to be made therein, and have they consented to the alteration; and do His Majesty's Government propose, without obtaining the assent of the other co-Signatory Powers, to hold themselves relieved from the obligations of this portion of the Convention while requiring the fulfilment of its remaining obligations.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE TOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The execution of the portions of the Convention referred to has, as the result of our occupation of Egypt, remained suspended ever since its signature. None of the Signatory Powers have at any time claimed that they should be executed. The question whether a formal communication shall be made to them on the subject will be considered.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The noble Lord has not answered any of my Questions. Have any of the other Signatory Powers been consulted; have they agreed to the alteration?
  EARL PERCY: None of them have been communicate I with on the subject.

  The Mission to Tibet.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether any information has been received at the India Office corroborating the statement in The Times of to-day that 200 additional Tibetans had been killed in further military operations.
  EARL PERCY: My right hon. friend has asked me to say that he has received no information in addition to that which has been already published, but that a telegraphic inquiry has been addressed to the Viceroy of India asking whether the statement in The Times is accurate.

  Inland Revenue Illegal Demands
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to cases in which the Inland Revenue has obtained, under threat of legal process, payment of claims which have been afterwards judicially declared to be legally untenable; whether, notwithstanding such decisions, the Inland Revenue retains the money so illegally demanded and paid; and, if so, whether he will cause this practice to be discontinued.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY(Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): No such case has been brought to my right hon. friend's knowledge; but, if the hon. Member will give details of specific instances, he will have them inquired into.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that there was, on 81st December, 1903, in the accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank an excess of liabilities over assets of £10,000,000, the
  198
  Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt have informed the Treasury of the deficiency in order that the amount of such deficiency may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of the growing produce thereof, in accordance with the provisions of 24 and 25 Vic. c. 14, s. 6.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: It is only when the assets of the Savings Banks Fund are insufficient to meet the claims of depositors that the Act requires an issue to be made from the Consolidated Fund. No necessity for such an issue has arisen.

  Adulterated Spirits
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of the Government has been called to a recent decision of the Justiciary Appeal Court of Scotland, declaring it illegal to describe and sell as brandy a mixture of patent spirits and brandy, and upholding a conviction by the Sheriff Court of Hamilton, under the Food and Drugs Acts, for this offence; whether he is aware that the officers of Excise and Customs are compelled by their regulations to allow, in the Government bonded warehouses, German spirit to be labelled as brandy, and English spirit as Scotch whisker; and whether he will see that such legislation is promoted, or such alterations made in the Excise and Customs regulations, as will make it impossible for these frauds to be perpetrated under official supervision.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The regulations of the Boards of Customs and Inland Revenue merely prescribe that Revenue officers are not to concern themselves in any way with labels placed on spirits issued from bond for home consumption, beyond seeing that the labels do not contain any expression implying official supervision. It is not possible under the rules that German plain spirit should be labelled in bond as brandy.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not the fact that officers of Excise are compelled by

  199
  the regulations to permit these frauds to be perpetrated.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I have seen the regulations, and it is so.

  Argentina Cattle Trade.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will now take into consideration the admission of live cattle and sheep, for slaughter at port of entry, into this country from Argentina, in view of the time which has elapsed since the permission to admit such live cattle was withdrawn, the probability that disease has ceased in the Argentine provinces, and the promptitude with which the last outbreak was detected and entry of contaminated cattle stopped.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Foot-and-mouth disease existed in Argentina so recently as February last, and it would not, therefore, be possible for the Board, consistently with their statutory obligations under the Diseases of Animals Acts, to withdraw the prohibition against the importation of animals from that country.
  MR. KILBRIDE: What period must elapse between the announcement that the Argentine is free from disease and the admission of the cattle to this country?
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: It must be a good long time.

  Alien Criminals.
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say what is the average number of aliens sentenced to terms of imprisonment of over one month in the United Kingdom during the last five years.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I can only refer the hon. Member to the tables
  200
  which were prepared specially for the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, showing the alien prisoners (i.e., those who declared themselves to have been born abroad) received during the five years ended March,1903, into prisons in England and Wales. From these it would appear that the yearly average of those sentenced to more than one month's imprisonment was for males 607·2 and for females 54·8, exclusive of averages of 45·4 males and 0·6 females who were sentenced to penal servitude.

  Adult Male Aliens in the United Kingdom
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the total number of adult male aliens over the age of sixteen resident in the United Kingdom according to the census returns.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I cannot give the precise figures asked for without somewhat prolonged inquiry. Perhaps it will serve the hon. Member's purpose if I state the number of aliens over the age of fifteen as shown in the census tables. There were 139,724 male aliens of fifteen years and upwards resident in England and Wales in 1901, and 11,113 in Scotland. In Ireland, where the age classification adopted in the returns is different, the number would appear to be about 5,900.

  British Trade with Tunis and Madagascar.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what was the amount of imports and exports of British goods into Tunis and Madagascar respectively, in the years immediately preceding the last agreements with France relating to those two countries; and what are the amounts of such imports and exports in 1903.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Convention between Great Britain and France relating to Tunis was ratified in October, 1897. In 1896 the value of our direct imports from Tunis was about £62,000, and of our direct exports of British and Irish produce to Tunis about £216,000. In

  201
  1903 our imports amounted to about £254,000, and our exports to about £362,000. There has been no agreement with France relating to Madagascar before that recently signed. Our imports from Madagascar in 1903 amounted in value to about £58,000, and our exports of British and Irish produce thereto to about £35,000. In 1895, the year before the French law declaring Madagascar a French Colony was passed, our imports from that country amounted to £139,000, and our exports of British produce thereto to £66,000.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can now state what arrangements have been made with the Post Office for facilitating the receipt and forwarding of Marconi telegrams.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Negotiations on the subject are still in progress. It will, however, be quite impossible to give the information the hon. Member seeks by way of Question and answer, but I hope during the course of the session to make a statement on the subject of wireless telegraphy generally, and the arrangements which I hope to conclude with the Marconi Company in particular.

  Dundee Mails.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why, although a mail bag for Dundee is carried in the newspaper train leaving King's Cross at 5.15 a.m., and the newspapers are delivered in Dundee at 3.37 p.m., the mail bag is not carried forward from Edinburgh to Dundee, and the letters are not delivered before 7 p.m.; and whether arrangements can be made to secure an earlier delivery of the mail in Dundee.
  LORD STANLEY: The acceleration of the 5.15 a.m. train from Kings Cross was carried out experimentally by the railway companies some time ago. There are certain practical difficulties in the way of using the accelerated service for the mails for Scotland, but the matter
  202
  is being considered, and I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  Architect of New College of Science, Dublin.
  MR. BOLAND: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now give the name and qualifications of the architect for the proposed new College of Science at Dublin.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Mr. Aston Webb, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, with whom will be associated Mr. T. M. Dean, an Irish architect who has already been engaged upon public buildings in Dublin.
  MR. BOLAND: Why was not an Irish architect selected?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: It was first offered to an Irish architect, but he could not see his way to undertake it. There is an Irish architect associated with Mr. Webb in the work however.

  Persecution of Jews in Limerick.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the refusal to deal with, and intimidation of, members of the Jewish persuasion, and to the fact that in some cases violence has been used and many are at present starving by the refusal of dealers and shopkeepers to sell to them; and will he order an inquiry into the whole matter with the view of protecting the rights of these people.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Persons who formerly dealt with members of the Jewish faith in Limerick, in the cours3 of trade, have ceased to deal with them, but any moneys due are being gradually paid. The police received special instructions to use every exertion to protect the Jews from acts of molestation or violence; eight such cases have been prosecuted and in two others proceedings are pending. It is not correct to say that individuals are starving; they are able to obtain supplies and necessaries in the locality.

  203
  This deplorable exhibition of hostility to the Jews has formed the subject of repeated investigation on the part of the authorities, who will continue to afford every protection to the Jews in the pursuit of their lawful avocations.
  MR. SLOAN: If I give the right hon. Gentleman cases where shops have refused to deal with these individuals will he have them investigated?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes. Any information showing primâ facie evidence of the law having been broken will be carefully considered.
  MR. JOYCE: Is there any intention to introduce legislation to safeguard the people against extortionate usurers who charge 200 or 300 per cent. profit on shoddy articles.
  [No answer was returned.]

  Derry Prison Matron.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. M'Connell, matron of Derry Prison, and widow of the late W. L. M'Connell, who was a Government official in Letterkenny, describes herself as unmarried, and signs official documents under the name of Miss O'Rourke; and whether, in view of the fact that it is contrary to prison service rules for any matron to get married while in the service, he will explain why the governor has neglected to report this matter to the Prison Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Miss O'Rourke, the matron of the Londonderry Prison, states that the allegation in the Question is without foundation. A similar allegation was made in 1897, when she was matron of Waterford Prison; it was investigated by the Prisons Board, who were of opinion that the charge was groundless.

  Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by the Bishop
  204
  of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise on the 28th ultimo at Longford, criticising the work of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction and their expenditure of public money during the past four years, and stating that all their efforts have been unsuccessful in materially reducing the flow of emigration; and if, under these circumstances, he would consider the advisability of adopting other plans and methods to provide employment for the young men and women in the small towns and villages, and to apply the funds which are at the disposal of the Department for the purpose of developing local industries
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen a newspaper report of the speech. The matters dealt with are not, however, such as can properly be discussed by means of an answer to a Question. In respect to the number of emigrants from Ireland in recent years, I may point out the yearly average for the ten years from 1885 to 1894 (both inclusive) was 61,310, whilst in the subsequent period from 1895 to 1903 the yearly average fell away to 39,843—a reduction of 35 per cent. The number of emigrants in January, February, and March last arc fewer, by 538, than in the corresponding months of 1903, and lower than in any corresponding month during the past four years. The Department does not propose to depart from the general lines of policy described in its published reports. The full fruits of that policy, which is mainly educational in its operation. cannot be expected to appear for some years to come, and the Department has had sufficient evidence to confirm it in the course it has adopted in co-operation with the statutory representative bodies associated with the work of the Department. So far as the present powers of the Department admit, its funds are applied in aiding schemes for the promotion of rural industries.

  Irish Industries
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take into consideration the question of granting loans out of the money now in the hands of the Department of Agriculture and Technical

  205
  Instruction in order to aid and improve existing industries in Irish towns and villages, and so enable small woollen and other manufacturers to procure modern machinery and successfully meet the foreign competition, such machinery to remain the property of the Department until the loan has been repaid.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of aiding small woollen industries by way of loan for the purchase of machinery has been under consideration, but the Department is advised that further legislation would be necessary to bring this purpose within the scope of its powers.

  Limerick Telegraph Learners.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmastci-General if he will state how many male and female learners are at present employed at Limerick who are now fully qualified to discharge the duties of sorting clerks and telegraphists; and whether there is any probability of such officers being placed on the establishment within the next twelve months.
  LORD STANLEY: There are at present nine male and five female learners employed at Limerick. Four of the male and all the female learners are fully qualified to perform the duties of sorting clerks and telegraphists. It is anticipated that appointments as sorting clerks and telegraphists may be found in the course of the next twelve months for three of the male and for two of the female learners at Limerick.

  Limerick Postal Staff— Holiday Grievance
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why several members of the Limerick staff were compelled to go on annual leave in January, notwithstanding the fact that the Department says that the leave period should be confined between the months of March and October, why in many cases the leave period of fourteen days was split up so as to give a week in January and a week in November; and why, in the period from the 20th February to the 25th March, no officers went on leave.
  LORD STANLEY: Inquiry is being made on the subject, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Moy Post Office—Extra Fees.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can explain under what circumstances extra fees were charged for the use of Moy Post Office on the 1st instant; what number of extra fees were charged and the total amount realised; and whether, in view of the fact that dealers, shipping and railway agents were in attendance at the usual monthly fair, he can state the reason why arrangements were not made to suit public convenience.
  LORD STANLEY: I will have inquiry made in the matter, and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Cork Post Office—Promotions
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether in making the promotions granted under the in-door revision just sanctioned for Cork, he will carefully consider the claims of the senior class of sorting clerks; and whether he will carefully guard against the passing over senior officers fully qualified to perform these higher duties.
  LORD STANLEY: I will carefully consider the qualifications of the sorting clerks and telegraphists in question, and will endeavour to secure that the officer who is promoted is not only fully qualified, but the best qualified, for the discharge of the duties of the higher class.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the noble Lord aware that the selection of junior clerks for promotion over the heads of seniors is causing the deepest dissatisfaction at the Cork office?
  LORD STANLEY: All promotions are brought before me, and, with a view to securing proper efficiency in the service, I do not select the senior men unless they are best qualified to do the work.

  Annual Leave in the Cork Post Office,
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain

  207
  why the recommendations of the Tweed-mouth Committee respecting the restriction of the annual leave to the better months of the year (from March to October, inclusive) were not observed at Cork, when ten or twelve officers were compelled to go on leave during the month of February, and where many other officers are detailed for leave in November; why the officers despatched on leave in February were not permitted to choose a space in the annual leave sheet, a privilege which all other appointed officers enjoy; and why those officers were ushered on leave without the notice customary on such occasions.
  LORD STANLEY: I will make inquiry as to the circumstances referred to in the hon. Member's Question and will communicate the result to him.

  The Anglo-French Agreement.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Convention recently concluded between Great Britain and France has to be submitted for final ratification, so far as France is concerned, to the French Chamber; and, if so, whether similar opportunities of discussion will be afforded to the House of Commons at an early date.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that, according to the French constitutional usage, the Agreement between Great Britain and France must be submitted to their Chamber before final atification. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is not the constitutional practice in this country. But I think it is most desirable that there should be a discussion in this House on the subject. In any case a Bill will have to be brought in dealing with portions of the Agreement, because, as no doubt hon. Members are aware, there can be no cession of any territory of His Majesty without the consent of Parliament.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Does the treaty not expressly stipulate that it shall be subject to ratification by both Parliaments?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whether it is stipulated or not, there are certain portions of this treaty which require the assent of Parliament.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, relating to parts of the subject, give an opportunity to the House of discussing the whole subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On that, of course, it is not for me to offer an opinion. I may say I am very desirous that it should be so. So far as I am concerned, I should think it most desirable, in the general interests of Parliamentary business, that we should have one discussion, and that an adequate discussion. If that discussion can be taken on the Second Reading of the Bill, I think it would be a very convenient course from every point of view.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Can arrangements be made so that the discussion will take place simultaneously with the discussion in the French Chamber.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give any pledge. The French Chamber does not reassemble for some time, and I think we had better keep our proceedings independent of the French Chamber, though I should be glad if the two discussions were as nearly simultaneous as possible.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will it be possible to discuss on the Bill two very important declarations in the treaty affecting other matters?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a Question which should be addressed to Mr. Speaker and not to me. I do not imagine, with all deference to the Chair, that it would be possible for Mr. Speaker to give any opinion until the Bill is before the House. The Bill is being prepared. As these negotiations, although relating to different subjects, are a single great transaction, I think it would be fitting that an opportunity should be taken of discussing the whole subject, and that we should not deal with it piecemeal.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury did His Majesty's Government consult the Government of Morocco before agreeing to the declaration of 8th April, 1904, recognising a right in France to keep watch over the tranquillity of that country, and declaring that the Governments of France and England will not permit the erection of any fortifications or of any strategic works whatever on certain parts of the Moroccan coast; have they had any communication with the Spanish Government regarding the Spanish interests involved, and when will Papers be laid upon the Table of this House containing correspondence that has passed on the subject with the Governments of France, Morocco, and Spain respectively; does the prohibition of any strategic works whatever include a prohibition of the construction either at Tangier or elsewhere on the Moroccan coast of harbours suitable for the accommodation of men-of-war or of destroyers.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: The Government of Morocco was not consulted. In regard to the second Question of my hon. friend His Majesty's Government have been in communication with the Spanish Government. I am not aware that there is anything in these communications which can with advantage be made public. As regards strategic works on the Moroccan coast, my hon. friend is, of course, aware that if a harbour is built which will accommodate merchant ships it is impossible to prevent ships of war from making use of that accommodation.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the arrangement which prevents the erection of any strategic works include harbours.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is held to include military harbours.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend asked a Question with regard to the condition of the treaty that its terms should be approved by the respective Parliaments of the two countries. I find that these words exist in the preamble to the Convention:—"That the plenipotentiaries…have
  210
  agreed as follows, subject to the approval of their respective Parliaments."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. I do not think there need be any misunderstanding on the point. There are portions of the treaty relating to the cession of territory which require the assent of Parliament, and there are also provisions in the treaty which require the voting of money by Parliament. Parliament must be consulted on both those points. But on other parts of the treaty Parliament need not be consulted, though I think it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing so great an international instrument.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how it is proposed to provide for the payment by His Majesty's Government of the indemnity stipulated by the Convention with France of 8th April. 1904, to be paid to French citizens; will the Convention providing for that payment, and for certain French rights on the coast of Newfoundland, be submitted in any, and, if so, in what manner to the approval of the Colony of Newfoundland; and in what manner will it be submitted to the approval of this House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I think I have already indicated, the indemnity will be paid by this country, and of course an Estimate will have to be presented for that payment. The Newfoundland Government need not be consulted with regard to that payment, as they will not share in it. They will have to be con-suited as to the regulations which will have to be put in force upon what was known as the treaty shore. I think I have already answered the last part of the Question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I presume there will be a money Bill with regard to this.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sure. I should think that the matter could be dealt with by an ordinary Estimate.

  Army Reform
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether

  211
  the Government has resolved to abandon its scheme of Army reform in order to adopt en bloc that pat forward by the War Office Reconslitution Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman appears to think that Army reform and War Office reform are incompatible alternatives. That is not the view of His Majesty's Government. We hope to deal with both.
  MR. BLACK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Army Corps scheme has been abandoned by the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until he hears the general scheme of Army reform which we hope to be able to lay before the House.

  Government Fiscal Policy at the General Election.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government has determined to ask the electorate at the ensuing general election for a mandate to impose protective duties in favour of selected manufactures over and above duties of a retaliatory character, if so, has the Government determined which manufactures shall be protected, and on what principle has the selection been made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman appears to desire that I should give him not only a preliminary sketch of my election address, but also the details of the first Budget which I should introduce when I returned to Parliament. I think the demand is excessive.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Scotch Education Bill; and whether he will postpone it until county councils and other public bodies have had time to consider its provisions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I am not yet in a position to fix a day.

  Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to make any statement to the House as to the composition of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders and as to the terms of reference thereto.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot make a statement to-day. I hope to be able to make a statement early next week.

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY].
(Considered in Committee.)
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY].

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,839,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he could make any statement with regard to the armament and the increase of the Militia Field Artillery.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)said they had not taken into consideration the extension of the Militia field batteries, and no provision was made for it in the scheme of re-armament. He would prefer not to discuss, on the present occasion, the question of the armament of the Militia Artillery and the Militia Field Artillery. No provision had been made beyond the provision of reserve guns for the three batteries of Field Artillery which at present existed in the Militia.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERmoved to reduce the Vote of £2,839,000 for the repair and supply of warlike and other stores by £100,000 in

  213
  order to protest against continued expenditure upon obsolete suns for the Artillery. The question of quick-firing guns had, he said, been raised over and over again during the last ten years, and for the last four years the answer had been that the guns were quick-firing; but, when cross-examined, it was explained by War Office representatives that they meant the spade equipment, which was not quick-firing, though an improvement on the old pattern. It still remained that our artillery guns did not fire one shot to four shots by the guns of other artillery and were really obsolete and of no use. A considerable Note was going to be spent on guns and gun-carriages, and they were being told that guns and gun-carriages of the new pattern were not to be introduced in the English Artillery this year. Those to be made were to be sent to India and India was to pay the cost; but the Artillery at home was apparently going to have guns made of the old pattern. Some of them had been made quite recently, and some, he believed, were at present being made. He protested that it was perfectly useless to waste the taxpayers' money on making guns which were acknowledged even by the War Office itself to be of an obsolete pattern, and he declared that it ought not to be allowed by the House. There should, he urged, be no further shilly-shallying about the matter. He drew attention to the fact that the Garrison Militia Artillery were being taught on guns still more obsolete, and they would therefore be unable to use the guns they would have to us? if we were at war and they were put on coast defence. It was really most important, that our troops should be given modern instruments to be taught on; and this system of producing obsolete guns should be done away with.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That item B (Guns and Carriages) be reduced by £100,000."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  SIR CARNE RASCHdid not think the last speaker was altogether correct in what he had said about quick-firing guns. He
  214
  held that the Government did not deserve the strictures passed on them by the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, from time to time, in connection with this question. What were the facts? France and this country were the only countries in the world which had quick-firing guns. The German Government endeavoured to re-arm their artillery in 1899,and they spent £3,000,000 in doing so. But recently they found that the guns were obsolete and had to be altered, and they would Probably have to spend another £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 on re-armament. Nobody knew exactly what the Russsians had got, but it was supposed that they had a certain number of quick-firing guns. The Italian Government had partially rearmed their artillery, and had spent about £1,000,000 three-and-a-half years ago in doing so, with the pattern of the German quick-filing gun. But the Italians, too had found that the pattern was practically obsolete by this time, and they had the whole of their work to do again. In this country we had the Erchardt gun, which was bought by the present Secretary of State for India when he was at the War Office. The gun was highly unsatisfactory with reference to its carriage, but it really was a quick-firing gun and was used as such with desirable results. There was no doubt the French had a quick-firing gun, but they took uncommonly good care that nobody should find out what the secret was, though he believed it was connected with spiral and compressed air. They had some of these guns with their forces in China, but they allowed nobody to see them, and sent them home again as soon as they could, so that the invention should not be pirated. He could not help thinking the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield was wrong in his aspersions on the War Office in regard to this matter, and that the Government, if they had taken the advice that some of them gave them when the late Mr. Powell Williams was at the War Office, would have constructed their guns in a hurry and would have had the work to do over again.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that although this Vote was

  215
  reduced by half a million of money as compared with last year, the reduction was more apparent than real, inasmuch as the Secretary of State had announced that in the course of the next two years three or three and a half millions sterling were to be spent on the manufacture of guns. It had also to be remembered that in the course of the last three years there had been an expenditure of five millions sterling on artillery. Such expenditure could not go on without a reasoned explanation on the part of the War Office, not only of the amount they were going to spend, but also of the objects on which the expenditure was to be made. As to quick-firers, the Swiss had a far better gun than the English or the Germans, and probably than the French, for their gun would fire seven aimed shots per minute as against the one aimed shot of our gun. The question to which he desired particularly to direct attention was that of calibre, the great importance of which the Secretary of State did not appear able to realise. In March of last year, in reply to a Question, it was stated that there were six different calibres for movable guns and three for heavy ordnance. Valuable evidence had been given as to the waste caused by this variety of calibres, for in Question 18510 before the Royal Commission, General Marshall, of the Royal Artillery, stated—
  "I wish to call attention to the number of different natures of guns employed—a matter of serious importance. The difficulty of distributing so many sorts of ammunition amongst the various units operating in a vast country was enormous. It is a matter of Imperial importance to insist on the same patterns for home, India, and the Colonies. The following should meet all field requirements—field artillery guns, horse artillery guns, field howitzers, and a heavy battery such as 4·7 or 5-inch guns."
  That would have made four different sorts of guns instead of fifteen, as was the case in Africa, and it was obviously much easier and cheaper to carry one or two than fifteen sorts of ammunition for as many different kinds of guns. The Secretary of State had never said a word as to the character of the guns that were to be manufactured, first of all, for India as an experiment, and then, if they were a success, presumably to be foisted on this country. If there was to be a repetition of the manu-
  216
  facture of a great number of calibres, he would certainly vote for the reduction now proposed and any other that might be moved on the subject. Another point was that it ought to be possible to manufacture one kind of wheel for transport wagons, mule wagons, and field and horse artillery. By such an arrangement the cost would be greatly reduced, and the convenience of wheel and horse transport considerably increased.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the question of guns was very complex and required much knowledge of a detailed character, but there were one or two general points on which he desired information. The allocation of £373,000 to armaments and £130,000 to field artillery indicated a general policy, as to the correctness of which he was not at all satisfied. In the main, our military armament must be field artillery, as the Army was for field service abroad, but consideration of those forces which were precluded from serving abroad at once raised the question of the nature of the guns with which these should have been armed. The circumstances under which their guns would be brought into operation had to be considered. and that affected the calibre of the guns. The purpose of the Militia and Volunteer Forces was to resist foreign invasion, which must come from an attack delivered by troops landing from ships. The debarkation of an army on a smooth water surface was impossible under modern conditions of fire if resisted by even light artillery and a moderate force in position. Therefore to arm the Auxiliary Forces with a gun not applicable to the purpose of destroying transports was a mistake. The relative amounts to be spent on heavy and field artillery raised the question of the purpose for which the heavy artillery was required. It could only be to arm the forces whose object presumably was to ward off an attack by ships, so he thought the War Office were overdoing it. As the armament at our naval ports was to be used against ships, and as the guns of ships were to be used against ships, there was a possibility of standardisation in regard to the armament of naval ports and the guns of ships. In this way they could create a reserve of

  217
  guns and could practically have mounted on their works guns available for any naval necessities which might arise. He invited the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the broad question. He would also like some more information with regard to the howitzer and as to what had actually been done to develop greater accuracy in high angle firing. He did not ask for detailed information, but he wished to know how far the attention of the War Office had been paid to the development of high angle fire of certain classes of ordnance to be used on certain occasions. There were circumstances under which high angle firing was extremely necessary and desirable, and he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give them some information as to any experiments made in this direction.
  MR. MARKHAMcriticised the Secretary of State for War for his attitude towards the question of standardisation of guns. Before he was in office, he was continually calling the Government to account because the calibres of guns in India were not the same. The fact of there being no standardisation of guns must cause an immense amount of trouble, and if the Secretary of State for War would give to standardisation the same attention he gave to the subject before he was in office, he would meet the criticism of many Members on the Opposition side of the House.
  MR. LYELLalluded to the armaments of the Garrison Artillery and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not take the Committee into his confidence with regard to the policy he was pursuing in this matter, because, after all, the policy of substituting obsolete guns for slightly less obsolete guns was not economical.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreferred to the observations of the hon. Member for East Bristol who, he thought, always talked in a de haut en bas fashion of the War Office. That hon. Member thought it had never occurred to them to make any inquiries of foreign countries. He was mistaken; they had made inquiries of foreign countries. The proof of the fact was furnished by the demand
  218
  that was now being made upon the House. But they had held their hand with regard to the construction of a quick-firing gun until they were satisfied that the progress of foreign nations was such as to make the new departure advisable. The information they possessed would allow them to manufacture a gun which would at any rate be equal, and he thought more than equal, to the gun which was now being manufactured or which was actually in use on the Continent. The hon. Member talked about foisting off guns upon India. He assured him that there was no question of an experiment in regard to the guns sent to India. All the experiments had been undertaken and had been brought to a satisfactory conclusion before a single gun was issued, either to India or to the Army elsewhere. They were, for reasons which he gave on a previous occasion, supplying these gun, in the first instance to India, but there was no question at all of the guns being of an experimental character. The hon. Member had asked him for details, but he would need to be excused from going into very minute details before these guns were manufactured. The House of Commons was entitled to ask for anything, but he thought hon. Members would agree that there were some things that perhaps had better not be asked for. The assurance they would desire was that this gun, in the opinion of all those who had been concerned in its manufacture and—more important—in the opinion of those who had dealt with it from a practical point of view, had justified the descriptions he had given of it as being at least equal and, in the opinion of many good judges, superior to guns which were now being manufactured for Continental armies.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth took some exception to the apparent disproportion between the figures given for guns and carriages. He pointed out that they ought always to keep in mind the paramount necessity of mobile defence whether on land or on sea. But he did not think really that an examination of those figures would enable him to enforce the argument pursued in this case. The sum

  219
  of £373,000 was asked for t provide armaments, and £133,000 was for field artillery. The effective charge for field artillery was of course much more than £170,000, in view of the fact that they were manufacturing different patterns. Of course the additional sum was required for the British Army in India. The Mowatt Report, as hon. Members knew, dealt with the fortification of the coast fortresses. The result of the programme —the details of which he was very intimate with—was to reduce very largely the number of guns in our forts all over the world. The reduction had been made partly because some of the guns were obsolete, and because it was part of a considered programme upon which a small commencement had been made this year. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth asked if the War Office were aware of the importance of improving and extending the possibilities of high angle firng. They were aware of the importance of that question, and they had that problem in mind. They were now making an experiment, which was of the greatest possible interest, with a gun larger than had ever been used before for that purpose.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Bristol had addressed to him Questions of great importance. He was rather astonished that the hon. Member for Bristol should suppose for a moment that he had abated his interest in a question in which he had always shown such a deep concern, or that he could fail in any endeavour he had made to put into execution his own very frequently expressed views in favour of standardisation, not only in guns, but in everything appertaining to warlike stores. He could give the hon. Member for Mansfield the best proof of his good intentions in this matter, by telling him that when he was in another Office he did take a considerable part in introducing the greatest step in the standardisation of artillery that had ever been taken in this country. It was true there would be a discrepancy in the calibres of the two new field guns, but when they remembered that there was a very great difference between the weight of the two projectiles, it would be seen that it was not without reason that they were varying the calibres of those guns. With re-
  220
  gard to the general range of guns, the hon. Member knew that in the past there had been a lamentable superfluity of calibres. This year they were using the 9·2 gun, which was also a naval gun, and not only so, but they had for a long time been using a 12-pounder quick-firing gun, which was a gun used in the Navy. A large number of obsolete calibres had been entirely eliminated. It was true that there was still a difference between the heavy gun, for the use of the Army in the field, and the 4·7 gun in the Navy; but the weight of the projectiles of these guns had not exactly the same relation to each other as the calibres. Steady progress was being made in the diminution of the calibres, and the Committee might rest assured that no effort would be spared to reduce the calibres so far as they could be usefully reduced, and to extend the system of standardisation.
  The hon. Member for East Dorsetshire had drawn a pitiable picture of the state of a battery of Militia Artillery in which he was interested. He asked the hon. Member to give him particulars of that battery, for he could not reconcile the description of the obsolete 6-inch guns with his own knowledge of the artillery as it was at present. There were several types of breech action in the 6-inch guns, but that was inevitable in view of the demands of the service. The earlier type of the breech- loader had been relegated to the Militia, but he could not accept the description that they were obsolete guns. He could state from his own knowledge that there had been an immense improvement in the armament of all the Reserve Forces. The process of manufacturing guns was expensive and tedious, and it was not possible to pass on to the Auxiliary Forces the guns which were still required for the Regular Forces, but at no time had progress been so rapid, as in the past five years, in providing improved armaments. As soon as the new guns in the programme already announced were manufactured the 15-pounder guns in the hands of the Royal Artillery would be transferred to the Auxiliary Forces. Whatever might be the gravamen of the charge in the particular case referred to, they

  221
  were doing all they could to remove the objection.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether it was not the case that the Militia Garrison Artillery were now being trained every year at the places to which they would be sent for mobilisation, and that, therefore, they were using modern guns. Could that system not be extended so as to cover the cases dealt with just now.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had touched on a most important point. For the most part the artillery were being trained at the places where they would undergo mobilisation. It happened that there were certain units of Militia which were not attached for mobilisation to any particular place.
  COLONEL WELBYslid the question raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield was one of very great importance. He thought the Secretary of State for War had given a very satisfactory answer. In regard to the new quick-firing gun, he thought it would be adverse to the interest of this country to have the whole of the details given in public. They must trust the War Office to keep the secrets of valuable new inventions. It was unquestionable that we could not have the Auxiliary Forces provided with the most modern weapons. It would involve an enormous cost, which he ventured to say the House would never authorise. At the same time he thought the Committee should be assured that both forces were armed with guns which would be likely to be of use in case of invasion. We rightly trusted very much to our Navy. A most terrible disaster had happened to one of the great battleships of the Russian Navy. It seemed to be an accident of a kind which might happen to a British ship as well as to a Russian ship. Such an accident might upset the whole of a scheme of defence of this country. We ought, therefore, to be prepared against invasion, and having the experience of the South African War behind us, an assurance should be given to the Committee that there would be in the case of invasion, not only a satisfactory mobilisation of the Auxiliary Forces, but that these forces would be armed
  222
  with satisfactory weapons. He thought if money were expended in providing the Reserve Forces in this country with weapons as good as those provided for the Reserve Forces in Continental countries, it would be well spent. The hon. Member for Lichfield had called attention to the important matter of standardisation, and what had been stated by the Secretary of State for War might be taken as an assurance that this was being carried out as far as possible.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished a more explicit answer from the Secretary of State for War. Was it to be understood that the field artillery gun would be paid for this year out of this Vote? He understood that some of the guns included in this Vote were really not field artillery guns. The assurance he wished from the right hon. Gentleman was that no money would be spent on any field artillery gun which was not a quick-firing gun.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is so.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. J. F. HOPEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state what proportion of the new batteries would be made in the Government arsenals and what proportion would be given out on contract?
  MR. WEIRcalled attention to an item of £31,000 for "cordite, gunpowder, etc." He understood that some alteration was being made at present in regard to the manufacture of cordite, and, that being so, he did not see why so much should be spent at present in providing additional cordite. There was an Estimate of £382,000 for "small-arm and machine gun ammunition," being £40,000 in excess of the amount for the previous year. He could not understand why so much money should be spent on that item when we were only engaged in a small war in Somaliland and a smaller war in Tibet.

  223
  He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some information in regard to this large expenditure. He thought he had better protect himself by moving the reduction of the Vote by £200.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C (Ammunition) be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Weir.)
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not give precisely the various qualities of the cordite. There had been a change in the quality of the cordite, especially of that for use in the Navy. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the quality was calculated according to a given velocity for each gun. The Department was manufacturing according to the existing demands. The increase was not large. Last year a comparatively small amount was asked for, because there was a surplus over from the war in South Africa which had not been exhausted. Now they were going back to the normal demand and the increase was only £40,000.
  MR. WEIRsaid that that last explanation was so far satisfactory. But the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to an inquiry in regard to another point, said that this was a question of erosion of the barrels of the guns and not of velocity. He had raised that very point ten years ago in connection with the Lee-Metford rifle. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that this increase was only £40,000; hut there ought to have been a decrease of £140,000 this year, instead of an increase of £40,000, when they recollected the large stock left over from the late war. He had no desire to divide the House, but he was not satisfied to see such large sums of money expended.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that there was a time when it was in doubt as to whether it was necessary to adopt this particular quality of cordite, and there was a moderation in its manufacture. At present there was no such hesitation; and the Department was manufacturing cordite according to its needs. The
  224
  question of erosion did not arise on this Vote.
  MR. WEIRsaid that was not a satisfactory explanation from a Minister who was receiving a salary of £5,000 a year. This question of the erosion of the barrels of rifles was of vital importance to the country; but the right hon. Gentleman had given no satisfactory explanation as to why there should be such a large increase in the money demanded for small-arm ammunition. He, however, would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid that he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee whether he would take into consideration the advisability of supplying the Volunteers with ammunition at the same rate as it was supplied to the Militia and Yeomanry.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would make inquiries in regard to that matter. In answer to the hon. Member for Brightside, he could state that the allocation of orders would follow the ordinary rule—one-third of the total would be given to the Ordnance Factories; and the remaining two-thirds to the trade.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that he was unable to understand the correspondence which appeared in the Report of the Auditor-General in regard to the cost of the new rifle with which the Service was to be armed. It appeared to him that a payment had been made to the London and Birmingham Small Arms Company for rifle ranges, and not on account of the new rifles. Why should a payment be made for private rifle-ranges belonging to a private company? The correspondence showed that the matter was still regarded, as it were, as a payment in advance for the new rifles. The Treasury at first objected to the payment, but subsequently assented to it on the conditions contained in the correspondence. The Committee ought

  225
  to be informed how much had been spent, and in what direction it had been spent.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid on a point of order that no money was being taken for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that, as he understood the matter, arrangements were being made with two companies in anticipation, apparently, of the manufacture of the new rifle.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be disastrous to the whole system of discussing Estimates if matters were discussed which were not contained in the Estimates at all. The Secretary of State for War stated that no such payment as the hon. Gentleman imagined was contained in the Report; and, obviously, therefore the subject cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would ask-where the amounts referred to in the correspondence with the Treasury appeared?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would repeat that the House of Commons was not asked for any money for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if the Secretary of State would give the Committee some idea as to what the payments for rifles would be. He wished to know how the money was to be spent. Was it all to go to the Birmingham Small Arms Factory?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,)said that there was no money in the Estimate before the Committee for the purpose referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
  COLONEL WELBYsaid he wished to know what was the definite policy of the War Office in reference to swords and lances in the mounted branches of the Army. Were those weapons to be abolished, or was the reduction in the Vote merely automatic. The matter was of importance, as the German and
  226
  other Continental armies had not decided to abolish the lance and sword; and, in the event of war, the British Army might be at a disadvantage.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he was glad his hon. and gallant friend had called attention to the question of the retention of the lance. He mentioned the matter a year ago and was informed that the decision was arrived at as a result of the recommendation of Sir Ian Hamilton. He had great respect for Sir Ian Hamilton, but he thought it would be desirable that the War Office should, before deciding, have taken the opinion of cavalry officers. Having commanded two cavalry regiments he had great faith in the lance. It would be seen from the Blue-book that most of the officers who held high command in South Africa who gave evidence before the Commission were in favour of the retention of the lance except two who were not cavalry officers. Under these circumstances be submitted that it was very desirable that the Army Order issued last year for the abolition of the lance should be reconsidered and the lance retained. We were apt to lean too much upon the experience we gathered in South Africa, but even there an urgent request was sent to Pretoria for lances, and he would not be at all surprised if on the occasion of a future war they found all the commanders writing home for lances. Lately in Somaliland, a correspondent, in reporting a pursuit by mounted infantry, stated at the end that had they had a regiment of Bengal Lancers they would have done much greater execution. He hoped, therefore, this matter would be reconsidered, and that the lance would be retained not only for parade purposes, but also for effective service in the field.
  CAPTAIN NORTONcongratulated the hon. Member for St. George's in having referred to this matter. There was considerable misconception in the mind of the House and the public in regard to the lancers. In recent years military tournaments had become popular, and the public had in consequence become more or less conversant with the way in which the lance and the sword respectively were

  227
  used in those contests. But in those tournaments the lancers were purposely handicapped. If a man were allowed to use a lance in the normal way in which it was used in war, that was to say, to put it in the rest and charge in the ordinary manner, everyone would admit that there could be no doubt as to the result—the man with the sword would not stand a chance. The country in South Africa was in the highest degree unfavourable for the use of cavalry, and only suited to the use of mounted infantry which used the rifle and only used their horses to get from place to place. No mounted infantry man was a true cavalry man. But everybody knew that in the time of the Indian mutiny the lance was known to be a terror to the mutineers. It was the habit of the mutineers when the dragoons came by to fall upon their faces, and all the dragoons could do was to prod them slightly on the back as they passed, but the lancers in every case pinned their man. He did not suppose it would ever fall to the lot of this country to engage again in war upon the Continent, but if it did, the entire country from the Pyrenees to Russia was one great plain which had no ground in which infantry could take cover; there were no such obstacles as were to be found both in this country and Ireland; and he was prepared to assert that in the next European war we should see cavalry play a much more important part than ever it had played in the past. If we, under such circumstances, were brought into conflict with a foreign nation, and had no lancers, and our troops were brought face to face with the lancers of that nation they would sweep away all who were not so armed. He hoped, therefore, the lance would not be abolished simply because in the case of South Africa we were fighting under conditions which were never likely to occur in any other part of the world.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid he could imagine circumstances arising even in modern warfare in which the use of the lance might be advantageous, and he could conceive other conditions when the use of the battle-axe might also be advantageous, but those occasions were so remote and so rare that, in his opinion, it would not be wise to train troops in the use of either one or the
  228
  other. He could not see much difference himself between the character of the country in the North of Europe and that in which we were operating in South Africa, and he thought it would be most unwise, to neglect to take advantage of the experience we had obtained there. Against anything like proper scouting in any country except one so enclosed as England shock tactics must in future disappear. That might be too sweeping an assertion, but he firmly believed that we should do well to accept the judgment of Lord Roberts that mounted troops must be used more for rifle tactics than for shock tactics, and that the lance with all its historic and chivalrous associations must disappear as the true cavalry weapon of the future. He hoped we should not as a nation be so mad as to disregard the lessons of the late war.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the hon. Baronet intended to suggest that the Prussians were in favour of diminishing the number of Regular cavalry, and were opposed to the lance. If not, the quotation he had given was useless, and his argument fell to the ground. It was difficult for the ordinary member of the public to avoid accepting military authority on subjects of this kind, and such authority was entirely in favour, not only of the retention of Regular cavalry for shock tactics, but of increasing the Regular cavalry in proportion to the infantry. Military opinion in France and Germany was distinctly in that direction, in spite of the difficulties connected with the training of cavalry and the short service system. He could not help thinking that the prejudice against the lancers in particular came from the public eye being attracted by the showy and out-of-date guise in which the lancer appeared in time of peace, with pennant and polished tip on the lance. But the lancer in time of war was a very different person, and the great preponderance of military opinion in the world was in favour of opportunities for shock tactics continuing and becoming proportionately even more important. The most recent investigation on the subject had been by our own War Commission, and it was almost the only point on which that body made a definite recommendation, viz., that the number of our mounted troops

  229
  should be increased, though it was true that they left open the question of whether the increase should be in Regular cavalry or in mounted infantry. The evidence of the present general commanding at Aldershot, and others with large South African, experience was entirely in favour of the increase of Regular cavalry as against mounted infantry, while the Esher Committee had incidentally declared in favour of the creation of mounted infantry regiments. His own opinion, based on what he believed to be the weightiest military authority, was in favour of both increased cavalry and increased Regular mounted infantry regiments. If the War Office were able, under the new scheme. to diminish, as he thought they should, the number of infantry battalions, a portion of the saving ought to be devoted to mounted infantry and an increased cavalry force The existence of mounted infantry made the existence of cavalry even more necessary. There were cases in the late war of the mounted infantry getting into such a condition that cavalry would have had great opportunities against them. In Prussian opinion it would be most unsafe to give up the lance. The opponents of that weapon were mostly those who opposed shock tactics altogether, but if the continuance of Regular cavalry as opposed to, or together with, mounted infantry was contemplated, the weight of military authority was in favour of the continuance of the use of the lance. We were somewhat haphazard in the adoption and the discarding of weapons. We suddenly gave up mountain guns, without any authority on which to base the decision. In every other country the tendency was to increase mountain artillery, but while we retained it in India, we had none in this country. In the same way the War Office seemed to have decided to give up the lance here, although it was retained on a very large scale in India. He submitted these facts to show that the decisions were come to in a haphazard fashion without being properly thought out.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLheartily supported the decision of the Government. The decision was not one out of which any popularity could be
  230
  gained, inasmuch as it ran counter to many prejudices and sentiments, but, having seen the use of the lance on the Indian frontier and during the Boer War, he could not understand how anyone who looked at the matter from an impartial point of view could possibly prefer the lance to the rifle. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not have both?] They could not have both with efficiency. It was true that the lance was not so noticeable in time of war as in time of peace, but even then the lance-pole, showing up above hedgerows or kopjes, was a sure tell-tale of the movements of mounted men. He hoped the Government would go boldly forward and throw away "ironmongery" altogether. Modern war was fought with firearms, and if cavalry were to play a great rÔle on the battle-field in the future they would have to use modern weapons, and not the sharp sticks and long irons with which the wars of savagery and mediaeval chivalry were conducted. If the Boers had imitated the Germans, adopted Regular cavalry and the lance. and had tried to employ shock tactics, they would have been overwhelmed. Thousands of British cavalry were engaged during the late war dragging sword and lance from one end of the country to the other, and it was only at Elandslaagte that they were used with any effect. He earnestly hoped the Government would adhere to their decision to discard the lance, and that they would boldly face the problem of the creation of a great rifle-armed cavalry combining skill in the management of horses with the highest development of firing tactics.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that in regard to the question of the use of the lance he found himself in the position of succeeding to a decision which had already been arrived a That decision was the outcome of the opinion of a large number of officers, among whom were cavalry officers. At the same time he admitted that there was a body of opinion among the cavalry in favour of the restoration of the lance. He was not himself prepared to express an opinion one way or the other, but it had struck him, as a civilian observer from outside, that the conclusion was come to with some haste. He was not, however, prepared to say that, having done his best

  231
  to obtain the opinions of representative officers since he had had an official opportunity of doing so, there was anything like the preponderance of opinion in favour of the restoration of the lance which some hon. Members supposed. He believed shock tactics against cavalry were nearly unknown. As regarded a conflict between cavalry and infantry, an officer had expressed to him the opinion that in general it did not really very much matter what weapon was put into a cavalry man's hand for shock tactics, provided he had confidence in it and mastery of it. The bishops formerly went into battle armed with the mace, perhaps so as to avoid shedding blood, but he believed they used the weapon very effectively. There had been a partial solution of this question in the direction suggested by the Member for Birkenhead. A large addition had been made to the cavalry forces of this country of men who relied to a very large extent on the tactics. He referred to the Yeomanry. He was afraid that his contribution to the debate was necessarily somewhat lame. He had asked the opinion of the Army Council on this question, and it must lie with them whether they should recommend the re-introduction of the lance. He believed that at present the balance of opinion was against taking that course. A new cavalry drill-book, which had just been compiled by the authority of and under the direction of Lord Roberts, certainly did not tend to promote the view of those who were in favour of the reintroduction of the lance. He was aware that the opinions expressed in that book were not universally accepted in the Army. But the Army Council had authorised the publication of that book in what might be called an experimental form. A question of this sort was one which could never be definitely concluded. The necessities and experience of the day might in time point to a change. At present he believed there was a predominant opinion in the Army against the adoption of the lance, and in favour perhaps, of an extension rather than a contraction of the mounted infantry. He would inform the House at the earliest opportunity if any change of opinion was arrived at by the Army Council. Until a change of opinion had occurred he did
  232
  not think even a debate in that House ought really to settle the question.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid he was very much surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, because the hon. Member had seen the effects of the use of the lance both in India and Egypt. Surely it must be within the hon. Member's recollection that there was a celebrated charge at Omdurman made by lancers which led to a very considerable execution of the enemy. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Oldham thought that was unworthy of mention. With regard to the South African War, it might be within the recollection of the House that at Elandslaagte the 5th Lancers did charge and did considerable execution. The South African War, however, was not a fair instance, because there was no cavalry at all to oppose them, and it was very difficult for the British troops to pursue the enemy. To him there did appear to be some danger in treating the question in this way, and nobody in the Army knew exactly where they were in these matters. A few years ago both front ranks of lancer regiments, and the Dragoon Guards and dragoon regiments were armed with the lance; but now in consequence of the recent Army Order the lance was only to-be used for ceremonial purposes. He did not think that it was wise to altogether abolish the lance, and he thought it was advisable that some regiments, at any rate, should be trained to use the lance, which was a difficult weapon to learn to use, and they required competent instructors to teach men how to use the lance. If they abolished all the lancer regiments and the use of the lance, they would place the cavalry in a very difficult position when an emergency arose. The late Secretary of State for War had told them that he would carefully weigh the opinions he received upon this question from the military authorities in India before a final decision was taken. The greater proportion of the cavalry in India was armed with the lance, and he thought the House should be told what were the views of the Indian military authorities in regard to its use. It was by

  233
  no means certain that they would not have to send out regiments to fight against savages again, and, if they abolished the lance, cavalry regiments would be deprived of the advantages of using that weapon; and if at the last moment a commander asked for a regiment armed with the lance there would be no troops available who had been taught to use that weapon. There were only six lancer regiments out of thirty-one cavalry regiments, and if the Secretary of State and the Army Council thought they could reduce the number of regiments using the lance, let them at any rate decide to retain the present number of lancer regiments properly instructed with the lance. As regarded the various weapons used by cavalry, one officer had given evidence that the best weapon to use was a battle-axe, and there was considerable influential opinion before the Commission that the day of shock tactics was not yet finished. He hoped that when the question of making the cavalry drill-book permanent was considered by the War Office Council they would come to a decision to retain the lancer regiments.
  COLONEL BOWLESsaid now that this question had been so fully debated he should like to allude to another subject, namely, the place where our rifles were being manufactured. The country took a very great interest in the question as to where our rifles were being made, and he invited the Government to state what proportion of the new rifles was to be entrusted to the Government factories for manufacture and what proportion was to be given to the trade.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he was afraid that instead of small arms being manufactured at Woolwich in the future a large amount would be sent to Birmingham. He did not think that was a good plan, and as far as possible they ought to manufacture the rifles at their own factories. It was all very well to talk of using the contractors in time of war, but it was not the business of the Government to support the manufacture of small arms as a trade. He thought it would be better to have the small arms manufactured at Woolwich,
  234
  and in order to make sure that he would get an answer in regard to this matter he moved to reduce item "D" by £100. The previous Secretary of State for War gave a pledge that the opinion of the Indian military authorities as to the use of the lance would be reported to the House. It was very important that the Indian authorities should be consulted on this important question, and it would be well to have their view put before the House as soon as possible. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what was the cost of manufacturing a rifle at Woolwich and what was the price paid to contractors for a similar weapon made in Birmingham. His impression was that the rifles manufactured in the arsenal cost the country less.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D (Small Arms) be reduced by £100."—{Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  MR NANNETTIsaid that since he became a Member of the House he had repeatedly called attention to the manner in which Ireland was treated in connection with the supply of articles used by the Army. He had never got a satisfactory answer from the occupants of the Front Government Bench on that matter, but he would continue to direct attention to the subject. In the evidence the Duke of Connaught gave before the War Office Commission fume time ago, he stated, when referring to the way Ireland was treated with respect to supplies for the Army, that the work could be done cheaper, more expeditiously, and to the advantage not only of the country but of the Army, if it were done in the districts where the troops were located. Why should the people of Ireland be asked to contribute to the enormous sums voted for the upkeep of the Army when they did not receive a single benefit from the Army? The opinion of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland should be given effect to in this matter. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to support that view, and to give Ireland a chance of supplying some of the materials which were required for the Army.
  MR. FIELDsaid he was pledged to the trades

  235
  unions with which he was identified in Ireland to bring this matter forward on every available opportunity. It was of wider scope than had been indicated by his friend and colleague the Member for the College Green Division. In this country the people were engaged in the fiscal controversy.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to small arms, lances, guns, swords, and so forth. These are the only matters now before the House.
  MR. FIELDsaid there were no small arms manufactured for the Army in Ireland, but surely when the people of that country were taxed they had a right to ask that some of the money should be expended there. When an Irish Member wished to bring this matter before the House he was ruled out of order on all sorts of technicalities, and the result was that they could never get it discussed. As an old Member of the House he said they were entitled to consideration in this matter.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Old Members should set a good example. I must ask the hon. Member to speak to the question now before the Committee. If he can show that in the manufacture of small arms Ireland is not properly treated, he is quite within his rights in raising the question now.
  MR. FIELDsuggested to the Secretary of State for War that the best thing he could do would be to start a small arms factory in Ireland. Surely if they could build ships at Belfast there was no reason why skilled Irish artisans should not manufacture small arms which could be utilised not only for the Army but for the Constabulary.
  MR. NANNETTIasked whether he would be entitled, when the whole Vote came before the Committee, to raise the whole question of supplies for the Army.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It depends what the hon. Member calls the whole question. Anything that relates to the matters included in Vote 9 he will be entitled to raise on the whole question, but he
  236
  cannot raise discussions on matters which are not included in this Vote.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that during the coming year it was anticipated that there would be about 125,000 new rifles provided. Of these 71,000 were for India, 15,000 for the Navy, and 5,000 for the Colonies. For the British Army other than in India there would be 35,000 new rifles in addition to the 15,000 provided in the year just closed. In addition to that, 60,000 old rifles would be converted. The hon. Member had asked how the work was divided between the Ordnance Factories and the trade. The former got one-third, and the latter two-thirds. That was quite in accordance with the ordinary practice, and there was very good reason for it. The hon. Member seemed to think that all the work in time of peace should be done in the Ordnance Factories but it was necessary to keep the trade employed in time of peace, so that they might be available with their plant in time of emergency. The hon. Member had also asked as to the price of the rifles. It was cheaper to make the rifles in the Ordnance Factory than to get them from the trade.
  COLONEL BOWLES: How much?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that he believed that the comparison was as between £3 10s. and £4 10s. The hon. Member for College Green raised the question of stores being obtained in Ireland. He wished to say in the most general terms that a fair share of the supply of stores would be given to Ireland.
  COLONEL BOWLESsaid there was an extraordinary difference between the cost, of the rifles supplied by the trade at £4 10s. each, and those made in the Ordnance Factory at £310s. each. He contended that far too large a proportion of the manufacture of rifles was given to the trade. The Indian Government ha I been very unfairly dealt with in this respect, and he was not surprised that the Indian Government was about to set up a Small Arms Factory of its own, because they found they had to pay £4 10s. for rifles which they could make for £3 10s.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he had listened with the greatest astonishment to the statement of the hon. Gentleman. He was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be responsible for an Estimate which showed that the country was paying, without adequate reason, £70,000 a year more for rifles than they could manufacture them for themselves. The hon. Gentleman said that, in order to support a certain firm, the War Office was paying £4 10s. for a rifle which could be manufactured for £3 10s.
  Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that the firm referred to did not get a single order.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he thought the London and Birmingham Small Arms Company had received sufficient money during the South African war to keep them going for very many years.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that the hon. Member imputed a grossly discreditable action to the Government, and one which he absolutely repudiated.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should keep his head perfectly cool. What he had said was that, for the sake of a particular firm, or for the sake of particular firms, or for the sake of private trade—whichever Way he liked to put it —£4 10s. was being paid for a rifle which could be made for £3 10s. That was a very serious admission to make at a time when the people of this country were not getting much relief from taxation. He had no other alternative than to protest against such a system.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid be did not want to do the Government an injustice. It was only fair to acknowledge that their reason for giving their work to factories carried on by private companies was based upon public policy, so that when large quantities were required on emergency these factories could be called on to supply them. But he would point out to the Government that it was a very bad policy to keep their own machinery idle and run the plant of private companies. It would be more prudent for the Government themselves
  238
  to have a reserve plant to fall back upon in case of emergency, and infinitely cheaper to keep their existing plant going, even if they had to increase it for special emergencies.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the question was not a simple one. It was on all fours with the question which he had' had to consider at the Admiralty in connection with the manufacture of heavy guns. When he compared the prices of naval contract work for heavy guns with the prices of the Royal Arsenal, he thought that the difference was too large, and he inquired into the justification for that difference. He could truly say that the result of that inquiry was to convince him that the difference was not unreasonable, after allowance had been made for the fact that the contracting companies had to pay interest on their capital, to make provision for bad debts, and to make profits. The hon. Member would find that there was nothing unreasonable in the difference in the two prices referred to, when the conditions under which the work was carried out were considered. He did not agree that as a matter of policy they should carry out all the work in their own workshops. Opportunity had been taken at Woolwich of increasing the plant, and allowing a certain portion of it to stand idle, to be utilised in a case of emergency. That had not been found possible with regard to heavy guns, but to a certain extent it might be desirable with regard to the Small Arms Factory. He did not think there would be any effective economy if they were to enlarge their Small Arms Factory, and instal plant which they should only use in case of war. He had followed the whole course of the ammunition demand during the South African war, and he was convinced that it was a great advantage to have a reserve supply, both of small arms and ammunition, in the possession of private firms, and that some price should be paid for that advantage. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Enfield Division appeared to imagine that the difference between the cost incurred in Government factories and that charged by private firms was too great. He did not agree.
  COLONEL BOWLESsaid his contention was that a proportion of the work smaller than one-half should be given to the trade.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. Gentleman should allow a little more freedom to those who were responsible for the supply of stores. The allocation of the orders was not arranged in any haphazard manner or without regard being had to a guiding principle. There was nothing extravagant in the prices that were paid, and that being so, was it not advisable to have two strings to their bow. No one could dispute that there must be a margin between the trade cost and the cost in the Government factories. He hoped his hon. friend would accept his assurance that there would be regular and continuous work in the Government factories, but, in the interests of the State, it was necessary to keep up the demand from the two great manufacturing centres which supplied small arms.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he wished to express his satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. His own opinion was that the principle adopted should be the reverse of that enunciated by his hon. friend. If the War Department did not give a large proportion of the ordinary demand for small arms to the private trade, the capital necessary in order to supply the Government in the case of emergency would not be forthcoming.
  MR. H.J. WILSONsaid he wished to ask whether in regard to the price of £3 10s. proper allowance had been made for depreciation in building and machinery.
  MR. RENWICKsaid he gathered that the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that rather than give orders to private factories the Government factories should be extended and new machinery provided. If the Government accepted that advice and, in cases of emergency, employed a considerable number of workpeople for a limited period, the grievances of those workpeople would be brought before the
  240
  House as soon as the emergency was over and they were out of work again. As representing a constituency where there was a large number of works for the manufacture of guns and ships, he thought the country generally got the advantage of those works, and he therefore sincerely trusted that the Government would continue to give a fair proportion of orders to private firms. They had heard that when the new guns were provided the old ones were to be given to the Auxiliary Forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Taunton had said that they could not afford the expense of providing the most modern guns for the Volunteers, but when the new rifles were provided he presumed the existing rifles of the Regular Army would go to the Volunteers or Auxiliary Forces. Could the Secretary for War, under certain well-defined regulations for the protection of the Government, arrange that the rifle clubs throughout the country should get the discarded rifles at a reasonable price? If that could be arranged it would give great satisfaction and be the means of enabling large numbers of the inhabitants of this country who could not see their way to join the Auxiliary Forces to learn the use of the rifle.
  MR. BAYLEYsaid the statement as to the relative cost of the rifle given by the Secretary for War was absolutely unreliable. The Government were paying 25 per cent. more for rifles in the open market than they could manufacture them for in the most extravagant way possible. Why were they doing it? What were the firms which they were dealing with, and were they manufacturing a relatively superior article? Of course it was right for the Government to have two strings to their bow, but had they any arrangement with private firms that they did not make the rifles for foreign countries or for natives whom we might have to fight in South Africa? Had they any arrangement that when they had given a pattern of their own rifle, which ought to be the best in the world, the contracting firms did not make an identical rifle for other countries? There could be no doubt that there were firms in the country, and plenty of them, capable of making a rifle at the same price they were paying

  241
  Now, which gave 15 to 20 per cent. to the shareholders.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid he could not understand how there could be any such difference as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield between Government work and private work. Private manufacturers had to pay no more for their material, and had certainly not less efficient labour, and it therefore became a question of how the difference could be accounted for. One presumption was that the cost of the buildings, depreciation upon which had to be allowed for in private establishments, was wiped off in the case of the Government against the taxpayer whenever completed. Depreciation on tools, machinery, and other charges were generally not taken into account by Government, and such a thing as rent was also unknown, so before the official cost was compared with that of a private firm the two establishments ought to be put on exactly the same footing.
  MR. PEELsaid he desired to be quite clear as to what cost was included. Was it merely the prime cost of the armaments, or would it also include all the costs that ought to be included, such as a proper charge for superintendence the cost of machinery, and a proper sum for the depreciation of machinery? If it included those it would make an immense difference in the price of the rifle made by a private firm and that made by the Government. In his own constituency a firm tendered for the manufacture of fuses, and found they could not come within 40 per cent. of the price at which fuses could be made at Woolwich. That tender necessitated the putting down of very expensive hydraulic machinery for making the fuses. It was necessary in some cases to make a sacrifice in order that the country might have a number of firms available who were able to supply these articles in time of need. But the sacrifice was not so great as it appeared. He wished to know whether in the figures quoted to the House all these necessary calculations had been taken into account.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the cost given of the articles made by the Government included 10 per cent. for depreciation of machinery and 5 per cent. for depreciation of the building, and, of course, all the out-of-pocket charges and every charge for the ordinary management. It did not include items which were naturally included in a private firm such as rent, interest on capital, and profit. He pointed out that the direction which the hon. Member for Enfield desired to take was not that which the Government had been recommended to take. The whole matter had been considered by the Mowatt Committee which recommended that, so far from reducing the proportions of distributions, the Government should increase it by giving two-thirds of the work to the trade and doing one-third itself. And they justified that advice by saying that such a policy would result in these firms being available in time of war.
  COLONEL BOWLESsaid the reason for the Small Arms Factory at Enfield was because in the time of the Crimean War the trade broke down so hopelessly that the Government had to start a factory of its own.
  MR. DALZIELexpressed the opinion that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had left the situation exactly where it was before. They were paying £1 more for rifles than it cost the Government to make them. Repeated Questions had been put to the Government on this matter but they had not evinced the slightest desire to answer them. The only point brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman for the payment of this extra £1 to these private firms for rifles was that these firms made bad debts. They did not make bad debts with the Government and if they made bad debts with the Governments of other countries why should we step in and pay more in order to cover those debts. A more feeble argument was never put forward by any Government. The whole tendency of this debate had been to condemn the Government. So far as this Vote was concerned the country would not assent to what was practically a Vote in aid to provide for the bad debts of a private firm.
  MR. RENWICKreminded the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State of the Question put in an earlier part of the debate as to the supply of discarded service rifles to rifle clubs.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid they would have to look forward for a long time before they got the new service rifle; but when the time came he would give the matter his sympathetic attention as he believed it would make the work of rifle clubs more effective and make their expenses less.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought some misconception had arisen upon this question. These contracts had been confused with others on a much greater scale. This was not a question of protecting a great trade; this was a small trade that was being propped up by the War Office. No answer had been given to the Question as to who were the firms, and his impression was there were only two or three who comprised the trade. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of uncertainty. There was no question of uncertainty in this case, this was a contract the War Office gave out regularly year after year. If it was a question of keeping up a great trade it might be worth while to make a sacrifice, but here there was no question of keeping up a great trade. It had been stated that they were now paying £4 10s. to the trade for the manufacture of a rifle, when they could make rifles in their own factories at a cost of £3 10s. The Swiss Government made a good rifle for 30s. As they had not received a satisfactory answer upon this point he should insist upon taking a division as a protest against this propping up of a small industry. He was not interested in any way, and he was speaking simply in the interests of the country and the taxpayers who were heavily involved and who were being robbed. He hoped the House would enter a strong protest against this practice which he hoped would be stopped in the near future.
  MR. NANNETTIcomplained that the tradesmen of Ireland were not given any chance at all to compete either for the manufacture of small arms or anything else. He wished
  244
  to have an expression of opinion from the Front Ministerial Bench as to whether Ireland in the future was going to be given a chance in these matters or not. Would the Government give contractors in Ireland a fair opportunity without imposing upon them the harassing conditions which were put upon them at the present time. The Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that the time might arrive when they would have an opportunity of competing, but that would be he supposed when the millennium arrived. Some hon. Members argued that it was necessary for the Government to have their own factories when an emergency arose, and other hon. Members asserted that it was necessary to encourage private contractors as well. In these matters they did not take Ireland into consideration at all except when they wanted men to fight their battles. It was quite time that the Government gave Ireland a fair proportion of the work towards which Ireland had to pay a large proportion. They did nothing but rob Ireland and then they expected Irishmen to be devoted and loyal servants of the British Empire; but they never would be loyal so long as such injustices were done to them. It was a scandal to talk of the claims of Sheffield and Enfield, which had been fully recognised by the Government, while the claims of Ireland were entirely ignored. It was painful to him to have to appeal to the House in this manner, but it was his duty as a representative of one of the great manufacturing cities of Ireland to show that there was one representative at least ready to stand up in this House and give expression to the views of Ireland upon this question. He was surprised at the silence of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Sloan) on this question. When in Belfast recently some prominent manufacturers conrplained to him of the manner in which they were treated by the Government in this matter. It was a great injustice to compel them to pay such heavy taxes, year after year, without giving them a fair proportion of the work. A great deal of the Government work could be done cheaper, better, and more expeditiously in Ireland, and he hoped that before long British justice would come to their aid and demand

  245
  that a lair share of the money spent upon the upkeep of the Army and Navy should be spent in Ireland.
  MR. WEIRsaid that some time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what proportion of the improved pattern of rifles were manufactured in Government factories and what proportion were made by private contractors. The reply given to him was that the details of orders given to private firms could not be published. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give details then, but he had had to give those details in this debate at the cost of two and a half hours of the time of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that private firms received £4 10s. for making a rifle, whilst the Government factory at Enfield produced the rifle for £3 10s. He sympathised with his hon. friend the Member for Dublin in his effort to get work for Ireland, and he should be glad to find some of the rifles produced in Scotland where there were plenty of men idle. Eleven years ago when he raised this question he was informed that large orders had been sent to Birmingham as well as to Enfield. He never could understand why so many orders went to Birmingham, and he wished to know if larger orders were now being sent to Birmingham than was the case eleven years ago. He had never been interested, even to the extent of a penny. in any gun factory, but he desired to know, and the Committee were entitled to know, the names of the firms to which orders had been given.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say that the firms were the Birmingham Small Arms Company and the London Small Arms Company.
  MR. WEIRwas glad the information had been extracted at last.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that as it appeared to be suggested that he had kept back the information, he would explain that the Question put conveyed such a disrespectful suggestion
  246
  that he deliberately declined to answer it.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that such an idea never entered his mind, and the hon. Member was the last who should have suggested it. If his remarks were susceptible of that interpretation he was extremely sorry and would at once withdraw them. He still thought, however, that his demand for the names of the firms who received the contracts was a fair request and one that ought to have been acceded to.
  MR. WEIRsaid that if the question had been answered in the first instance much time would have been saved. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say how many rifles had been ordered from each firm? He understood that 70,000 had been ordered outside Government works, and that the orders were equally divided between the Birmingham and the London firms. Was that correct? The rifles cost £1 apiece more when made by outside firms, so that £70,000 of the taxpayers' money was being thrown away. He strongly protested against such an extravagant system by which these private firms were bolstered up and enabled to pay large dividends to their shareholders.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEremarked that our rifles had always been dearer than the Continental rifles, owing to the larger number of pieces in the construction, although, roughly speaking, the foreign rifles were as good as our own. In every case the cost had been considerably reduced after the process of manufacture had gone on for some time, and he desired to know for how long the War Office were bound to pay £4 10s. for the contract rifle now?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the right hon. Baronet was perfectly correct in his remark. The Question he had put was an important one which he could not answer straight away. It had been the case that prices fell after regular manufacture was established, and he hoped it would be so in the case of this

  247
  rifle. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should put down a Question on this subject.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERpointed out that the London Small Arms Company had its factory at Birmingham, so
  that both firms were practically Birmingham firms.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 77.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale)

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Malley, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  O'Mara, James

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shee, James John

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Bell, Richard

  Henderson, A. (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Block, Alexander William

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

  Rea, Russell

  Roland, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reddy, M.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

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

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rigg, Richard

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee).

  Burt, Thomas

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Runciman, Walter

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cromer, William Randal

  Leamy, Edmund

  Sheehy, David

  Crombie, John William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Slack, John Bamford

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

  Lough, Thomas

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tillet, Louis John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. Courtenay Warner and Mr. Theodore Taylor.

  Burdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Hammond, John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

  Bignold, Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bull, William James

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Renwick, George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hope. J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chapman, Edward

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Charrington, Spencer

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Kerr, John

  Russell, T. W.

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Codings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

  Sharpe, William Edward P.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Col. Chas, W. (Evesham)

  Spear, John Ward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. H. E. (Wigt'n

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheff'ld

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts,

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und-Lyne

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

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

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Core, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. R. Stuart

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gretton, John

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Percy, Earl

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Younger, William

  Hall. Edward Marshall

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pym, C. Guy

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Randles, John S.

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid that in connection with the Vote for miscellaneous stores he wished to raise the question of the supplies for canteens in Ireland.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid it would not be in order to raise the question of the canteens on this Vote.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he assumed that the Vote included a certain sum of money for the payment of the officials connected with the canteens.
  THE CHAIRMAN: You cannot discuss payments for wages under a Vote for miscellaneous stores. Obviously that cannot be done.
  MR. NANNETTIasked whether the refreshments to the troops were not supplied by the officials of the canteens as stores and supplies and could he not discuss them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There are no salaries for officials on this Vote.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid the men who served in the canteens were not civilians.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This Vote is for stores and not for men.
  MR. NANNETTI: One moment, with all due respect to you. I do not think it is fair to try to rule any Member out of order in this way, even though he be a mere Irish Member.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in using such an expression. If anything, I have given him a great deal more rope than other Member. I must ask him to accept my ruling when I tell him that he cannot raise the point he wishes to raise on this particular Vote
  MR. NANNETTI: I, of course, accept your ruling. It was the tenor of your own observation that led me so far to forget myself.
  COLONEL LEGGEasked whether any steps had been taken to reduce the weight carried by cavalry horses. In dragoon regiments the weight was something like twenty stone. He had been informed, in answer to former inquiries, that the question was under consideration. He hoped the War Office would be able to devise some means of reducing the weight. At present a saddle weighed two and a half stone without anything at all on it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he raised this question twelve or thirteen years ago. He at that time gave the weight of the saddle used in British cavalry regiments, and pointed out that in other countries a lighter form of saddle was employed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that the weight carried by a
  252
  cavalry horse was twenty stone. He believed that in the Blues and the Life Guards the weight of trooper and accoutrements and saddlery was twenty-three stone, which was enough to kill any horse. The matter had not been attended to from that day to this, and he hoped the Secretary of State for War, in whom the Committee recognised a determined reformer, would do something to have the weight reduced. In what direction it should be made was not for him to say.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that he wanted to ask two or three Questions as to Items F and G. Under Item F there was a sum for Miscellaneous Services, £345,000, and under Item G Equipment Stores, there were various amounts totalling in all £465,000. Were these what he might call the remnants of the Mowatt Commission? The House had been promised a week or two ago the Report of the Commission itself, but it had not yet been issued, and he thought that the Secretary of State should be able to state-as it was germane to this discussion—that it would be shortly available to hon. Members. Another Question he had to put was, whether the War Office were going to establish a buying section in connection with the Ordinance Department? If so, that would be against the recommendation of the Dawkins Commission, which was composed pre-eminently of business men; and he would attach much greater weight to their recommendations than to those of the Committee of Three.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he wished to ask whether Item G., "Transport Vehicles," included ambulance waggons?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he wanted to know whether any progress had been made by the Department in improving the ambulance waggons which had caused so much suffering during the war in South Africa. He was aware that prizes had been offered for an improved ambulance waggon; but he was not aware as to what result had followed from that

  253
  offer. Those who were in South Africa knew that the ambulance waggons then in use in the British Army were most unsuitable; and it was important to know whether any improvement had been made upon them.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he would like to associate himself with the hon. Gentleman who had spoken as to the weight which was put on cavalry horses All the ironmongery they had to carry was ridiculous. But it was still more ridiculous that the light cavalry should absolutely have to carry a stone more weight than the heavy dragoons! The hon. Member opposite said that the Commission which sat under the presidency of the Secretary of State for the Home Department suggested that a reduction of the expenses of cavalry officers might be affected by ding away with gold lace on the uniforms. The object of that was to get into cavalry regiments the sons of country gentlemen who could shoot and ride—not the sons of South African millionaires or young men of the Mirshall and Snell-grove type. He had never been able to understand why saddlery was given as part of their kit to officers of the 6th Dragoons and not to the 5th Dragoons.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid that it had been proved before the Royal Commission on the subject that waggons, carts, ladders, and other materials used by the Army could be made with advantage in Ireland. He had in his possession a return which stated that for the year 1902 nearly £4,000 worth of brushes had been sent over from Woolwich for Army purposes in Ireland. He thought the House would agree with him that he had a right to stand up there and say that Irish manufacturers should have a proportionate share in that expenditure. The Duke of Connaught had stated publicly that it was ridiculous to send to Woolwich for a cart which could be better produced in Ireland. He had letters from the Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Dundalk, Newry, Enniskillen, Athlone, and Mullingar Cart and Wagon Builders Societies protesting against the system of importing these articles and asking him to make a protest against the continuance of the practice. Hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about things being dumped down in England from
  254
  Germany and France; but they never remembered that they were parties to dumping English goods on Ireland. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That Item F (Miscellaneous Services) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Nannetti.)
  MR. MOONEYsaid he supported his hon. friend in the reduction he had moved on this Vote, as a protest against the way Ireland had been treated in this regard. The present Commander-in-Chief in Ireland was in favour of the change advocated by his hon. friend.
  MR. WEIRcalled attention to the item of £336,000 spent on stores and complained that all these stores were manufactured in England, although there were workmen in Scotland quite as competent to manufacture them as any in England. Scottish workmen were capable of manufacturing these stores quite as well and more cheaply than English workmen, and it was a scandal that all this money should be expended in England and not a shilling of it in Scotland. If the division was pressed he should certainly support it.
  MR. FIELDsaid he had been in communication with the authorities for the last ten years on the question of the establishment of depots for stores in Ireland. He asked that these depots should be used in the same way as the depots in England, and that the people of Ireland should have an equal opportunity with the English for tendering for such stores. When Irish Members proposed something that would decrease cost and increase efficiency, and at the same time give some satisfaction to the Irish working man, it seemed most unwise, from a Treasury point of view even, for the Government not to accept that proposition. Why should Irish manufacturers be placed at a disadvantage and have to bear the expense of sending their goods to Woolwich instead of being able to send them to the depots in Dublin? He did not ask for anything unreasonable, and he expected a symp answer to his complaint. He was certain that if this question was considered in

  255
  an impartial spirit it would be found that he was only asking for something that would be found to be of advantage to the War Office as well as to England. This was not a small matter. It was a great principle, which was that the Irish people should have equal opportunity with the English to tender for these stores, and he hoped to be assured, when the right hon. Gentleman replied, that Ireland would receive the fair play to which she was entitled.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid some misconception appeared to have arisen with regard to this matter. It seemed to be supposed that the Government selected the persons from whom they ordered stores. That was not so. There were classes of goods that were manufactured cheaply and on a large scale in Ireland, and the tenders of Irish manufacturers for those classes of goods had been accepted. There were other classes of goods either not manufactured at all or only manufactured in a very small way in Ireland, and for those classes Irish manufacturers did not tender. The hon. Member appeared to think also that Ireland was unfairly treated by reason of the goods manufactured there having to be inspected at the central depot in England, but that was a matter which affected everyone alike, it being necessary to inspect the goods, which had to be according to sample, at the central depot where the sample was kept. No obstacle was thrown in the way of Irish manufacturers by reason of that inspection, because the only cost entailed was the cost of returning the rejected articles, and that did not affect the manufacturers very largely. As they were proposing to decentralise the commands of the Army; and with the commands the buyers of the Army, it would naturally be the case that a great many more stores would be purchased locally. That change would lead
  to a very great development of local buying of small articles. He did not think the local buying of large quantities of stores, which were made in large quantities, would be an advantage.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid that although the statement of the right hon. Gentleman held out some hope for the future he could not accept it as an answer to his complaint. All he asked was that the Irish people should have an equal opportunity with other people to tender, and they had not so long as everything had to be sent to Woolwich. Therefore, however favourable the answer of the right hon. Gentleman might be considered to be, he must divide the Committee on this question.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked what the method of buying was going to be with regard to this decentralisation of stores.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the matter was now under consideration.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTearnestly appealed to the hon. Member for the College Green Division not to divide the Committee, but to be satisfied with the favourable reply given by his right hon. friend.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he should be the last man in the world not to consider the convenience of Members of the House, but he had a duty to discharge to his constituents, and until this system was killed he should be compelled to divide the Committee on every occasion when it was discussed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 78.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Delany, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Black, Alexander William

  Crean, Eugene

  Doogan, P. C.

  Boland, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Edwards, Frank

  Brigg, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Burt, Thomas

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lyell, Charles Heary

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Riobson, William Snowdon

  Field, William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Runciman, Walter

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shackleton, David James

  Hammond, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Harrington, Timothy

  Moss, Samuel

  Sheehy, David

  Harwood, George

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

  Thomas D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Hutton, Alfred F. (Morley)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Alexander

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Wason, Jn. Cathtart (Orkney)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Mara, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitley, J. K. (Halifax)

  Lambert, George

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Rea, Russell

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Mooney.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dixon-Hart land, Sir F. Dixon

  Kerr, John

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fison, Frederick William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bull, William James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Butcher, John George

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Chapman, Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Charringion, Spencer

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

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

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd nderry

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Callings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R.

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Henderson. Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  258

  259

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheff'ld

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Pease, Herb Pike (Darlington)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Percy, Earl

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E.R.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Plammer, Walter R.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Scott, Sir S. (Murylebone, W.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Randles, John S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Raseh, Sir Frederic- Carne

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Younger, William

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Renwick, George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Tuff, Charles

  Rigg, Richard

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Original Question again proposed.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered.
  A Clause (Application of Company's Acts), brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid in moving the Motion standing in his name he would explain in the briefest possible manner the reasons which led up to it. Its object was to carry out a Parliamentary bargain that had been made in 1900 at the time of the passing of the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Act. At that time the vestry of St. George-the-Martyr, now merged in the corporation of Southwark, was the local authority which had to deal with the matter, and they were strongly opposed to the Bill and presented a petition against it. The promoters of the Bill then sought an
  260
  interview with the local authority as a result of which the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn by the local authority and conditions male by which the chairman of the vestry, the present Mayor of Southwark, should give evidence in support of the Bill, whilst a promise was made by the promoters of the Bill to make an underground station and subways near the Elephant and Castle. One of the clauses of the Bill provided for this, and there was no doubt the company honestly intended to carry out the arrangement made with the vestry. Negotiations in regard to the details were continued for a long time between the borough engineer and the engineer of the company, and last year the borough of Southwark approved the plans of the Waterloo and Baker Street Railway, and granted permission for the erection of a hoarding at the place where the shaft was to be bored. All went well up to 28th July, 1903, when the town clerk of Southwark received an intimation from the engineer of the company to the effect that the company did not intend to erect either the underground station or the subways. At this period the vestry of St. George-the-Martyr had been incorporated with the borough of Southwark, whilst the interest of the original promoters of the company had been acquired by Mr. Yerkes and his friends. Notwithstanding this intimation interviews took place between the parties, which resulted in the following letter

  261
  being addressed by Mr. Yerkes to the Southwark borough engineers—
  3rd November, 1903.
  Dear Sir.—Since we had the pleasure of a visit from you and some of the members of the Council of the Borough of Southwark I have looked very fully into the matter of using the centre of the street for our Elephant and Castle Station and find that it cannot be done except at great expense. I appreciate fully the claim made against the company, that is, that it was agreed to at the time the Bill was passed, but I do not feel that we are at all responsible for that, for the reason that it was done by entirely different parties, who were our predecessors and from whom we purchased the company then being constructed. We are, however, still in hopes that some passage-way can be made connecting some of the corners of the street without causing a great expenditure of money, and this will receive our attention.
  Yours truly,
  (Signed) CHARLES T. YERKES.
  Arthur Harrison, Esq.,
  Borough Engineer.
  Town Hall,
  Walworth Road, S. E.
  He admitted that the claim of the borough of Southwark was a genuine one, but got our of the responsibility by saying they were not the parties who originally entered into the undertaking. That was true, but he (Mr. Causton) would have thought that when a Parliamentary bargain had been entered into that bargain ought to be carried out by those who had taken over the responsibilities of the original company.
  A great many concessions were given as a quid pro quo for the subways. The local authority had always had its eye on the question of subways at this point, and thought on this occasion that they had their opportunity to get them by making the concession which they made to the company. Those concessions were admitted to be not small concessions. He appealed to the House to respect Parliamentary bargains that might be made. It was well known that by such bargains a vast amount of time and great expense was saved. Although this bargain was not recorded, it was an honourable understanding under which the vestry withdrew its opposition and it ought to be carried out. One of the concessions made to the company was to allow it to make its tunnel at depths varying from eighteen inches to eighteen feet instead of sixty feet below the
  262
  surface which saved a considerable expense to the company. He could give other instances, but he thought that was sufficient to show what had been saved by the concessions. The company would, under their altered arrangements, save considerable time and labour, as Mr. Galbraith the engineer admitted in his evidence before the Committee, and he stated that one of the reasons for not carrying out the bargain was that they could open the railway eighteen months earlier if instead of making this underground station they made it elsewhere. His point here was that the company had decided to remove their station, and by so doing they were going to save an enormous sum of money, and that therefore they ought not to object to carrying out this bargain as to making the subways. Another reason which weighed with the vestry in withdrawing their opposition was that the company was going to turn the Indigent Blind School site into a generating station which would be a very valuable ratable property to the borough. Now there was not to be a generating station at that point but merely sidings and consequently there would be a considerable rating loss to the borough.
  The Motion he had before the House said in effect that this line should not be opened until the subways were made, but that would not necessitate any delay in the actual opening of the line, because the work was not sufficiently advanced to be affected by the making of the subways. There was absolutely no difficulty with regard to the construction of them, and the borough had no desire to put the company to any excessive cost in their construction. All they wanted under this new arrangement was the subways. The necessity for these subways at this spot was even greater now than when the Bill was passed having regard to the very great danger to pedestrians through the advent of electric trains, which came from all parts, travelling very rapidly and thereby increasing the danger to foot-passengers at this crossing. When this matter was before the Committee the Committee came to the conclusion that they could not compel the company to construct the subways in event of the station not being

  263
  made, and he did not blame the Committee for not going behind the Act of Parliament, but at the same time he was going to ask the House to support him and say that Parliamentary bargains must be carried out, and that what the Committee could not do the House would. Attempts had been made to compromise the matter, and he believed that the company would be willing to make a contribution to the cost of the subways if the borough would construct them. But the corporation had not the power to construct them. It might go to law and get a verdict, but that they did not wish to do. All they desired was the subways, and that the company should construct them. He thought he had now said sufficient to make the matter clear, and, without occupying further time, he begged to move the clause standing in his name.
  A Clause (Company to construct subways at Elephant and Castle).
  "The Company shall not open for public traffic Railway No. 3 by the Act of 1900 authorised to be constructed or any part thereof until they have constructed and opened for public traffic subways for foot-passengers near the Elephant and Castle in the general lines shown on the plan signed in duplicate by William Robert Galbraith and by Arthur Harrison, and referred to in Sub-section 17 of Section 30 of the Act of 1000 (For the protection of the Vestry of the Parish of Saint George-the-Martyr, Southwark)."—(Mr. Causton.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. REAsaid his hon. friend had appealed very eloquently to Mr. Yerkes and his friends for a contribution towards the cost of these subways, but it would perhaps surprise the House to hear that when the Bill which was now being considered was before the Committee there was no mention in it of the Borough of Southwark. No part of the powers asked for by this Bill had to be exercised within the limits of that borough when the Committee were asked to give an opinion on another Act of Parliament passed in 1900. He did not deny that there had been a great deal
  264
  of bargaining before the Act of 1900 was passed, but the bargain was embodied in Sub-section 17 of Clause 30 of that Act, from which it would be seen that it was a very different bargain from what his hon. friend had represented. He submitted that the hon. Member had rather misrepresented the powers conferred on the company by the Act of 1900. Since the Act was passed the company had done what they could to design a station under the road at this point, but they had proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that, if it was not an absolute impossibility from an engineering point of view, the difficulties were almost insuperable, and that not only would the expense be very great, but that if they succeeded the opening of the line would be delayed at least eighteen months. The Committee were asked to modify an Act passed in 1900 in reference to a matter which was not then before the Committee and which was not before the House in the present Bill; they were asked to interpret a clause in the sense of imposing on the company an obligation to construct something which the Act said they "may," but not that they "must" construct. Three things were clear to the Committee—first, that the Parliamentary bargain was embodied in Sub-section 17 of the Act of 1900; secondly, that the section did not impose an obligation to construct a station; and, thirdly, that the company were under no obligation to construct subways apart from the station, and that they had no powers to make subways apart from the works. If the obligation existed, the Borough of Southwark had its remedy at, law, and it was not the duty of the Committee to give a decision on a point of law with which the Bill before them had nothing whatever to do. Since the Act of 1900 nothing had passed except that the borough council had received a letter from Mr. Yerkes. That letter, however, could have no bearing on a Parliamentary bargain entered into before 1900. If it was a contract it could be enforced, but it did not seem desirable to the Committee that they should enter upon a legal argument as to whether or not the letter did constitute a contract. He might add that the conclusions of the Committee were clear and unanimous.
  CAPTATN NORTONcontended that as a station was being actually built within thirty or forty yards of the Elephant and Castle the argument based on the non-construction of the station fell to the ground. The question was really one of public necessity against private interest. A certain bargain was entered into between the Borough of Southwark and the company; the company passed its rights on to another company, who then declared that they were not bound by the bargain of their predecessors. If such a plea was to be accepted there would be an end to all Parliamentary bargaining. As consideration for the bargain the Borough of Southwark granted many important concessions, and the question was whether the company should now carry out their share in the transaction. He took no objection to the action of the Committee, but the House itself had power to overrule its Committee when the public interest required it, and that was what the House was now asked to do.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for West Newington evidently knew nothing about the question. In l900 the original company—the London and Globe —obtained optional powers to construct an underground station at the Elephant and Castle, and if they constructed that station they were to make in connection therewith certain subways. The London and Globe became bankrupt and its powers were purchased by Mr. Yerkes' Company, who decided, in consequence of the great difficulty and public inconvenience involved, not to construct the station. The whole question turned on the words "may" and "in connection therewith." If the contention of hon. Members opposite was correct, the Borough of Southwark had their remedy at law. Any damages they obtained would be in the form of money, and the borough, being the street authority, could then construct the subways. Under the circumstances he hoped the House would uphold the decision of the Committee.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid that no one had
  266
  denied that a Parliamentary bargain was entered into, and the question of whether or not that bargain was correctly expressed in the Act depended upon the construction of the clause. One construction put forward was that the subway was to be built only if the station was constructed On that point much difference of opinion existed, and the Borough of Southwark were advised that that was not the true construction of the clause, but that the company were bound to build the sub-ways before Railway No. 3 was opened for traffic. The House of Commons did not exist for the purpose of encouraging people to go to law, but to see that Parliamentary bargains were carried out. Mr. Yerkes himself had written a letter in which he admitted the claim, but contended that the present company were not responsible inasmuch as the arrangement was entered into by their predecessors from whom they purchased the undertaking. That being so. the company ought to be shown that, in this country at any rate, we insisted upon people who purchased properties carrying out the bargains made by their predecessors.
  MR. CUSTsaid that in this case they had a deliberate act of bad faith on the put of the railway company. It would be very bad for the expedition of private business in that House if the promoters of any company, especially a railway company, after entering into what was accepted as a boné fide arrangement on both sides, should be allowed to abscond with the plunker and avoid their liabilities. That seemed to him to have happened in this case.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said that he would support the action taken by the Committee in this matter, who had heard the evidence and the arguments of counsel. The speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester showed that he had a full grasp of the question with which he had to deal. Whether or not there had been a Parliamentary bargain in 1900 did not seem to him to be very relevant, because toe result of the bargain, if there was one, was embodied in the Act of

  267
  Parliament of that year. The hon. Member for Rugby seemed to set aside that Act on the ground that some verbal or other arrangement had been come to, but he had always understood that they could not give any evidence of a verbal character to set aside an agreement embodied in writing, far less an Act of Parliament. If the Borough of Southwark thought that their rights were being trampled upon and the conditions imposed were being set aside by that Act, the proper course for them to have taken at the time would have been to have come to the House and declared that the clause did not embody the bargain which had been made. The proper body to interpret the Act now was the courts of law. To his mind it was clear that what Parliament intended to do was to tell the company that they might make the station, but that if they made it they would have to construct for the public benefit certain subways "in connection therewith." A great deal had been said about Parliamentary bargains, but surely Parliament as well as the company should carry out its part of the bargain. The company would really have grievous cause for complaint if a permissive form of words in the Act were to be construed as imposing an obligation. For these reasons he should support the action of the Committee. At the same time he was bound to say, as he said to the parties when they came to his room, that he thought it obviously desirable from the point of view of all parties that an arrangement should be made in the matter. There were certain expressions in the letter of Mr. Yerkes which led one to think that he was not fulfilling the whole of the conditions which his predecessors had entered into. He was certainly surprised to find those expressions in the letter of a gentleman so astute as Mr. Yerkes, and for that reason he suggested an arrangement to the parties—namely, that the borough and the railway company should share between them the expense of making these subways. That would be a very desirable settlement for the benefit of the company and the public also, and he had hoped that some such arrangement would have been arrived at. Possibly something of the sort might be done before the Bill went to another
  268
  place. On the strict legal interpretation of the documents, however, it seemed to him that the Committee was perfectly right in rejecting this clause. For that reason he should support the hon. Member for Gloucester.
  MR. BAMFORD SLACKsaid that apparently the hon. Member opposite was ignorant of the fact that this station was going to be constructed a few yards from the original site. He thought the House ought to take cognisance of the fact that the railway company was moving the site of their station in order to relieve themselves of the obligation they incurred when they made their previous bargain to construct these subways, and it was only when the now company came into existence that this bargain was departed from. The bargain as contained in Section 30 (17) of the Act of 1900 was as follows—
  "The company may construct an under ground station with all proper and convenient lifts shafts way chambers and offices under the roadways converging near the Elephant and Castle and in connection with shall in addition to the said works construct and maintain subways near subway No. 2 for the accommodation of pedestrian traffic and such subways and the entrances thereto shall be constructed at the same time as railway No 3 is constructed and shall be opened for public traffic. …at the same as railway No. 3 or any part there of is opened for public traffic and shall be made on the general lines shown in the plan signed in duplicate by William Robert Galbraith on behalf of the company and by Arthur Harrison on behalf of the vestry and at such levels as may be agreed between the company and the vestry."
  With reference to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southwark to the effect that the borough council had a remedy in damages in a Court of law, he did not see why they should be put to that expense. The ratepayers did not want damages, they wanted subways. They could not, by an action at law, obtain specific performance of their bargain against the company so as to compel them to make the subways. The only practicable remedy of the borough council was not to bring an action for damages but to ask the House to pass his hon. friend's Instruction so as to compel this company to fulfil the bargain which had been made by the original company.
  MR. BAILEYsaid that as a South London Member he felt very strongly upon this question. It appeared that the first company arranged certain matters to the satisfaction of the Southwark Borough Council, and then the project was sold to another company which refused to carry out what the former company had agreed to do. If the new company bought the undertaking they also bought the liabilities. He thought that, when a bargain of this sort
  was arrived at, the House ought to insist upon it being carried out to the letter. He thought the original arrangement made by the Committee should be carried out, and he should support that course because it was for the benefit of the district he represented.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 143. (Division List, No. 79.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N.E.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Malley, William

  Ainsworth, John (Stirling

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mara, James

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hammond, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Partington, Oswald

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Harwood, George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bell, Richard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Black, Alexander William

  Horner, Frederick William

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Boland, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brigg, John

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Hurt, Thomas

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Shackleton David James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kerr, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy, David

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, AlWred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Tillet, Louis John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tuff, Charles

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Field, William

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wylie, Alexander

  Foster, Sir Mich. (Lond. Univ.)

  Murphy, John

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Causton and Mr. James Bailey.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb, John

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

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

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Bigwood, James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Percy, Karl

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Perks, Robert William

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Randles, John S.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Reddy, M.

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Renwick, George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Karylebone, W.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Berkenhead)

  Spear, John Ward

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Elibank, Master of

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  M'Kean, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Malcolm, Ian

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Forster, Henry William

  Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, William

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Russell Rea and Mr. Nicholson.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Gretton, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Amendments made to the Bill.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [BY ORDER].
  As amended, considered.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he wished to draw the attention of the House to an attempt on the part of the company to deliberately annex by physical force certain lands near their railway at Holywell Station. The company employed a number of navvies to take and hold possession of the land which they claimed. The title to a portion of that land was the subject of litigation, but another portion without doubt or question belonged to Mr. John Philip Jones of Holywell, the title having
  272
  been admitted by the railway company. For several months up to June last men were stationed as sentries near the land day and night to watch Mr. Jones; when he appeared a whistle was blown and men, sometimes numbering 100 would muster to occupy the land and prevent Mr. Jones from committing any act of ownership on it. On 13th June, 1903, Mr. Jones removed a fence erected by the company and instructed two workmen to level the ground. Later in the day, having received a message, he returned with ten men. He found about eighty navvies who, acting on instructions, had forcibly prevented his men from doing their work. The navvies, all strangers to the locality, were in charge of a railway inspector, who, in turn, acted under telegraphic instructions from headquarters. Mr. Jones warned the men they were trespassers, told them

  273
  what he was going to do, and tried to make a gap in the fence. It had since been found, and the company had admitted' that he had a right to do this and that the company had no right to obstruct him. He was violently assaulted; the men whom he had taken with him were similarly treated. The company called this a technical assault. Unfortunately Mr. Jones and some of those with him bore the marks of this technical assault to this day. The wrongfulness of this action had been admitted in the most practical manner by the company, who had agreed to pay substantial damages for the assault. There was no question as to their having been entirely in the wrong. The blame did not rest with the navvies who only acted under orders. When they were appealed to some of them said, "We are paid for doing this, we would not do it of our own accord." He was sure they would not, because so far as his own experience had gone the employees of the company with whom the public came in contact in stations and on the railway treated the public with the greatest courtesy. The real responsibility rested with the people in high places who gave the instructions and who ought to have known better. Apart from the illegality of it, this was, to say the very least, a most undignified proceeding on the part of a powerful and wealthy corporation. Let the House just think of the procedure adopted-posting sentries to give warning of Mr. Jones's approach, manoeuvring a hundred navvies to prevent him from having access to what had been admitted to be his own property, culminating in a physical contest lasting several hours in which Mr. Jones and several men with him were severely injured. He was afraid that in matters of this kind it was the deliberate policy of the company to crush small people who stood in their way. In this particular instance they had come across a man who refused to be trampled on, and if anything of the kind was attempted again, he hoped that Parliament would take drastic action to prevent its recurrence. There were other questions under the Bill which were the subject of litigation, and upon them he made no comment. But be feared that the acquisition of some of the land in-
  274
  cluded in the Bill boded no good to the port of Greenfield. It had been the settled policy of the company to do all they could to block up the small ports on the Dee. From their own business standpoint it might be to the advantage of the company to abolish competition by water, but the public had a right to protest against it. He did not propose to divide the House against the Bill which contained some useful and necessary powers in regard to the company's undertakings in various parts of the county, but he thought that Parliament which had granted a valuable monopoly to the company should be made cognisant of proceedings of the kind which he had described.
  Bill to be read the third time.

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum. not exceeding £2,839,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERmoved to reduce Item G (Equipment Stores) by £100, in order to call attention to the accoutrements supplied to the Militia. He complained that the Militia were brought into ridicule by being compelled to wear accoutrements of different patterns. This was one of the great grievances of the Militia, and it had been going on for years. He hoped the War Office would attend to the matter and see that the Militia got proper treatment in respect of accoutrements.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item G (Equipment Stores) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  COLONEL WELBYsaid he was entirely on the side of the hon. Members who had spoken in favour of lessening the weight carried by the horses, but it was a far more difficult matter than they seemed to realise. His own experience was that year after year new saddles and new methods had been tried with the view of lessening the weight. Every kind of saddle and attachments had been tried, but the real difficulty had not been solved. The experience of cavalry officers was that a saddle which was too light had a tendency to cause sore backs. He believed an improved saddle was in process of being made. It would be satisfactory if some of them could see it and judge whether it was going to be the saddle of the future. The difficulty of getting a newer and lighter saddle had been, he believed, the necessity of disposing of the present stores. But it was well worth the consideration of the Secretary of State to see whether the existing saddles of the old-fashioned heavy pattern could not be altered to a newer and lighter pattern, and if that could not be done, whether it would not be for the benefit of the country that they should be sold, even at a considerable loss, and replaced by new saddles. He quite recognised that in connection with all changes which involved expenditure it was the duty of those who were responsible for the finances to act carefully, but if the authorities were satisfied that a permanent improvement could be made he was sure the House would never refuse to grant the money necessary for carrying it out. He had not to-day heard from the hon. Members who had spoken a single suggestion of practical value as to how their wish in this matter could be given effect to.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSasked the Secretary of State for War what answer he had to give in regard to ambulance waggons.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid they had a new ambulance waggon which they believed to be of a very improved
  character. With regard to the remarks of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton, he said he was not at all unacquainted with the importance of the question he had raised. There was a large stock of saddlery and harness which had proved a great obstacle, but he had made inquiries, and it was possible that they would be able to modify the difficulty. The real remedy, so far as he was able to understand the question, was not to be found entirely in the alteration of the cavalry saddlery, but in providing auxiliary transport which should carry some of the weight now carried by the horses. It was in that direction that their efforts were tending. The matter was not nearly so simple as some hon. Members seemed to think, and a great deal of expert knowledge was being applied to the question.
  MR. NANNETTIasked what arrangements were being made in regard to the supply of saddlery for the Army. He did not wish to depreciate the quality of the work done in this country, but he thought Irish tradesmen could produce saddles which were quite as satisfactory. They had in Ireland a saddlery workshop built at considerable expense, where formerly new saddles were made, but now it had been turned into a place merely for repairs. He wished to know why that change had been made. He objected to Ireland being made the dumping ground for work done in this country, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, when carrying out the scheme of reorganisation, would see that work for the Army would be done locally whenever that was practicable. He was constantly receiving letters from people in the places where the troops were stationed complaining of the present system of providing Army supplies, and if nothing was done to remedy the grievances he would be obliged to bring the question up again.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 163. (Division List No. 80.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, Charles P.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Boland, John

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Reddy, M.

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland;

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Tillet, Louis John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mooney, John J.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Field, William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Murphy, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hammond, John

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

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Harwood, George

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Courtenay Warner and Mr. Dalziel.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Mara, James

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, James (Stafford, N.W.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)

  Kerr, John

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N.R

  Bull, William James

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cavendish, V.C. W.(Derbyshire

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Chapman, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlets

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Coates, Edward Feetham

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Coghill, Douglas, Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gretton, John

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Groves, James Grimble

  Malcolm, Ian

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Massey-Mainwaing, Hn. W. F.

  Gust, Henry John C.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  278

  279

  Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tuff, Charles

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Randles, John S.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wlliam H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Renwick, George

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wylie, Alexander

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Percy, Earl

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Younger, William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Spear, John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that the cost of submarine services charged on this Vote amounted this year to £73,000, which shewed a reduction on last year of £37,700. He welcomed that reduction, if it were an indication of a change of policy with regard to submarine mines in the hands of soldiers. He felt very strongly on this question of submarine mines. The whole policy of submarine mines was to close ports. That might be a good policy for a weak nation, but not for a great sea Empire like ours, whose policy should be to keep our ports open. It had been plainly shown during peace operations that soldiers, knowing nothing of ships, were not the people to handle such weapons as submarine mines. He remembered a story told by Lord Charles Beresford that he once got a message from a military officer saying, "For God's sake take your ship out of that position, because it is on the top of one of my submarine mines." In this connection he could not help referring to events passing in the Far East, and expressing the sympathy they all felt for the gallant men who had suffered a great disaster, and
  280
  the gallant Admiral who had fallen. Though they did not yet know all the facts, they did know that one of the Russian ships was sunk by one of her own submarine mines. Surely, then, it was time for us to wake up to the importance of this question and the policy of submarine mines, first, as regards its applicability on an extensive scale to British ports; and second, of the necessity of having them in the hands, not of soldiers, but of men who had received a naval training.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that his right hon. and gallant friend seemed to think that they might be faced with the fact that in the event of war the British Army would be the gravest enemy of the British Navy. The difficulty of soldiers recognising their own ships was known to all sailors. It was almost impossible to teach the soldiers not only in this country, but in other countries, to distinguish the ships of their own fleet from foreign ships. The question, however, was one obviously of the greatest difficulty. There was a tendency at the present time to rely on mining for the defence of ports, but he agreed that the duties which had to be carried out

  281
  on water would probably be better conducted by men trained to the sea than by the Royal Engineers, and he was sure that the Secretary for War, who had been connected with both services, would give the question his earnest attention.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would answer the question at once. This was one of the most important questions touched upon that evening. The reduction of the Vote was the result of the suspension of the policy hitherto prevailing, and was in consequence of the decision arrived at that the matter should be investigated before the system was indefinitely prolonged. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying that in the event of war the British Army might prove the greatest enemy of the British Navy. If there was a danger, he thought that it was more likely to be created by the Navy than by the Army. On behalf of the Department he could say that nothing would be more congenial to the views of the War Office than that it should be divested of the duty of controlling the naval defence of strictly naval ports. The subject was one of great difficulty, and it could only be satisfactorily solved by an agreement between the two services, which was likely to be effected through the Committee of Defence. As to the mixed defence of a maritime port, he had in his mind many specific instances of ports which in war must be used principally by the Navy, and he drew a distinction between these ports and other commercial ports occasionally used by the ships of the Navy. He believed that the chances of confusion were very great in ports where the shore defences and the maritime submarine
  282
  defences were controlled by the Army, and to which access was imperatively demanded at any hour of the night or day by the ships of the Navy. His view was that a solution would ultimately be found by an arrangement in the direction he had indicated, that the defence of maritime ports would be in the hands of the maritime authority, who alone could work in full sympathy with naval commanders and be acquainted with tides and other matters in relation to seaman ship and naval requirements, while the defence of fortresses qua fortresses would be left in the hands of the Army. If he had been betrayed into speaking his mind openly on this question, he hoped his words would not be interpreted into a statement that the question was in a state when such an arrangement could be adopted; but he hoped consideration might result in an arrangement more satisfactory to his hon. and gallant friend than the one which was so distasteful to him and which was so little based on the true theory and practice of war.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked if it was intended to ask for any more money for the Somaliland expedition?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid none was asked for in this Vote.
  Question put and agreed too.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,918,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Staff for Engineer Services and Expenditure for Royal

  283
  Engineer Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at home and abroad (including Purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he noticed that expenditure under the Vote was classed in divisions corresponding to the Army Corps system. Was it possible yet to say under what arrangement the Votes would be provided in future?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was not proposed to continue the classification. In future the Estimates would be prepared in reference to districts, which in general outline would correspond with those in the Report of Lord Esher's Committee. The exact form was under consideration, the Army Corps organisation would not be continued, and there would be substituted for it another form of divisions not based on the Army Corps organisation.
  MR. PEELasked for information in reference to the construction of barracks at Tedworth on Salisbury Plain. He also asked whether the whole policy of keeping such a large force for exercise on Salisbury Plain was to be reconsidered. He explained that he spent five weeks there last year and had come to the conclusion that they could not possibly have a worse place in which to permanently station a large number of infantry. It was a most depressing and lonely place and would lead to a large number of desertions.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that in a single sentence the Secretary of
  284
  State had buried, or had pronounced a funeral oration over, six Army Corps. What an extraordinary contrast to the important debates which ushered them into existence! He questioned whether the subject would have been so treated had the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the late Secretary of State for War, been sitting in his usual place. The whole scheme was now dismissed in a contemptuous fashion. Its author had been contemptuously discarded for the present Secretary of State, and it only remained to be seen how long the new system would last. These eight divisions might be set aside the day after tomorrow, and they would have new Estimates in a new form, new works promoted on a new scale, and the country committed to more barracks as it was committed to the late scheme. He wished to call attention to the large item for the Engineer staff. So far as he understood, they were mainly Engineer officers in civil or quasi-civil employment whose services ought to be borne on the Votes for other departments.
  COLONEL WELBYcommented on the item for window blinds for officers' quarters. He said it was apparently an enormous sum, the expenditure of which was to be spread over four years, and he would like to know if officers themselves would have to provide renewals when the blinds were worn out. He pointed out that this item of £48,000 should show those who were in favour of providing officers with furniture, how great the cost to the country of that system was.
  MR. LAMBERTasked whether the Secretary for

  285
  War could state that all expenditure for construction under the Army Corps system had been stopped and whether any other expenditure would be incurred in putting the new scheme in force.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he entirely declined to accept the description given by the hon. Member for East Bristol of what he had just said. He was guilty of no discourtesy. He was asked a plain and simple Question and he had given a plain and simple answer, and he thought the hon. Member might have spared him such a reflection. With regard to the barracks on Salisbury Plain, he had stopped the construction of any further infantry barracks there, and also at Stobs in Scotland. He thought it was undesirable, except on grounds of the strictest military necessity, to quarter troops in these un-attractive localities. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for South Molton, he thought there had been no cost incurred in connection with the Army Corps scheme which would become a bad debt; that was to say, no cost had been incurred which would not be usefully employed under any system which might be decided on. He could assure the hon. Member that his alarm, lest the adoption of a new system should create a new cost which would outweigh the economy likely to be effected, was unfounded. Unless all his calculations were mistaken the result of the economy would be substantial. He would take into consideration the remarks of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton, and if his hon. and gallant friend would put down a Question he would have
  286
  careful inquiry made into the matters he mentioned.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if any contracts had been entered into in connection with the Army Corps scheme which had been so suddenly stopped.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. Member might understand that.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he thought it was rather curious that the sudden stopping of the Army Corps scheme should have been announced to the House in such an informal manner. There was on the Table of the House a Resolution affirming in the most solemn manner that it was desirable to have the Army Corps system. He would, therefore, suggest that the Government should take formal action to rescind that Resolution. He desired to direct attention to the increase in Item A. for Engineers in North China. Did it indicate that a new development of policy in that country was being adopted? If so, some information should be given to the House on the subject. He would move a reduction of the item by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, etc., of the Staff for Engineer Services) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that Great Britain, like other Powers, was retaining a certain number of troops in China, and associated with them were some Engineer officers, who naturally came under this Vote.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 144. (Division List No. 81)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Mara, James

  Allen, Charles P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shee, James John

  Atherley-Jones. L.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Partington, Oswald

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Delany, William

  M'Kean, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders f'd

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whitley and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hermon-Hodge., Sir Robert T.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Doughty, George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas Rt. Hon. A, Akers-

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Kerr, John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Keswick, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Knowles, Sir Lees

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Fitzroy, Hon, Edward Algernon

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N.R

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Hcneage

  Bond, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Chapman, Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gretton, John

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Groves, James Grimble

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Malcolm, Ian

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  288

  289

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Renwick, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wilson. A. Stanley (York, E.R)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Percy, Earl

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Younger, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Spear, John Ward

  Prety man, Ernest George

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs,)

  TELERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Randles, John S.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Tuff, Charles

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he did not quite understand the reply of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to Item C.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. DALZIELsaid that the Bill was mainly legislation by reference, against which it was the duty of every independent Member to protest on every available occasion. As it stood, it was absolutely impossible for any hon. Member to understand precisely what the Bill meant. He
  290
  understood that some Memorandum had been issued, and an attempt had been made to explain what the Amendments were; but that was not, in his opinion, sufficient. He hoped that next year all the Amendments would be embodied in the Bill. With reference to Courts of inquiry conducted by Volunteer officers, he thought there was confusion as to the form in which such inquiries should carried on. The main point was whether officers conducting such inquiries could compel witnesses to take an oath. It was obviously improper that Volunteer officers should compel witnesses to be sworn when they had no power. He hoped some guidance would be given by the Attorney-General in the matter. Only last year the Financial Secretary to the War Office voted against the Bill, and made a most impassioned appeal against it. He himself wished to protest against the Bill being taken at such an hour.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said he would point out that this was not a case of legislation by reference, but of amending a statute which already existed. A series of Amendments was proposed, and the effect and object of the Amendments was

  291
  explained in the Memorandum. He agreed that the Army Act should be reprinted, because in its present form it was not easily intelligible. With regard to the other point raised, it was true to say that statutory authority was wanted for the administration of an oath. Administration of the oath had only taken place in the case of Volunteers in two cases at the outside, and where it had taken place it had been through inadvertence. It was, however, in the interests of the Volunteers generally, and more particularly of the accused, that the evidence should be on oath, but it might be a question whether the Volunteer Acts should not be altered so as to confer the power of administering an oath. He was authorised to say that care should be taken in the future that nothing not strictly legal within the powers conferred on the authorities in Courts of inquiry should be done.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid be wished to congratulate the War Office on the improvements in procedure which had been announced. They would remove many of the difficulties connected with legislation by reference. He quite recognised that the Secretary of State for War was doing all he could to alter the existing system in that respect.
  MR. WEIRsaid with reference to the schedules containing the prices to be paid to licensed victuallers for soldiers' rations, the, Secretary of State had made a promise which he hoped would be carried out. Only l½d. was, however, allowed for a soldier's breakfast, and the Committee were entitled to know what was provided for it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,)said that all the information was contained in the schedule. The soldier's breakfast consisted of half a pound of bread and a cup of tea.

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working and administration of The Cheap Trains Act, 1883, and to report whether any, and, if so, what, Amendments are reasonable and necessary to improve the service of Workmen's Trains in the Metropolis and elsewhere, and to secure the provision of the accommodation required by workmen by all Railway Companies.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Bowles, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Leverton Harris, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Levy, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Lough, Mr. Nannetti, Captain Norton, Mr. Peel, Mr. Matthew Ridley, Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Ure, and Sir Thomas Wrightson were accordingly nominated members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.— (Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes after Twelve o'clock.