Commons Sitting of 6 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords]. A Verbal Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) Bill. As amended, considered To be read the third time to-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
Sir ALEXANDER BROWNreported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of James Lyon Whittle, Town Clerk of Warrington, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the
1304
intervention of the House, he had been instructed to more that the said James Lyon Whittle do attend the said Committee on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That James Lyon Whittle do attend the Committee on Group L of Private Bills on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
Sir ALEXANDER BROWNreported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Colonel WELBYreported from the Committee on Group of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) (Essex and Hertford Order) Bill had stated that the evidence of George Rust, Little Hallingbury; Robert Mallam, The School, Farnham; and William Joshua Thomas Welch. Cambridge Road, Stansted, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said George Rust, Robert Mallam, and William Joshua Thomas Welch do attend the said Committee on Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That George Rust, Robert Mallam, and William Joshua Thomas Welch do attend the Committee on Group of Private Bills on Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Hitchin and District Gas Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Judicature (Ireland) Acts, 1877 to 1897, and Section 6 of The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the Law relating to Bankrupts, and to the constitution of certain Election Courts in Ireland." [Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising local authorities to make by-laws respecting the exhibition of Advertisements." [Advertisements Regulation Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Company, for the construction of a Tramroad; and for other purposes." [Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [Lords.]
Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Evidence taken before the Select Committee of this House on the Warrington Corporation Bill, 1899, be referred to the Committee on the Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords].—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Inverness Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Port Glasgow Improvement Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amend-
1306
ment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Liverpool, etc.) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed] Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed] Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed] Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [Lords]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas Bill [Lords]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
  Petition from South Shields, for legislation to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE AGREEMENT).
  Petition from Nottingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL.
  Petition from Beading, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of General Report and Statistics for the year 1903, Part IV., Colonial and Foreign Statistics; Statistics relating to Persons employed, Output, and Accidents at Mines and Quarries in the British Colonies and in Foreign Countries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT) (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Inspector for Scotland, under the Inebriates Acts, for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3428,3429,3431, and 3432 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy. Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 30th June, 1905 [by Act].

  PASSENGERS TO PLACES OUT OF EUROPE.
  Return ordered, "of the Numbers and Nationalities of the Passengers that left the United Kingdom for Places out of Europe in each month from June to December, 1905, distinguishing the principal Countries in which the Passengers contracted to land"—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 229.]

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which, and the manner in which, local authorities in Scotland have allocated and applied funds to the purposes of Technical Education during the year ending the 15th day of May, 1905, under the following Acts: The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892; The Technical. Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887; The Technical Instruction Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1892; and Public Libraries; Acts"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

  STANDING COMMITTEES (TITLES OF BILLS).
  Return ordered, "showing the Titles of those Bills which have been committed to the Standing Committees for Law and. Trade respectively, in each year since 1901, the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee and the further stages through which they passed after Committee (in the same form as and in continuation of Return No. 92, of Session 1902):—

  Law.

  Title of Bill.

  Days in Committee.

  Report.

  Considered or amended.

  Third Reading.

  Royal Assent.

  Remarks.

  Trade.

  Title of Bill.

  Days in Committee.

  Report.

  Considered or amended.

  Third Reading.

  Royal Assent.

  Remarks.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Humble Estate, County Waterford.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether originating applications have yet been lodged with the Estates Commissioners for the sale by Sir John Nugent Humble and Charles Nugent Humble of their lands in county Waterford, and, if so, when; whether the Estates Commissioners received in April last a joint application from three former tenants, Mrs. Margaret Morrissey, Miss Mary Kiely, and Mrs. Johanna Coleman in reference to these lands; what steps, if any, have been taken with regard to the representations made by these evicted tenants; and whether the matter will receive the immediate attention of the Estates Commissioners, having regard to the nature of the representations made and to the desirability of restoring these tenants to their holdings or other similar holdings on these lands.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. Applications for reinstatement have been received from the former tenants named, and these will be considered when the estate comes before the Commissioners.

  Cork Junction Railways Bill—Treasury Grant.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any promise or undertaking has been given to the promoters of the Cork Junction Railways Bill or to anyone on their behalf by any member of His Majesty's Government as to the whole or any part of the sum of £93,000 which the Treasury in 1898 gave authority to the Hybrid Committee on the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill to allocate for some project beneficial to the South of Ireland, and which was allocated for the purpose of having the proposed Cork and Fermoy Direct Railway constructed subject to certain conditions which have not been fulfilled; whether he is aware that the only alternative proposal before the Hybrid Com-
  1310
  mittee for the allocation of the £93,000 was that made by the letter of 25th April, 1898, from the chairman of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, by which the company offered to wipe out the total guarantee of £14,000 annually payable by the ratepayers of the county and city of Waterford if the Treasury would forego the £93,000; and whether he will recommend the Treasury to make no allocation of this amount without due consideration for this alternative.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I must refer to my reply to the Question put to me on Tuesday last† by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. The matter has now assumed a new phase by reason of the action of the Committee in rejecting the Bill, and will have to be considered afresh.

  Brandfort National Congress—Reply of Home Government.
  MR. MARKS (Kent,: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any answer has been given to the resolutions passed by the National Congress held at Brandfort on December 12th, 1904, and handed to the Lieutenant-Governor for transmission to His Majesty the King.
  (Answered by Secretary Lyttelton.) A formal answer will be given very shortly. Many of the points raised have been the subject of discussion at the Inter-Colonial Council.

  Increase of Vivisection Experiments.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home-Department whether, in view of the fact that the total number of vivisection experiments in 1905 exceeded those of 1904 by 13,478 experiments, he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter with a view to the abolition of vivisection.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I must point out to the hon. Member that this increase is almost entirely accounted for by the additional inoculations, hypodermic injections, and
  † See page 992.

  1311
  feeding experiments that have taken place. The total increase in all other kinds of experiments was only forty-five. These inoculations, which numbered 30,346 out of the total of 32,562 experiments performed in the year, in no case involved a serious operation; and a very large proportion of them were performed on behalf of public or local authorities. Constant attention is given to the matter, but I am not prepared to take action in the direction suggested.

  Markyate Motor-Car Fatality.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of a motor-car driver convicted at the Hertford Assizes of manslaughter, the car bore a number plate in conformity with the rules of the Local Government Board; whether any judicial investigation has taken place, or will take place, as to the circumstances under which such non-compliance, if any, arose and the responsibility therefor; and whether the police are or will be instructed to enforce strict observance everywhere of rules intended to secure, if possible, the identification of motor vehicles, and take proceedings for any breaches of the law known to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) On inquiry of the chief constable of Herefordshire I learn that the number plates of the car in question were of a gray colour, calculated to make them difficult to read, instead of being back as required by the regulations. These plates were, I understand, produced in Court, and are now in the hands of the police. The Act makes the driver the person responsible for the use of such plates and the only reason why it was considered inadvisable to take proceedings against the driver for this breach o the regulations was because of the more serious charge of manslaughter, of which he has now been convicted. I have no reason to doubt that the police are using every effort to secure compliance with the regulations, and I do not think it is necessary for me to issue, or to recommend the issue of, any fresh instructions on the subject.

  Civil Servants Attending Volunteer Camps
  MR. BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the Treasury Minute which grants part payment to Civil servants for leave taken for the purpose of attending certain Volunteer camps when held for the extended period of a fortnight, he will give a like privilege to those Civil servants who attend camps of one week's duration; and, further, whether he will so arrange that leave taken for the purpose of attending such camps shall not be included in the fortnight's leave now allowed.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am unable to recommend any extension of the privileges already enjoyed by Civil servants attending Volunteer camps.

  Appointment of Irish Resident Magistrates
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Government will consider the advisability of not appointing English naval and military officers without knowledge of the law to be resident magistrates in Ireland, but appoint duly qualified Irish lawyers in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Government are not prepared to exclude officers of the Navy or Army from these appointments. Experience has shown the previous training of these gentlemen, including the hearing of and determining upon evidence at Courts-martial, to be a qualification for the position of resident magistrate, and some of the most efficient magistrates have been selected from those services.

  Pollution of Dartford Water Supply.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the medical officer of health has reported to the Dartford Rural District Council that the pumping station at Darenth, Kent, sucks the adjacent surface springs to such an extent that they ebb and flow according to the pumping; that this water must be liable to pollution, but that the water company deny

  1313
  this; and when the inquiry into the liability of this source of supply to pollution, asked for by twenty resident householders on the 22nd March, 1904, will take place.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I understand that the medical officer of health has made a report to the effect referred to. When the undertaking of the water company passed to the Metropolian Water Board the Local Government Board called the attention of the Water Board to this matter. The Water Board has made a series of tests, which have just been concluded, and I am now awaiting a report as to the result.

  Established and Assistant Postmen.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General if it is necesssary that a certain number of established postmen must be employed at an office before the auxiliary or assistant postmen employed thereat, and doing duties of less than seven hours daily, are eligible to claim a certificate of qualification from the Civil Service Commissioners.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There is no fixed proportion between the number of established postmen at an office and the number of assistant postmen or auxiliaries. In arranging the establishment of an office, however, an effort is made to secure that the numbers shall be such as to admit of the appointment of the assistant postmen to the establishment within a reasonable time. Civil Service certificates are obtained for assistant postmen but not for auxiliaries.

  Workmen's Trains.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been directed to applications under the Cheap Trains Act, made by the London County Council to the Board on the 15th August, 1903, and the 28th January, 1904, with regard to the service of workmen's trains on the Whitechapel and Bow, and the London, Tilbury, and
  1314
  Southend Railways, and to the fact that an inquiry on these applications was held on the 5th and 21st November, 1904; whether the Board have yet received the report of their inspector who held the inquiry; when the Board's decision on the applications is likely to be made known; and whether, considering that the overcrowding complained of on the workmen's trains on these railways is undisputed, he will undertake that the Board's decision on the applications is not further delayed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The report of the officer by whom this inquiry was held has been received, and the Board have been in communication with the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company thereon. Some improvement in the workmen's train service has already been effected, and the Board of Trade hope to be in a position to give their final decision in the matter very shortly.

  Subway at Trafalgar Square
  SIR WALTER PLUMMER: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the Bill now before Parliament for constructing, among other things, a subway commencing on the south side of Charing Cross and terminating near the south-east corner of the base of the Nelson Monument; and whether His Majesty's Office of Works can do anything to prevent this further encroachment upon Trafalgar Square, which has already been disfigured by the subway which has for so long been in course of construction, and is at last approaching completion.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The plans and drawings have all been seen and approved by the First Commissioner, who is satisfied that no disfigurement will be caused; and the encroachment referred to is small in comparison with the advantage to the public of the subway.

  Revenue derived from Taxation of Food and Drink.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total amount of revenue derived in the United Kingdom from the taxation, both Excise and Customs duties, on all kinds of food and drink,

  Year ended 31st March.

  Population of the United Kingdom.

  Revenue derived from Duties on Articles of Food and Drink, excluding Corn.

  Revenue per head of Population.

  Customs

  Excise.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  s

  d.

  1886

  36,015,601

  10,377,736

  21,546,813

  31,924,549

  17

  8·7

  1887

  36,313,582

  10,719,044

  21,350,482

  32,069,526

  17

  7·9

  1888

  36,599,143

  10,803,885

  21,741,481

  32,545,366

  17

  9·4

  1889

  36,881,271

  11,055,818

  21,650,495

  32,706,313

  17

  8·8

  1890

  37,178,929

  11,332,454

  23,271,937

  34,604,391

  18

  7·6

  1891

  37,484,764

  10,089,382

  25,257,271

  35,346,653

  18

  10·3

  1892

  37,802,381

  10,043,036

  26,333,651

  36,376,687

  19

  2·9

  1893

  38,133,817

  9,637,841

  25,891,394

  35,529,235

  18

  7·6

  1894

  38,489,806

  9,723,499

  25,885,792

  35,609,291

  18

  6·0

  1895

  38,858,306

  9,863,306

  26,497,551

  36,360,857

  18

  5·0

  1896

  39,220,114

  10,164,579

  27,511,639

  37,676,218

  19

  5·0

  1897

  39,597,843

  10,405,292

  28,138,344

  38,543,636

  19

  5·6

  1898

  39,985,831

  10,512,901

  29,046,401

  39,559,302

  19

  9·4

  1899

  40,379,095

  10,713,951

  30,054,391

  40,768,342

  1

  0

  2·3

  1900

  40,772,365

  12,332,737

  32,649,430

  44,982,167

  1

  2

  0·7

  1901

  41,152,471

  13,585,715

  34,065,606

  47,651,321

  1

  3

  1·8

  1902

  41,550,773

  19,307,391

  32,274,890

  51,582,281

  1

  4

  9·9

  1903

  41,961,199

  17,799,800

  32,829,002

  50,628,802

  1

  4

  1·5

  1904

  42,371,216

  19,274,905

  32,213,736

  51,488,641

  1

  4

  3·6

  1905

  42,789,552

  20,500,097

  31,336,080

  51,836,177

  1

  4

  2·7

  The Customs figures represent the duties on foreign beer, chicory and coffee, cocoa and chocolate, dried fruits, foreign spirits (except perfumed and methylated), tea, and wine; also sugar molasses, glucose, and articles containing sugar or other sweetening matter (dutiable since 1901). The Excise figures represent the duties on beer, spirits, glucose, saccharin, and chicory of British manufacture.

  The late Dewan of Dhar's Estate.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that Bapu Raghunath, who at the time of his death
  excluding the corn tax, during the last twenty years; and also to state-what this amount would represent per head of the population.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)—
  in 1837 was Dewan of Dhar, and in recognition of his services to the British Government was in the enjoyment of a grant of property in the State of Dhar in perpetuity to himself and descendants, will he ascertain from the Dhar State under what circumstances the forfeiture of the property belonging to Ramchandra Rao, one of Bapu's six sons, for alleged complicity in the Mutiny, has been held to include the property belonging to Bapu's other sons; and will he bring; under the notice of the Dhar State the claims made to this property by their descendants,—viz., Krishna Rao Raghunath and Shanka Rao Bhagwant.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I must again refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my predecessor in office to his Question on the 12th May, 1902,† when he was informed that the Government of India agreed that it was impossible to restore the confiscated estates to the family. I see no reason, AS I informed the hon. Member on the 9th June, 1904,‡ to interfere with the discretion of the Native State in the matter.

  Representative Assembly for State of Travancore.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the rules for the formation of a Representative Assembly for the State of Travancore, under which ninety of the 100 members will be elected by the people and whether he will recommend to the Government of India a similar measure or the administration of British districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have seen in a newspaper a report of the proceedings at the inaugural meeting of the Travancore Representative Assembly in October last; but I have no official information on the subject, and I do not know the facts as to its numbers or composition. I am not prepared to recommend the creation of representative assemblies for the administration of districts in British India.

  Appointments Reserved for Europeans and Eurasians in Office of the Board of Revenue, India
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a recent notification in the Bengal Government Gazette, stating that 30 per cent. of the appointments on pay of Rs. 40 per month and upwards, in the Office of the Board of Revenue, will be reserved for Europeans and Eurasians; whether he
  † See (4) Debates, cvii., 1342.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1211.
  1318
  will disallow this notification in view of the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1833 and the Queen's Proclamation of 1858; whether the services of qualified Europeans can be obtained in Bengal for Rs. 40 per month; and whether similar rules in favour of Europeans exist as regards the establishments of other departments in the Government service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have seen the notification referred to in the Question; it applies to the Office of the Board of Revenue a principle which, in September last, was publicly announced as applicable to several other offices. I do not consider that it conflicts with the provisions of the Act and Proclamation mentioned in the Question. The Europeans and Eurasians contemplated in the rule are presumably themselves natives of India, and for certain duties possess qualifications which are valuable to Government. The limit of pay necessary to secure the assistance of persons of this class is a matter for the consideration of the Government in India.

  Belfast Maternity Hospital and the Central Midwives Board.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Central Midwives Board of England have refused to place upon the roll of certified midwives nurses trained at the Belfast Maternity Hospital Previous to March 31st, 1905, while; hey have placed on this roll nurses; rained under similar conditions and to the same date at the Dublin Maternity Hospitals, at the Cork Maternity Hospital, and at the maternity hospital at Limerick; if he can say what are the grounds for the action of the Central Midwives Board in the matter; and if he will take steps to have; he nurses in question placed in the same position as other nurses of similar training.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Central Midwives Board is constituted

  1319
  under the Midwives Act, 1902, and the rules of the Board are subject to the approval of the Privy Council for England. The Irish Government have no functions in this matter, but I have been furnished by the Lord President of the Council with a statement on the question which has been prepared by the Central Midwives Board. I gather from this statement that the purpose for which certain hospitals in Ireland were recognised, and the Belfast Maternity Hospital was not so recognised owing to its failure to apply in time, ceased to exist on the 1st April last, when the temporary provision (Section 2) of the Act, relating to existing mid-wives, expired.

  Advances under the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can state the amount of the advances applied for under the Land Act of 1903 up to 30th June; (2) the amount actually paid to vendors of land up to the same date; (3) the amount paid to the Bank of Ireland to the credit of estates in which the sale has not been completed; (4) the working capital at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners; (5) and if he proposes any plan by which the block can be relieved and the Act be allowed to work.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) (1) The amount of advances applied for to the Estates Commissioners is estimated at £26,896,103, and, in addition, pending applications to the Land Commission, including sales originating in the Land Judge's Court, represent about £300,000, the total amount, therefore, being approximately £27,200,000. (2) The amount of purchase money distributed in cases in which the Estates Commissioners have made advances is £4,953,468. In other cases, including money paid to the Land Judge for distribution, £553,786 has been advanced, most of which has been distributed. (3) The total amount advanced
  1320
  under the Act of 1903, and paid into the Bank of Ireland by the Land Commission, including the Estates Commissioners r for all sales is £7,233,527. In practically all such cases the land or holdings sold have been vested subject to the purchase annuities. The amount of purchase money which has been advanced in all cases and has not yet been distributed is in round numbers, £1,700,000, but this is being dealt with day by day on the allocation of funds. (4) If by working capital at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners the reserve land under Section 43 of the Act of 1903 is referred to, it is understood that that fund amounts to £250,000 or thereabouts, of which £8,026 has been drawn for improvement of estates up to the present. (5) This question is receiving careful consideration.

  Cancer Operations in Irish Workhouses
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many operations for cancer have taken place in workhouses in Ireland; and how many of them have terminated in death during the eight years ending 31st March, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The records of the Local Government Board do not afford information on this subject.

  Beresford Estate, County Carlow
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether provision is being made, pending the completion of purchase, for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants of the Beresford Estate, Carlow county; and if the former tenants of the Kilcloney Farm, Borris, will be restored to their holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The applications of certain evicted tenants on this estate have been inquired into and reported on, but the Commissioners

  1321
  have not yet come to a decision in the matter.

  Land Purchase in County Cork
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Congested Districts Board will send the clerk of the works to the Bird, Beamish, O'Donovan, and Bandon Estates, situate in the Durrus and Kilcrohane districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Lonq.) These estates are in charge of one of the Board's inspectors, who was recently transferred to Tralee. Clerks of works will be appointed when the estates have been legally vested in the Board.

  Cape Colony and Colonial Industries
  MR. BENN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Select Committee of the Cape Colony on Colonial Industries (May, 1905), which recommends a general increase of tariffs, including the raising of the duty on imported English furniture from seven and a-half per cent, to twenty five per cent.; and whether he will take any steps to direct the attention of that Colonial Legislature to the damage to an English industry if these proposals are carried.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have seen the Report referred to. I do not propose to take the action suggested. The proposals could not be carried out except with the concurrence of the other parties to the South Africa Customs Convention.

  Soldiers in Hospital.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary of State for: War what percentage of total strength of such of the battalions serving at home
  1322
  of the following regiments were in hospital during the year 1904: Royal Scots, Royal Highlanders, Manchester Regiment, Devonshire Regiment, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Royal Irish Rifles. Royal Munster Fusiliers, and of the List Grenadier Guards, 1st Scots Guards, 1st Coldstream Guards, and Irish Guards.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The required information is follows:—

  Regiment.

  Percentage of constantly sick.

  1st Battalion Grenadier Guards

  9·12

  1st Battalion Coldstream Guards

  3·96

  1st Battalion Scots Guards

  4·02

  Irish Guards

  5·09

  1st Battalion Royal Scots

  4·09

  2nd Battalion Devonshire Regiment

  2·62

  1st Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  1·98

  1st Battalion Royal High landers

  2·96

  2nd Battalion Manchester Regiment

  1·94

  4th Battalion Manchester Regiment

  3·06

  2nd Battalion Royal Irish Rifles

  4·21

  2nd Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers

  †1.41

  Army Marksmen.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the relative percentages of marksmen, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class shots, among the trained soldiers of the following regiments, home battalions only, for the year 1904: Royal Scots, Royal Highlanders, Manchester Regiment, Devonshire Regiment, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Royal Irish Rifles, Royal Munster Fusiliers, and of the 1st Grenadier Guards, 1st Scots Guards, 1st Coldstream Guards, and Irish Guards.
  For the period January to April, 1904, after which the battalion proceeded on foreign service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The required information is as follows:—

  Trained Men.

  Percentage of Marksmen, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class shots.

  M

  1.

  2.

  3.

  1st Battalion Grenadier Guards

  12·5

  29·8

  43·2

  14·3

  1st Battalion Coldstream Guards

  12·3

  30·7

  42·6

  14·2

  1st Battalion Scots Guards

  9·6

  28·6

  40·3

  21·3

  1st Battalion Irish Guards

  2·0

  12·0

  42·6

  43·3

  1st Battalion Royal Scots

  9·0

  25·8

  40·3

  24·7

  2nd Battalion Devonshire Regiment

  10·4

  38·1

  38·5

  12·8

  1st Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  4·2

  21·9

  46·9

  26·7

  1st Battalion Royal Highlanders

  13·6

  38·1

  36·5

  11·6

  2nd Battalion Manchester Regiment

  8·9

  25·9

  45·7

  19·4

  4th Battalion Manchester Regiment

  9·0

  24·1

  44·1

  22·6

  2nd Battalion Royal Irish Rifles

  3·0

  16·1

  42·2

  38·5

  Royal Munster Fusiliers

  Both Regular Battalions of this Regiment were stationed without the United Kingdom in 1904.

  Proposed Naval Reserve in the Islands of Skye and Barra.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Admiralty have yet come to a decision in regard to the organisation of the Naval Reserve; and if there is any prospect of the. proposed batteries in the Islands of Skye and Barra being proceeded with at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) It is not possible at the present moment to furnish any information beyond that contained in the Answer given to a similar Question which the hon. Member asked on the 28th February† last.
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 1468.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    War Stores Inquiry—Repatriation Department Accounts.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay the detailed accounts of the Repatriation Department as a Parliamentary Paper; whether he can say if any contractor or contractors who purchased stores from the South African Military Sales Department resold the material purchased to the Repatriation Department; and whether he can give the name or names of such contractors, if any, with particulars of the transactions involved.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,: I have not received these detailed accounts, and do not propose to lay them before Parliament. I would point out that these accounts have undergone local inspection on the part of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with the free grant of £3,000,000 to the burghers from the Imperial Parliament in addition to the local colonial audit. The Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report presented to Parliament on February 17th of this year contains the following sentence at page 480:—"The local inspection of the accounts proved that all expenditure had been duly authorised, and further that the colonial auditors had exercised a complete and satisfactory check over the records showing the receipts and payments of the Repatriation Departments. "I have now learned by telegraph, in reply to an inquiry, that in one case the Repatriation Department purchased hay from Wilson and Worthington which that firm had previously bought from the Army. The hay was bought at Maitland, Cape Town, and sold to the Repatriation Department, delivered at Pretoria West Station. These are all the particulars I have received.
    DR. MACNAMARA;Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the prices were?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have given the hon. Member all the particulars I have.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the expenditure of these £3,000,000 is not to come before Parliament in any way whatever?
    MR. LYTTELTON: If it is desired to raise the subject on the Colonial Vote I am sure it would be quite germane.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Is the Colonial Secretary not prepared to lay before Parliament any statement giving a detailed account of the expenditure of this money.
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir, it is not usual to do so. The accounts have been thoroughly audited out in South Africa.
    SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman says that these accounts have been audited in South Africa. But it is something more than a mere question of audit. It is a question of informing the House of Commons how the money has been expended.
    MR LYTTELTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject.
    MR. LOUGH: Is the House of Commons, which has voted these £3,000,000, not to receive some information as to how it has been expended?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will not the audit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers really explain the expenditure of the money?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I think so.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make an inquiry from Lord Milner with reference to this contract—if he knew where Lord Milner was?
    MR. LYTTELTONreplied that he had no desire, and no intention himself, to refer any point to Lord Milner, but if the hon. Member wished some definite matter referred to Lord Milner he would consider it.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how a Member of this House may ascertain how this money, voted by the Imperial Parliament, has been expended?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I believe, in fact I have no doubt, that the accounts have been fully delivered in South Africa, and I imagine that, without making them a Parliamentary Paper, they are accessible.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that I am to go to South Africa to see them?
    SIR A. HAYTERwas understood to say that the whole of the

    1327
    accounts had been audited by the local auditors and by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who had given a Report to the Public Accounts Committee. That Report would be laid before the House.

    Danish Agriculture.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Report of the Scottish Agricultural Commission upon farming and land settlement in Denmark has been brought to his notice; and if, in view of the importance of land and labour settlement in this country, he will include inquiry into the said Report in the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee which is to be set up to consider Mr. Rider Haggard's Report.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The terms of reference to the Departmental Committee will be as follows:—"To consider the suggestions made in Mr. Rider Haggard's Report on the Salvation Army Colonies in the United States and at Hadleigh, and to advise the Government whether any steps can usefully be taken for promoting agricultural settlements of persons taken from the cities of this country either in the British Colonies or in the United Kingdom." The attention of the Committee will be called to the Report which the hon. Member has been good enough to send to me, with any other Reports germane to the subject.

    South African War—Treatment of the Sick and Wounded
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will have prepared and will lay a Memorandum showing how far the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1900 on the care and treatment of the sick and wounded during the South African campaign have been or will be carried out.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,: I shall be happy to furnish the Memorandum asked for by the hon. Member.

    War Supplies and Customs Duties.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONI beg to ask the Secretary of State
    1328
    for War whether supplies sent to South Africa for the purposes of the war paid Customs duties; and, if so, to what amount.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Supplies sent to South Africa and consumed by the Army did not pay Customs duty. It is not possible to state the amount so paid at the present time. On certain surplus supplies sold to merchants, etc., in South Africa after the war Customs duties have been paid.

    Military Bands at Religious Ceremonials.
    MR. SLOAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Down, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Roman Catholic authorities responsible for the celebration of the festival of Corpus Christi in Arundel have arranged for the bands of two of His Majesty's regiments to take part in the procession along the public highway; and, if so, whether sanction will be given to this arrangement.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The matter is one which was dealt with by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command, without reference to the War Office, but I understand that permission was given to the band of the Queen's Regiment to take part in the procession referred to, which took place in June in Arundel Park. There is nothing in the Regulations which would prohibit this. I do not, however, consider that the practice is a desirable one, and the Army Council has expressed its opinion that it should not be repeated. The General Officer Commanding has been so informed.
    MR. SLOAN: Do I understand it, will not be repeated?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot make any more definite statement than is contained in the Answer I have just given to the hon. Member. My words were that the practice would not be repeated.

    Wrexham Barracks.
    MR. GEORGE KENYON: I beg to ask the Secretary

    1329
    of State for War whether it is in contemplation to remove the officers of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers and other regiments from the military centre at Wrexham to Shrewsbury: whether this is to be followed by the abolition of Wrexham as a military centre; whether he is aware that the barracks at Wrexham have only been erected a few years, at a great cost, when that town was selected by the military authorities as being the most accessible for the counties comprised in the district; and whether he will reconsider the whole question.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Shrewsbury has been selected as the headquarters of the Welsh Border group of regimental districts. Any changes in the quartering of regiments which may follow upon this decision could only take place after the erection of depots.
    MR. KENYON:Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to remember, when making any changes in regard to Welsh regiments, that Shrewsbury is not in Wales at present?

    Military Prisoner at Maryborough
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when the Army Council considered the case of Thomas Leonard, now imprisoned in Maryborough under a life sentence for desertion, the Council was aware that the desertion took place more than a year before the outbreak of the war, and that Leonard, who was employed at the mines, was commandeered by the Boers on the outbreak of the war, and, if not, will he put this fact before the Council and ask for a reconsideration of Leonard's case; whether he can explain what circumstances influenced the decision of the Army Council in ordering the discharge two years ago from Maryborough Prison of a man who belonged to the same regiment as Leonard, and who was sentenced to death for the murder of a soldier in South Africa during the late war, while refusing to discharge Leonard, who has now been over five years in prison for desertion.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I regret that I am unable to add to the information which I have already given to the
    1330
    hon. Member, both by Answer and by letter, regarding this case. The decision of the Army Council which has been communicated to the hon. Member will be adhered to.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Council if it was aware at the time of the trial that this man deserted a fear before the war broke out?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And what was the answer?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I sent all the information to the hon. Member.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I have not received that information. I shall put another Question down.

    Government Orders to Private Firms.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it has hitherto been the practice to give one-half of the orders for bayonets required for the Army to private firms; and whether, out of 12,200 bayonets or thereabouts now so required, he will see that the private firms obtain their proper share.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the hon. Member please refer to my reply to a similar Question yesterday† from the hon. Member for Central Sheffield.
    MR. J. F. HOPE: I trust the right hon Gentleman will bear in mind that 19,000 bayonets have already been turned out from Enfield this year.

    Musketry Practice at St. Mary's Island
    MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, during a recent musketry practice at St. Mary's Island, a fisherman was dangerously wounded whilst following his daily occupation; whether he has received a
    † See page 1121.

    1331
    copy of a resolution passed at a public meeting specially called for the purpose of protesting against the position of this range; if so, he state what steps he intends to take in order to protect these fishermen in the course of their occupation.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Northern Commanding has reported that a fishermen was shot through the arm at musketry practice; the wound is believed not to be dangerous. The resolution passed at a public meeting has been received by telegram; a Court of inquiry has been ordered, and a full report will be forwarded to the War Office.

    The Volunteer Vote.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand the Leader of the House cannot be present, and I will postpone the Question I had proposed to ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to public business. There is one Question, however, to which I think it would be desirable that we should get an Answer—namely, whether the Government, recognising the intense interest felt in the present position of the Volunteers and the recent action in regard to them, will bring on the Volunteer Vote next Thursday.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,said he was afraid he could not give the right hon. Gentleman an Answer now, because negotiations with the different Parties in the House were involved, but he would endeavour to settle the question that afternoon.

    Financial Reforms at the War Office.
    DR. MACNAMAKA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that Viscount Esher, Admiral Sir J. A. Fisher, and Sir George S. Clarke reported, in February, 1904, that the financial methods of the War Office do not conduce to economy in peace and directly promote waste in war, he can state what reforms, if any, in War Office financial administration have since been inaugurated.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,: It is not easy to state in brief compass all the reforms which have been carried out in the financial arrangements of the War Office and the Army since the Report of Lord Esher's Committee. The following statement will, however, give a general idea of what, has been done. Provision I has been made for the financial service of the Army in the field as well as in peace, and a new department for Army Accounts has been created. A system of decentralised accounting has been instituted, carrying with it the redistribution and decentralisation of work and staff to military districts throughout the Empire. Under this system a financial branch forms part of the staff of each general officer commanding in the various districts and will proceed with him to the front in case of war. A thorough system of financial examination and review is now in operation in respect of all contracts, whether made at the War Office or in the military districts. The same system will operate in the field in the event of war. The separation of Army stores and the allotment thereof to the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance, respectively, has been arranged for. Some of the Army Votes have had to be remodelled in a form acceptable to the Treasury and to Parliament. The Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance now administer the Votes for those services for which they are responsible, and have in their branches members of the Accounts Department to advise them in financial matters. A standing Army Finance Committee to watch expenditure has been constituted and a detailed rearrangement of staff and work both for finance and for accounting has been carried into effect.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether he understood the hon. Gentle man to say that the contract branch of the War Office had been broken up and distributed among the various commands.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I did not say that. General officers in a district have always made their own contracts, and they will do so still

    1333
    They will, however, have a finance branch as part of their staff, which will, In the event of war, accompany them to the front. In the War Department itself the making of contracts has been divided between the military members who are immediately concerned, subject to what, I think, is absolutely necessary financial review.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the additional cost of this new administration is likely to be.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I would not like to commit myself to saying whether there has been any considerable additional cost or if there has been, what it is. If the right hon. Gentleman desires the information I will endeavour to give it to him.

    Lord Curzon and the Indian Military Command.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Lord Curzon has informed the Home Government that, unless modifications are introduced to the orders issued regarding the military command in India, he will resign; and what answer, if any, has been given to these representations.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject on Thursday, 29th June.†
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But I cannot remember these weighty, pompous, arrogant deliverances. What did you say on Thursday?
    MR. BRODRICKsaid he would send the hon. Member a copy of the reply.

    Answers to Questions
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what explanation, if any, has he to give for omission to cause an Answer to be printed and circulated with the Votes, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 9, to a Question distinguished
    † See page 545.
    1334
    by an asterisk standing in the name of the Member for South Donegal on the Notice Paper of Thursday, 29th June, which he was not present to ask.
    MR. BRODRICK: A similar Question was asked by the Member for East Perthshire on the same day and in answering him I included my reply to the hon. Member for South Donegal. Hence no occasion arose for circulating the Answer with the Votes.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of courtesy, send an intimation to me to that effect when I wrote to him?
    MR. BRODRICK: I am sorry if I have been guilty of any discourtesy, but I thought the hon. Member must have seen the Answer.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do not want to be treated like Lord Curzon?

    Hazel Grove (Cheshire) Disturbances
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the disturbances at Hazel Grove and Bullock's Smithy, Cheshire, resulting in a prolonged siege of the police barracks, injury to property, and the wounding of belligerents; and whether, in view of the continued excitement, he will consult with the authorities as to the advisability of placing the services of the military at the disposal of the local police in the event of a further outbreak.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,: My attention has been drawn to the matter by hon. Members' Questions and I have obtained a report from the Chief Constable. It appears that on the evening after a local election the police were hustled while arresting a drunken man, a crowd assembled, stones were thrown and windows broken, and extra police had to be obtained from the neighbouring borough of Stockport. There was a slight disturbance the following evening, but the excitement has now apparently

    1335
    subsided. There was no occasion whatever for calling in the services of the military.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Have any of the offenders been arrested, and, if so, will they be tried before a special jury?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have to information on that point.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Seeing that the riot lasted several hours on the Saturday and was continued on the Sunday how is it no arrests have been made?
    MR. DISRAELI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of Hazel Grove are a peaceful and law-abiding people?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Law-abiding rioters.
    MR. KILBRIDE: How many persons were injured in these riots?
    MR. FLAVIN: Has the hon. Member who represents the Division denounced these rioters on a public platform?
    [No Answer was returnd.]
    MR. DISRAELI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the riot which took place at Hazel Grove, near Stockport, on Saturday, July 1st, which culminated in the police station being besieged by the inhabitants, and the local constables held prisoners until released by a force of constabulary from Stockport; whether he is aware that the disturbance was renewed on Sunday night, damage being done to the police premises; whether he is aware that this disturbance is the outcome of a gradually growing feeling of resentment amongst the inhabitants at the conduct for some time past of the local police; and whether, in order to allay public feeling at Hazel Grove, he will recommend the urgency of an inquiry by the Standing Joint Committee of
    1336
    Cheshire into the whole circumstances of the case.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASI have already, in reply to another Question, mentioned the facts of this small local disturbance. The Chief Constable informs me that the ill-feeling towards the police on the part of a section of the inhabitants originates in some recent betting prosecutions, and the removal of a police sergeant who had been very remiss in the performance of his duties. I have no reason to think that the police have been guilty of any misconduct; and I have every confidence that the responsible local authorities—the Chief Constable and the Standing Joint Committee—are perfectly competent to make any necessary inquiries and to deal with the whole matter.
    MR. DISRAELI: May I say my information as to the cause of the riot is very different.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is giving and not asking for information.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of his Answer to the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will these occurrences be returned in any way as a crime?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: No; Sir. They do not come under the definition of crime in England.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Irish Secretary what is his definition of crime in Ireland?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: No, Sir.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Suspend the Constitution at once.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Equal laws.

    The Post Office—The Stanley Revision
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if the regulation recently issued by the Secretary to

    1337
    the Post Office has reference to postmen only, or if it is to be equally applied to all grades of the postal service, the regulation being to the effect that annual leave is granted for the purpose of improving health to enable an officer to render further services, and that it cannot be granted to an officer who does not intend to continue in the service after the leave has expired; and whether this regulation applies to officers who reach the age limit during the year and who may resume duty for a short or long period after having been granted annual leave.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: The rule to which the hon. Member refers applies to all grades of the Post Office service. I am making inquiries as to the practice in other Departments.

    Sale Postal Facilities
    MR. DISRAELI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether further inquiries have been made regarding the question of giving the township of Sale, near Manchester, increased postal facilities; and whether it is now possible to meet the wishes and convenience of the inhabitants, there and establish a late despatch from that office.
    LORD STANLEY: As the hon. Member is aware, the time of posting at the Sale Post Office for the night mail has been extended from 9.0 p.m. to 9.20 p.m. This is considerably later than the time in many important districts nearer the City of Manchester, but I am going to arrange for a later post to be tried as an experiment in order to determine if there is any real demand for it.

    Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888.
    MR. MULDOONI beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any case has arisen in the division of an urban district into wards, or the apportionment of members of the council among such wards, under the provisions of the 57th Section of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888, and the regulations prescribed
    1338
    thereunder by the Order dated 14th September, 1889, in which a proposal for such purpose formulated by the county council has been opposed by the county district affected; and whether, under such circumstances, it is the practice of the Local Government Board to adopt such proposal in accordance with its powers against the wishes of the county district.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: I am unable to say whether any case of the kind referred to has arisen. The matter would not come before the Local Government Board, as an Order made by a county council under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, for either of the purposes mentioned in the Question comes into operation on being finally approved by the council, and there is no appeal to the Board against such an Order.

    War Stores Inquiry—Investigations in South Africa.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the final section of the War Stores (Commission) Bill will preclude the Commissioners, either by themselves or through Sub-Commissioners, holding investigations in South Africa, with all the powers conferred upon them when sitting in the United Kingdom.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,said it had been thought better that in the case of self-governing colonies such as we had in South Africa the Imperial Parliament should not legislate in respect of any sittings of the War Stores Commission which might be held there. It was anticipated that if it should be found necessary to hold sittings in South Africa the Legislatures in the colonies there would make the necessary arrangements lost enabling the Commission to do its work effectively.

    Land Registration Act, 1897.
    MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the memorandum of June 23rd, 1905,

    1339
    issued by the Law Society, on the working of The Land Registration Act, 1897, which is declared, after seven years trial, to be a conspicuous failure; and whether, seeing that the Lord Chancellor, when introducing the Bill, stated that the scheme was only to proceed by the most gradual steps, and only by the light of experience, His Majesty's Government will now order an inquiry to be held into the working of the Act.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYwas understood to say that a longer experience was required of the Act before anything could usefully be done in the way of inquiry or amendment.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked whether an inquiry had not been promised.
    MR. REMNANT: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise the Government not to incur any further expenditure of money under the Act?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYreplied that he was no party to any promise, but if a promise had been made in any quarter where there was authority to make one, it would be carried out. In reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury he could only say he could not undertake to advise His Majesty's Government on a question of policy of that sort.

    County Antrim Prosecutorship.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any appointment has yet been made to the vacant prosecutorship for county Antrim; and whether, in view of the fact that most of these positions in Ireland are filled by those who differ from the majority of the people of Ireland in religious faith, he will now consent to have a Catholic appointed to the vacancy.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: The appointment has not yet been made. In making such appointments I have never taken the question of religion into consideration, and never will do so.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the appointment shall not be given to a barrister who is a Member of the House?
    MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Is it intended to confer it on the hon. Member for North Antrim?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Religious Disturbances in Glasgow
    MR JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether his attention has been called to the recent religious disturbances in Glasgow, as a result of which prosecutions have taken place in the Glasgow Police Courts; whether he is aware that the disturbance at Glasgow Green on June 11th was caused by the language and conduct of a man named Boal, who appealed to the crowd to turn their faces to the Catholics, and said that if they would drag them in he would hammer them himself and show them the way these things were done in Belfast, whereupon a Catholic was seized, the seizure marking the beginning of the disturbance; whether he is aware that the attention of the chief constable was called to this incident at the time, and that the incident took place in the presence of police officials; whether he will state why Boal has not been prosecuted; and whether he will order that such lecturers' addresses shall not be permitted at Glasgow Green in future.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,: My attention has been called to the disturbances referred to. They were due to disputes between the followers of the Protestant speaker Boal and of two Roman Catholic speakers. A few police constables were present and complaints were made to the police by both parties. The chief constable inquired very fully into the matter at once, and the results were submitted to the Procurator-Fiscal and the magistrates, but there was no sufficient evidence to establish that Boal had used the language attributed to him in the Question or to justify his prosecution. Measures have since been taken

    1341
    which have prevented any repetition of the disturbances. The lecturers were speaking on the portion of the Green set aside by the corporation for speaking and holding meetings, and I have no power to interfere with the corporation's action in the matter, and I have no desire to do so.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Does not this man Boal, who is the cause of these disturbances, come from Belfast? Is there not a revival in Scotland of religious animosities, thanks to him, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to deal with him as an alien immigrant?
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I have no information on that point.

    Lisburn Assault Trial—Question of Bail.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that a young man named James Reynolds was recently tried at Lisburn Petty Sessions for an assault, and returned for trial on bail; that a merchant of the town and Reynolds' father offered to become bondsmen for his appearance, the former being accepted and the latter rejected by Sergeant Gallagher, Royal Irish Constabulary; that several other gentlemen offered themselves, but this officer also refused to accept them; and whether, in view of the character of the security rejected by Sergeant Gallagher, and the time that Reynolds was kept in goal, he will cause inquiry to be made as to the locus standi of those gentlemen, and the conduct of Sergeant Gallagher regarding the same.
    MR. ATKINSON: I will at the same time reply to my hon. friend's Question No 19. James Reynolds was returned for trial at the Summer Assizes, Belfast, and it was ordered that he should be admitted to bail on entering into recognisances, himself in £100 and two sureties in £50 each, to appear there to take his trial, the police to be satisfied of the fitness of the sureties. John Reynolds, described as a "jarvey," the father of the accused, and two persons named James Taggart, publican and mechanic respectively, who
    1342
    are father and son, offered themselves as bailsmen. John Reynolds was objected to by the district inspector, after consultation with Sergeant Gallagher, as an unfit person, and the Taggarts were accepted by the police. Some difficulty was raised by the petty sessions clerk as regards James Taggart, junior, and ultimately a second suitable surety was found, and Reynolds was released. Only two persons were objected to by the police on the ground of unfitness, including Reynolds, the father of the accused. The district inspector and sergeant acted bona fide in the exercise of the discretion reprised in them, and there does not seem to be any ground for instituting an inquiry into their conduct. The Sergeant Gallagher referred to in this case is not the sergeant of that name who was transferred from Greencastle.
    Appended is the second Question referred to in the Answer:—
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Sergeant Gallagher, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in the case of James Reynolds, recently charged for assault at Lisburn Petty Sessions and returned for trial on bail, in refusing several gentlemen as sureties for Reynolds' appearance; and whether, seeing that Sergeant Gallagher was transferred from Greencastle about two years ago in the interest of the public service; and in view of the characters of the gentlemen who were rejected as bondsmen by this officer, he will recommend the transfer of Sergeant Gallagher to another district.

    Banbridge (County Down) Trials
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the prosecutions arising out of the stabbing of Nationalists near Banbridge, county Down, whether the Crown intends, at the forthcoming trial, to exercise its power to order jurors who hold the same political opinions as the accused to stand aside, as in other parts of Ireland.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Crown does not exercise, and will not exercise, its

    1343
    power to order jurors to stand aside on account of their political opinions, but solely because it is believed that if sworn they would not act impartially. That rule will be followed in the case mentioned.
    MR. KILBRIDE: When I was tried I saw a marked jury panel under which all my political opponents were to be allowed to go on the jury while my political friends were to be ordered to stand aside.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Why should not juries be packed in county Down as well as in Galway?

    Amalgamation of Boys' and Girls' Schools in Ireland.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of that portion of the minutes of 20th December, 1904, of the Board of National Education in which the rules for 1905 were referred to; and also a copy of the resolution at the Board meeting of 25th October, 1904, and the Order made thereon, with reference to amalgamating boys' and girls' schools with an average attendance below thirty.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,: The minutes of the meeting of 25th October will appear in the Return granted on the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo on 31st May, and about to be circulated. The Commissioners do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by publishing the minutes of 20th December.

    Infant Schools in Ireland.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education require any special educational qualifications in relation to the teaching of infants on the part of female teachers before recognising the schools taught by them as suitable in the sense of Rule 127 (b); if so, what are these special qualifications.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In the case of model infant schools, it is required
    1344
    that the teachers shall be qualified to give instruction in Kindergarten, and, while such qualification is desirable in the case of ordinary infant schools, the Commissioners do not insist on it, but the teaching must be otherwise efficient.

    Trinity College, Dublin, and Intermediate Education.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland has any application been made by anyone acting in the interests of Trinity College, Dublin, to the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland, for facilities for selecting successful intermediate students to whom entrance scholarships in Trinity College, Dublin, may be given by the authorities of that college; if so, will he state the precise terms of that application; whether it has been granted; and whether he will lay before Parliament the minute of the proceedings of the Intermediate Board in which that application was discussed.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; and I propose to lay on the Table the correspondence between Trinity College and the Board of Intermediate Education, together with the Board's resolutions in the matter.

    One-room Schools in Ireland
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state the number of schools for girls in Ireland that have only one room; and whether, besides affording the minimum floor space for the number of pupils on the rolls, the Commissioners of National Education require any other structural conditions as necessary in order that a school may be considered suitable in the sense of Rule 127 (b); and, if so, what are these conditions.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It would take a considerable time to ascertain the number of such schools, and no good object would be served by doing so, seeing that in schools with one teacher a second room is neither necessary nor desirable. The Commissioners have not thought it necessary to formulate the structural conditions which render a I school "suitable" under Rule 127 (b),

    1345
    The accommodation must be adequate and suitable, and, when necessity arises, an inspection will be made to ascertain the fact.

    Irish Land Purchase Regulations.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to lay upon the Table the regulations prescribed by the Land Purchase Act of 1903.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The regulations have been signed by the Lord-Lieutenant, and will be laid on the Table forthwith.

    Purchase of Evicted Farms and Untenanted Lands in Tipperary.
    MR CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have made any efforts to purchase evicted farms or untenanted lands in the county of Tipperary; if so, will he state in how many cases; in how many has the purchase been completed; in how many have the negotiations failed, giving the names of the owners, extent of holding, and the causes which prevented the completion of the purchases.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners have negotiated for the purchase of six estates in this county. In three cases the negotiations are proceeding; in two the offers made have been refused by vendors; and in one case the purchase has been completed. I do not think it desirable to give particulars of the cases referred to in the last inquiry.

    Mineral Deposits in Ireland
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland state that a portion of its public work is to undertake inspection of lands on which minerals are believed to exist, the officials of the Department will explain whether such inspection can be satisfactorily carried out without prospecting or, in regard to coal deposits, without the use of a boring drill.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Department hold that inspection by a fully qualified and experienced mining engineer, who has made himself thoroughly acquainted with the local geological formation, is sufficient to show whether prospecting for coal by means of a boring drill could be undertaken with any prospect of success or not.

    Dublin Disturbances.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a disturbance which took place at a late hour in Marlborough Street, Dublin, on the 28th ultimo; if he can state the number of persons injured, and by whom; and whether, in view of the fact that Constables Watchorn (228C) and Keating (217C) of the Metropolitan Police are alleged to have been the aggressors, he will order an inquiry into the whole case.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Chief Commissioner of Police has already held an inquiry in this case, as a result of which he has called upon the two constables mentioned to resign, and they do not now belong to the force.

    Irish Land Purchase.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the rate of progress at which agreements for sale under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, are being made makes it clear that the anticipation that twenty years would be required to complete the transfer of Irish land was excessive, and having regard to the urgency of the situation and the appeals that have been addressed to the Government by representatives of landlords and tenants, whether he intends, before the session closes, to place sufficient funds at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners, or to take any other steps, such as offering stock at market value to vendors who may be willing to take such in payment, or by any other means, to meet the difficulty.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not, at present, in a position to make any

    1347
    announcement in this matter, which is engaging my careful consideration.

    Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any negotiations have taken place for the purchase of the estate of Mr. Morrogh, Bernard, county Kerry, by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, how does the matter now stand; and what arrangements have been made for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants on the estate.
    MR. WALTER LONG: A memorial from the tenants proposing to purchase their holdings was received by the Commissioners, who communicated the same to the landlord, but the latter has expressed no desire to sell. Consequently, no opportunity for dealing with evicted tenants' applications has arisen.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how long the estate of Mr. Coltsmann, county Kerry, has been before the Estates Commissioners; how many visits have been made to the evicted tenants on the estate by inspectors of the Commissioners, and the dates of such visits; and what excuse can be given for the failure to assist Mr. Daniel Casey, who was reinstated by the landlord over eighteen months ago, and who is placed in a position of difficulty by the delay.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The application for sale was received on the 19th September last. The information desired by the second part of the Question will be obtained and communicated to the hon. Member. A legal consideration is involved in the question of a grant to Daniel Casey, and the matter has not yet been decided.

    The Estates Commissioners and Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of a landlord who declines to sell his entire estate but who publicly states in writing his willingness to reinstate an evicted tenant, the Estates Commissioners will take any action to reinstate such tenant when he
    1348
    finds himself unable to agree to the terms asked by the landlord in direct negotiation between themselves.
    MR. WALTER LONG: If the Question means the reinstatement of a tenant on a farm which the owner refuses to sell, the Estates Commissioners have no power in the matter. In such case, however, the Commissioners may be able to allot other lands to, the evicted tenant, if such lands are available.

    Tariff Reformers in Dublin.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Agricultural Committee of the Tariff Commission will meet in Dublin on 25th, 26th, and 27th July, when witnesses from every part of Ireland will give evidence, and that a number of the members of the Commission will attend and assist in the inquiry; (2) will he say whether the Tariff Commission has any sanction from the Government; (3) whether the Government is giving any assistance, and, if so, of what nature, to the Commission; (4) whether any of the expenses of the Commission have been or will be borne by the Government; (5) whether any persons receiving remuneration of any kind from the Government will be permitted to give evidence before the Commission; (6) and whether an official statement will be issued stating the position of the Government in relation to this matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The replies to all these questions are in the negative, with the exception of that inquiring whether persons receiving remuneration from the State will be permitted to give evidence. The reply to this inquiry is in the affirmative.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Who are these persons in Government employ who are to give evidence?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have not the slightest idea.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: That is thoroughly characteristic of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Such an observation as that is needlessly offensive. How can I know, when such information has not reached me?
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham himself.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has this anything to do with the recent visit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Ireland?

    Irish Land Purchase Advances.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will now state the amount of the advances applied for under The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1903, up to and including 30th June, 1905, the amount which has been actually advanced, and the amount sanctioned; and what is the date of the receipt of the agreements which are being dealt with now by the Commissioners.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The amount of advances applied for to the Estates Commissioners up to the 30th June inclusive is £26,896,103, The amount advanced is £6,679,741; and the amount for which advances have been sanctioned, but not yet made, is £1,301,744. Advances are at present being made in respect of cases in which agreements to purchase were lodged in July, 1904.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Have any steps been taken to remedy the block now prevailing in the Land Court?
    MR. WALTER LONG: The matter is engaging my attention, and I hope shortly to be able to make an announcement.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Henry Staveley Hill, esquire, for the County of Stafford (Kingswinford Division).
    CRIMINAL CASES (RESERVATION OF POINTS OF LAW) BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time: to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]
    BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time: to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]

    SUPPLY [13TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6. REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,920,538, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,said his right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he held the office of Postmaster-General, instituted the practice, which commended itself to the Committee, of making at the commencement of the discussion on the Estimates a general statement as to the work performed by the Department over which he presided; and he proposed, with the consent of the Committee, to follow the same course. He would endeavour to be as short as possible, but it was rather difficult in the present instance to be so for two reasons. In the first place, it had been a somewhat exceptional year in the Post Office with regard to changes and innovations, and secondly, there was a feature in the administration of that Office which particularly called for comment, and that was the action which he took with regard to what was called the Bradford Committee. He proposed to deal with that last, and to enumerate first, as shortly

1351
as he could, the work on which the Post Office had been engaged.
There were two matters to which he would refer at the outset; one was the agreement they had come to with the National Telephone Company. It would be remembered that last year, when he had the honour of introducing the Estimates, he told the House that he hoped before the year was over to have come to some arrangement, subject to the consent of the House, for the amalgamation of the Post Office system and the National Telephone Company's system, or for the taking over of the National Telephone Company's system by the Government. That agreement was being subjected to a trial, so to speak, before a Committee upstairs, and as it would in due course come down to this House for confirmation or the reverse by the House as a whole, he need not refer to that further.
Another matter which last year occupied the attention of the House for a short time in the early hours of one morning was the passing of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill. That Bill was only a temporary one, and would come to the end of its existence in August next year. The Postmaster-General then would, he thought, be wise in his generation if, before going into any final legislation with regard to wireless telegraphy, he gave this Bill another year's work to see whether improvements could be made, for this reason. It was not until they began to grant licences that they realised the endless difficulties there were, difficulties which had hardly been foreseen. It was not until February this year that, having got all the different applications and having considered each branch of the applications, they were able to begin the issue of the licences. The hon. and gallant Member for Newington had asked him for a Return which would give him all the statistics with regard to the licences so far granted. This Return he had been only too glad to give him, and he trusted it would prove of interest to the House. There was only one thing he needed to add to that report, and it was an assurance which he hoped the House would accept. No single licence had been given or refused without the full consent or approval of the Admiralty on whose
1352
behalf, as a question almost of national defence, he asked the House to pass the Bill last year. He had not brought down with him the Return which the hon and gallant Member asked him for about a week ago, but he promised to have it got ready as quickly as he could and it would be submitted to the House. He promised there should be no secret.
There were two small points dealt with in a Bill of the previous session, viz., the cumulative poundage on postal orders and the use of embossed stamps for prepayment of postage. They had instituted an official parcel post to America. Before the parcels post was provided for by an arrangement with a private express carrier company to America. He was glad to say they had been able to come to an agreement with the Deputy Postmaster-General of America by which there was to be an official parcel post service between the United Kingdom and America. They had also made considerable progress with the interchange of postal orders with the Colonies. He would ask the House to allow him to pass a small Bill after twelve o'clock which was connected with this question, because he did not think it could be called controversial. At present postal orders were not interchangeable between this country and Egypt and certain British protectorates; but he thought it would be found an advantage to hon. Members travelling abroad, and to many others as well, to have this inter-changeability, and he would ask the House to allow an Act to be passed which would enable them to carry this into execution. They had instituted a system of sea-sorting on board the Atlantic liners, which would be found to give a considerable acceleration in the delivery of letters. At the present time, however, it was hardly perfected. The Cunard Company had not, he believed, given their adhesion to the scheme, but he had no doubt whatever they would be able to come to terms with them and thus be able to accelerate the delivery of letters from America.
One other matter might perhaps appeal to hon. Members. It was the question of the use of motors in the Post Office service. He was glad to say that every year seemed to prove that we could

1353
rely more and more on motor services for the purposes of delivery, especially of parcels. Perhaps the House would like to know that they had at the present moment motors running between London and Epping, London and Redhill, Manchester and Liverpool, Birmingham and Warwick, Birmingham and Worcester, Newcastle and Sunderland, and Northampton and Hitchin, as well as between various district offices in London. Arrangements had also been made for motor services to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne. In every single case the service had been reliable; it had been much cheaper, and much faster. There was one other reform that hon. Members might have noticed, namely the facility of deposits not exceeding £1 at sight from the Post Office Savings Bank. There had been rather a cumbrous, and somewhat expensive, manner of dealing with these urgent withdrawals before. It had to be done by telegram, since by the ordinary method it might take three days to get a small amount out. He had changed that to this extent, that any person could now obtain any sum not exceeding £1 from any post office at once, subject of course to producing; his Savings Bank book and establishing his identity. The book then had to be sent to London, being subsequently returned to the depositor by post.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Is the Post Office responsible if it is paid to the wrong person?
LORD STANLEYsaid he thought so. There was one other reform which, perhaps, he might mention, because it had been worked and most successfully carried out by officials in the Post Office. It was the complete revision and practical rewriting of the Post Office Guide. In the new guide, from which had been eliminated very much useless information, would be found all the information that could be reasonably expected in as concise and convenient a form as possible. Another reform had been the introduction of the penny post from this country to Australia. Australia was not able to meet them in the same way as they met her, except to this extent. While we reduced our rate
1354
to our domestic rate they reduced the rate to this country to the level of their domestic rate of two pence. They gave a promise, however, that when their finances allowed, they would reduce the postage to the same amount as ours. It might interest hon. Members to see what effect the reduction of the rate had had. Taking the twelve weeks ending June 24th and October 20th, 1904, the combined average for the two periods was 95,302 letters. The average for the twelve weeks ending June 23rd, 1905, was 111,794, or an increase in 1905 over 1904 of no less than 17·3 per cent. That, at all events, showed that what they had been able to do had appealed to many people in this country, and he could not help hoping it had been of most advantage to the poor, enabling them to communicate with their friends abroad more frequently.
Now he came to the Bradford Committee, and he hoped the House would allow him to put his case to the best of his ability and as fully as he could. The House must allow him to go back to the beginning of this agitation. It began with applications in this House for a Parliamentary Committee to deal with the question of Post Office wages. It was refused by his right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for reasons which he then considered adequate, and he felt perfectly certain that recent events would not have made him see any cause to differ from the opinion he then expressed. He must be allowed to quote his words. Speaking on April 30th, he said—
"I hold as strongly as I have ever done that a House of Commons Committee is not a body for such an inquiry. No one can have a higher respect for this House or its reputation, and for the spirit which leads so many Gentlemen to give up so much time to public work, and it is therefore with no disrespect for the House of Commons or its Committee that I repeat for myself and my colleagues that we are unalterably opposed to anything in the nature of a Select Committee of the House of Commons for a decision of this Question. Hon. Members know and it is no use blinking our eyes to, the amount of pressure which is brought to bear or is attempted to be brought to bear upon Members on both sides of the House by public servants and by Post Office servants especially, … and even if the machinery by which Select Committees are appointed were such as to enable us to secure a Select Committee composed of thoroughly impartial men who had committed themselves by no expression of opinion

1355
to one side or the other, I still think it would not be fair to pick out fifteen Members of this House and make them marked men for the pressure which is now exercised more or less over the whole Assembly."
That was the reason for which his right hon. friend rightly refused to give a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into these grievances. At the same time he recognised that there were certain anomalies which wanted looking into, and that there might be certain points of hardship which ought to be met. With that view he appointed a Committee which was now known as the Bradford Committee to report to him, and to give him the benefit of their advice. Hon. Members and many other people besides looked upon the constitution of this Committee as being that of an arbitration committee, and considered that the result should be accepted by both sides as an award which was final and con-conclusive. He must at once protest against any idea of this being considered as an arbitration committee, because to have an arbitration committee they must have both sides agreeing to it as such. In this case he hoped to be able to show that neither side looked upon it as an arbitration committee at all. His right hon. friend in suggesting a Committee said he would suggest a small body of men, he believed not more than five, of practical business experience who would consent to examine the scale of wages, and who would report for his advice and information as to whether they considered the wages adequate or not. Later in the debate the hon. Member for Battersea rather taunted him with by this means giving up his responsibility. His right hon. friend answered him in words conclusively showing that he did not think he would be bound definitely to accept any or all of the recommendations that might be made. The words he then used were—
"I do not think a Minister of the Crown derogates from his own authority of the dignity of the House by seeking advice from those competent to give it. The course I propose to adopt will not lessen my responsibility, but will enable me to come to a decision with the concurrence of the Treasury in the light of fuller information."
He was sanguine enough to think that the Committee would allow that as far
1356
as his right hon. friend was concerned he did not look upon this as an arbitration committee. But there was also the side of the postal employees to consider, and they had committed themselves, not only by the speeches of their leaders, but by various circulars and newspapers connected with their various associations. There could, at all events, be said to be no ambiguity about their language. The following paragraph in a circular sent round summed up the position of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association in August, 1903—
"With practical unanimity our Parliamentary friends advise, while readily admitting the incomplete nature of the inquiry and the objectionable constitution of the Committee, that we should give evidence."
This was the paragraph to which he intended to call attention—
"We have accepted this advice, but we wish to make it perfectly clear that we do not regard the Committee in any sense as an Arbitration Board, neither shall we relax our efforts to obtain a Parliamentary inquiry."
MR. BAYLEY: On behalf of the Post Office officials I accepted the Government's proposal at the time.
LORD STANLEY: Did the hon. Member accept it as an inquiry into the circumstances, or as an arbitration.
MR. BAYLEY: My opinion, and the opinion of the House, was that it was an arbitration to settle for the time being a difficult question and we were willing to support it for the time being.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: The words used were "an impartial and judicial decision."
LORD STANLEYsaid no doubt his right hon. friend would be quite willing to state his case. Undoubtedly the men in their circular said deliberately—
"We have decided to accept this advice, but we wish to make it clear that we do not regard it as an arbitration committee."
MR. BAYLEY: I spoke for the whole.
LORD STANLEYsaid that the Ron. Member for Derbyshire said he accepted it on behalf of them all as an arbitration.

1357
Against that on May 8th, 1903, it was stated in the Telegraph Chronicle—
"It was then decided that Mr. Bayley should state clearly that the Committee was unsatisfactory and would not be accepted as final."
Either one or the other was wrong. The Committee was formed. Hon. Members knew the composition of it. It was formed by his right hon. friend before he came into office, and he was asked whether or not he wished it to proceed. He stated that a pledge having been given to the House he naturally had no wish to depart from the course his right hon. friend had adopted. The Committee, therefore, sat and reported, as the House knew. It would be as well if he pointed out the terms of reference to the Committee. They were—
"To inquire into the scales of pay received by the under mentioned classes of established Post Office servants and to report whether, having regard to the conditions of their employment and to the rates current in other occupations, the remuneration of certain specified classes is adequate."
Surely if that meant anything it meant that the Committee should endeavour to ascertain the wages in other trades or employment corresponding, or that could be said to correspond, with the work of Post Office officials, and that the rates of wages should be compared with a view to seeing whether there was any failure on the part of the Post Office to pay its officials up to the scale. He was bound to say at once that judging from one paper of their organisation—he would be perfectly fair—they dissociated themselves from any idea that their wages should be compared with anybody else's. In one of their periodicals, the Post of August 29th, 1903, it was stated—
"Not only do we object to the composition of the Committee, but we take the strongest exception to its terms of reference. The inquiry as to whether our wages are adequate or otherwise becomes a farce if their adequacy is to be judged by the standard of wages of the open labour market. No such comparison would be reasonable or fair. There is no other employer who fixes his own prices or makes an annual profit of £4,000,000 sterling. There is no other class of work which can be compared to the Post Office work, neither any other employee who can be compared with the Post Office servants. … Surely Mr. Chamberlain does not think we shall regard such an inquiry as final. If he does, the sooner his mind is disabused the better."
1358
Now the House would see that at all events the men did not wish their case to be made the subject of any comparison with outside employment. It was undoubtedly clearly hid down by his right hon. friend that such a comparison should be made, and it was on such a comparison, he believed, that this House was entitled to judge of the amount which ought to be paid to its servants. The House would have noticed that, under the terms of reference, the comparison was absolutely essential. But the Committee did not see their way to carry out this part of the reference, for in paragraph 95 of the Report they say—
"We have not seen our way to obtain any specific figures as to the comparative rates of wages current in other occupations. So far as this portion of the reference to us, we came to the conclusion that no really useful purpose would be served by asking employers of labour to furnish precise details of the wages paid by them. Certain official information is already available, being obtained and published from time to time by the Board of Trade. This information supplemented by our own experience, affords more reliable data than any particulars we could hope to obtain in the way of evidence within the limits of an inquiry of reasonable duration."
Now he wished to be fair to both sides. They said that, but what he wished to know was what evidence in the Board of Trade Returns had they got which would show that wages generally had steadily increased or that at the present moment there was a falling-off in the purchasing power of the ordinary daily wage of a workman. The Statistics as to the cost of living recently published by the Board of Trade showed that, while the cost of fuel and light had somewhat increased and rents had somewhat risen, 100 shillings would do in 1900 the work which it took 120 shillings to do in 1882. [An HON. MEMBER: What about fiscal reform?] He had written to the members of the Committee who were employers of labour, asking whether they would be good enough to furnish him with statement, of the wages paid in their own businesses. In some cases he received no answer; and in others he was supplied with the most meagre returns; but, such as they were, they did not lead him to believe that a comparison between those wages and the wages paid to the Post Office servants would be unfavourable to the Post Office.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEasked whether the returns received by the noble Lord would be laid upon the Table.
LORD STANLEY: No, Sir, they were given to me confidentially.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid that, in accordance with the ruling of the Speaker the other day, any documents referred to by a Minister with a view to influencing the House must be laid on the Table.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is not this the rule, that, while a Minister may refer to a document, it is only when he quotes from it that he is obliged to lay it upon the Table?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is what I have always understood the rule to mean.
LORD STANLEYsaid he did not rely upon these communications; he withdrew his reference to them, and he asked the House to consider what he had said about them as not having been said. The Bradford Committee further stated that they thought the Post Office servants were justified in asking for more wages, not only because of the arduousness of their labours, but because of the social position they occupied. That was a basis for a calculation of wages which he could not accept for one moment. It meant that, though the Post Office paid their servants well for the work they did, it should pay them extra for the social position they obtained through being in the service of the State. The Committee went outside the terms of their reference in recommending the creation of more higher posts—without taking evidence of any sort or kind on the matter—for which there was no work, in order simply to increase the prospects of promotion. For instance, in one department the reform scheme of the Committee would mean an increase of the overseers from 250 to 900. He thought he was justified in refusing to accept such a recommendation as being outside the terms of reference to the Committee.
As the Committee had instituted no comparison between the wages paid to Post Office servants and the wages paid
1360
in what he might call comparable employments outside, he was obliged to do so himself. He thought it would be admitted that bank clerks were a better class of men and performed a better class of work than sorters and telegraphists; and yet he found that in some of the London banks the unpromoted clerk did not reach the maximum pay of the sorter and telegraphist. The railway clearinghouse might certainly be compared with the central telegraph office. At twenty-two years of age the telegraphist got £76 the clearing-house clerk £70; at thirty-six the telegraphist might reach the maximum of £160; the clearing-house clerk did not reach his maximum, £150, until he was fifty-six. He was permitted by some of the railway companies to state that telegraphists in their employment never went beyond 35s. a week. The maximum wages of the Post Office telegraphist were, in London, 62s. per week, and in the large provincial towns, 52s. to 56s. a week. The educational qualification of a certificated elementary school teacher was very much higher than that which was required of sorters and telegraphists; and yet the male certificated teachers in London, if untrained, reached only to the same maximum as the sorters, and telegraphists, whilst those teachers, who were trained in colleges rose to only £15 higher. The hours of teachers were better; they had longer holidays; but their position as regarded sick-leave and sick-pay was not as good. In Hull the highest grade of certificated teachers received £140, the sorting clerks and telegraphists received £141; in Swansea the comparative figures were £135 and. £136, and in Exeter £130 and £136. The only comparison which was not entirely upon his side was that with the clerks in the cable companies, who were paid more than the Post Office cable-room operators; but in the case of the cable companies' operators the work was more arduous and there was liability to be sent abroad at any moment. He had, however, granted an increase of pay to the cable-room operators. Compositors had also been cited in comparison, but he found from the Board of Trade Returns that their average pay was about the same as that of sorting clerks and telegraphists, and that 5 per cent, were always out of work. The

1361
Post Office employee was never out of work, and received pension, sick-pay and leave on full pay, which were never given to the compositor. That constituted a great benefit and put him on a higher standard of pay than was given to the compositor in London.
He now came to the postmen. In their interview with him, there were two classes with whom the postmen wished to make comparison—sorting clerks and telegraphists and bank messengers. The comparison with sorting clerks and telegraphists was rather amusing, because the first thing the sorting clerk said was that nothing would induce him to accept the wage given to a mere postman, and if the latter's pay was put up to the former's, it would immediately be necessary to increase the pay of the sorting clerk. He had got particulars with regard to bank messengers. As a matter of fact, he thought the bank messenger was really a higher class, and had more responsibility than any postman, corresponding rather to the overseer; but he found that, except in one or two exceptional cases, the bank messengers had not got so high a maximum as the postman. More than that, a bank messenger was bound to find security before he was engaged. As regards the police, the comparison was slightly in support of the postmen's contention; but he would ask the House to realise the difference in the circumstances of employment of policemen and postmen and the difference between the requirements which the Post Office exacted and those demanded by the Commissioner of Police. The London police had to be 5ft. 9in. in height, whereas the Post Office took men at 5ft-4in.; and each year more than 2,700 policemen were injured by being assaulted in the discharge of their duties, which did not fall to the postmen's lot. Again, in the last four years there were 3,087 candidates, of whom 2,319 were qualified in every respect, for 695 places as learners, or more than four to one for every vacant post, and the applicants knew perfectly well what the conditions were. Therefore, it could not be said that on the part of the public at large there was that distrust as to the proper payment of the Post Office employees
1362
which they were to understand existed. The Committee said that it appeared to them that the adequacy of the terms now obtained must be tested by the number and character of those who offered, by the capacity they showed on trial, and finally by their contentment. The Committee found that there was no lack of suitable candidates, from whom the best were selected on examination. The supply ran short only during the South African War, and that mainly in the industrial centres. Further, there was no complaint as to their capacity, but that there was widespread discontent. If they had as many men as they wanted, of the right quality, was it not putting a premium on discontent if they said the only thing which justified giving them an increase in their wages was the existence of that discontent?
Briefly summarised, what had been done by the recent revision in increasing the wages of Post Office officials had been as follows:—In London, male sorters and telegraphists, a shilling per week increase in the minimum to 100; age increase of 3s. a week at 25 for 5,000; higher maximum for 1,100; and additions of 2s. 6d. a week for 280 men engaged in working telegraph circuits direct to the Continent. As to provincial sorting clerks and telegraphists, an improved minimum of 1s. a week had been given to 450; an age increase at 25, varying from 2s. 6d. to 1s. a week, had been given to 6,300; an improvement in the maximum to 350; and 2s. a week addition for twenty men engaged in working direct wires to the Continent. In the case of postmen in London, 200 had received an increase at the minimum of Is. a week; 1,500 had had their pay increased by various amounts; 600 had been benefited by a concession as to the minimum rate of pay at twenty-five years and over In the provinces, 800 postmen had had an improvement in the minimum of Is. a week; 3,100 had benefited by various amounts under the concession as to counting unestablished service; 4,600 had benefited under the age minimum, and 4,700 by an improved maximum. In the past the scale of pay had been based mainly on the amount of work done at the particular office, but he had decided

1363
that the cost of living in the particular neighbourhood should also be taken into account. He did not think the recommendations of the Bradford Committee for a scale based on the population in different areas was at all satisfactory, because the cost of living varied in towns of the same size, and he had determined to have a complete revision of all the scales in connection with the various towns of this country, taking into account the cost of living, and he hoped to announce alterations shortly. Hon. Members sympathised with the case of the rural postmen who suffered hardship in having a lower scale of wages than the town postman, although starting from the town. He had changed that, and the rural postmen starting from towns were now on precisely the same scale as the town postmen.
He had also improved the condition of other rural postmen, hitherto on a fixed wage, by increasing that wage, and at the same time, in order to give them an incentive to do good work, had placed them on a scale by which they would rise to a higher wage. The total of the ultimate benefit would be—in London, 10,700 sorters and telegraphists would receive £54,000; 7,500 postmen £26,600; and in the provinces, 15,600 sorting clerks and telegraphists £61,800; 29,500 postmen, £94,500; 800 members of the supervising force £7,000, and 14,100 men in smaller classes plus additional cost for extra duty, Sunday pay, etc., for the whole of the staff, £128,400 per annum.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the noble Lord say anything about women clerks?
LORD STANLEYsaid the total number was 78,200 persons, who would receive an ultimate benefit of £372,300 a year. Of female sorting clerks and telegraphists there were about 2,000 in London and 1,800 in the provinces who would ultimately benefit.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is that increase this year or next year?
LORD STANLEYsaid that would be the ultimate increase when the whole
1364
scheme was at work. There were 42,900 persons who were receiving an immediate increase of £224,400. As regarded female labour, 3,800 women would ultimately receive £7,800 a year.
He had endeavoured to show to the best of his ability that the Committee was not an arbitration committee; he had made the comparison which he thought ought to be made between the wages of Post Office employees and the wages of those in outside employment; and he had endeavoured to show by the figures he had last read out that he had at all events done something—he believed all that should be asked—to rectify any shortcomings there might be. But he would ask the House just to consider what was going to be the end of all these demands. This was really a question worthy of consideration on both sides of the House. What were the demands on the public purse for this particular office? It would be within the recollection of the Committee that at a deputation to his right hon. friend and himself one of the men stated that he thought the whole of the £4,000,000 profit, as he regarded it, made by the Post Office employees, ought to be devoted to the payment of those employees.
AN HON. MEMBER: He withdrew that.
LORD STANLEY: No; that man made a deliberate statement, not on his own account, but as representing a particular section or organisation in the Department. It was repudiated by others present, but it was not the case that the man who made the statement withdrew it, because on January 28th he wrote a letter in which he not only did not withdraw the statement but justified it. The concluding paragraph of that letter was one of which the Committee might well take note—
"There is only one valid reason which can be urged against the whole of the £4,000,000 being now paid to Post Office workers, their lack of ability to spend the money usefully. But this should not discourage us."
That surely was a large demand.
DR. MACNAMARA: You have not got a sense of humour.
LORD STANLEYsaid the demands made by employees generally before the Bradford Committee, with the pay of all the supervising classes raised in proportion, would have meant the payment from the Exchequer of no less than £2,500,000 a year. He was entitled to ask when was this to cease. Hon. Members knew better than he how they were being bombarded with applications from Post Office employees and other classes of Civil servants for increases of wages. This had taken a form which was not illegal, but which he could not help thinking was an abuse of their rights, viz., the form of a political threat. They had circulated an appeal in which they expressed very clearly and very frankly their intention, and it was one of which the Committee would have to take note now or it would be much worse in the future. They said—
"Two-thirds at least of one political Party are in great fear of losing their seats. The swing of the pendulum is against them, and any Member who receives forty or fifty such letters will under present circumstances have to consider very seriously whether on this question he can afford to go into the wrong lobby. This is taking advantage of the political situation."
It was indeed, but it was abusing, as it seemed to him, their rights as voters. It was nothing more nor less than blackmail. It as nothing more nor less than asking Members to purchase votes for themselves at the general election at the expense of the public Exchequer. Both sides would have to make up their minds that some means should be devised by which there should not be this continual blood-sucking on the part of the public servants. How it was to be done was not for him to say, but he had suggested, and he still thought, that there would have to be some organisation outside Party politics altogether, and unconnected with and unmoved by Parliamentary and political considerations, to whom such questions should be referred and by whom an impartial opinion should be given.
An HON. MEMBER: The Bradford Committee.
LORD STANLEYsaid the Bradford Committee was hardly the kind of body which he should call a permanent Committee to whom these questions ought to be referred. That, he thought, was
1366
what, sooner or later, would have to be done.
He wanted now rather to anticipate a request that would probably be made by hon. Members opposite—that he should appoint a Parliamentary Committee. To that request he would have to give a negative reply, and he would say plainly why. In the first place, there was that paragraph of his right hon. friend's, speech which he read out at the beginning of the discussion, which showed very clearly what pressure he anticipated would be brought upon any Members who might have to deal with these questions. Nothing had happened since that was written to make any Member of the House think that his right hon. friend's opinion on that point was not perfectly justified. In the evidence given before the Committee would be found the whole of the men's case and their demands as clearly as could be wished, and anybody studying that evidence was as competent to judge of the situation as any member of a Select Committee could be. There was also a personal point to which he might refer, viz., that to appoint a Committee would be to place upon its shoulders a burden of responsibility that ought to be borne by the Minister in charge of the Department. Whatever the Committee might say or recommend it was to that Minister alone, with the consent of his colleagues, that the responsibility would belong. If he might use a colloquialism which expressed his meaning better than any other words, he would say that he was not afraid of taking the responsibility of running his own show himself, and he would not put upon fifteen other Members any responsibility which he, personally, was afraid to bear. He had considered the Report and the evidence, and had done what he thought ought to be done to rectify shortcomings. He stood responsible for that and was not afraid of his responsibility. He asked the Committee to approve the action he had taken. He might have taken the easy course of accepting the Committee's Report or appointing a Committee of this House, but, although that might have been popular, it would not, in his opinion, have been a straight course to adopt. He had done what he believed to be fair, just

1367
and honest to the uttermost to all Post Office employees, and he trusted that the Committee would think that, while he had done his best for the employees, he had not been unmindful of the interests of the employer—the British taxpayer.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he rose to move the reduction of this Vote which stood in his name for the purpose of drawing attention to the numerous grievances of long-standing connected with the postal service. In doing so he should devote himself to the general aspect of the case, leaving it to hon. Members who followed him in the debate to deal with the different classes for whom they would speak. First of all he would briefly state how the case had arrived at its present position. The postal servants had for many years complained of the conditions under which they performed their duties, and, as far back as the year 1881, an amelioration was proposed when Mr. Fawcett was Postmaster-General, but it was never carried out. Nine years later, under the Postmaster-Generalship of Mr. Raikes, a scheme was brought forward which the Treasury refused to sanction, and it was ultimately only partially carried out. As a result of that there was a demand for a Parliamentary Committee of inquiry, but that demand had never been granted. In the year 1895, owing to the growth both of these grievances and the agitation, they had the Departmental Committee, known as the Tweedmouth Committee, appointed, but, owing to the fact that that Committee was somewhat restricted in its inquiry, in the year 1897 it was followed by the Norfolk-Hanbury Committee. At that time he declared that no good could result from it because it was not the class of Committee which the Post Office servants demanded, nor could they have any confidence in any other Committee except a Parliamentary Committee, seeing that every other kind of Committee had failed. He was right in that contention, and in May, 1903, the late Postmaster-General, whilst combating the proposal to grant a Parliamentary Committee of inquiry, declared his intention of granting what he was pleased to call a business Committee, composed of members from outside this House, and he especially asked
1368
for this class of Committee, giving several reasons. Prominent amongst those reasons were two—namely, that such a Committee would be free from the suspicions of undue influence, and, furthermore, that it would report rapidly and enable him to put matters right. At the time, he condemned this Committee from his place in the House, because he contended that there was no honest belief on the part of the Government in the existence of those grievances amongst the postal officials, and consequently, there was no strenuous desire upon their part to investigate and deal with them; and secondly, he contended that it could not be dealt with more rapidly by an outside Committee than by a Committee of this House.
As regarded what had been said about undue influence, his contention was that so long as the postal officials, or should he say the members of the Civil Service, and for that matter the members of the fighting services, were allowed to maintain a vote, they had precisely the same rights as all other voters in the country to exercise their fullest influence in the defence of their rights, privileges, and interests. He might mention that all classes of all communities, all professions, all trades, all combinations of individuals, such as anti-vaccinationists and so forth, had invariably used their utmost pressure in defence of their interests and views upon Members of the House. It might be said that Civil servants occupied a totally different position. That he fully admitted, but what had they seen of recent years? Not a tendency to deny the constitutional rights of voting to these classes, but, on the contrary, to extend them. Within the last twenty years his hon. friend the Member for Manchester and others had succeeded in obtaining the franchise for no fewer than 40,000 members of the police throughout the country. If it was the desire and wish of the people of this country, and of the taxpayers, to enter into such an arrangement with their Civil servants and fighting forces that they should enter them upon the understanding that they were to be deprived to a certain extent of their civil rights, that was another

1369
question, but it did not apply to the present case.
As to the question of the Committee dealing more speedily with this question than the Members of the House, his contention had again proved accurate. This Committee was promised in May, 1903, and consequently it had taken more than two years since the Committee was promised, nearly two years since it was appointed, nearly a year since the Committee reported, of which as much as three months was consumed in the printing of the Report. Therefore, he thought he was fully justified in saying that the Government had no faith in the existence of those grievances, and that they had no desire to deal with the question, and, in fact, all they wanted was to gain time and feed the postal employees upon vain hope. This Committee had inquired into one class of grievance, and one class only—namely, the question of the rates of wages, leaving absolutely untouched several other great questions such as civil rights, hours of employment, promotion, the sanitary condition of the buildings in which the work was done, special leave, sick leave, and holidays. Those were all questions of which for years the postal employees had had reason to complain. None of those questions had been dealt with by this outside Committee of business men, and he, personally, had condemned that Committee from the outset.
When this Report appeared it was rejected by the Postmaster-General, and upon what grounds? It was rejected upon the grounds that the Committee had not adhered to its terms-of reference. He only needed to quote a paragraph from the Report which showed the view which the Committee took, and to his mind rightly took, in regard to this matter. He wished to point out again that, at the time this Committee was proposed, he stated in the House that the going outside of the House for business men was a distinct slight upon the Members of the House, as if there were not as brilliant and successful business men in the House of Commons as outside of it! Furthermore, there were men in this House who, in addition to business qualifications, enjoyed the esteem and confidence of the public outside.
1370
The Bradford Report was rejected on the ground that the terms of reference were not complied with. In his opinion that was a quibble, and it was a despicable quibble, and it was a means of thrusting on one side this Report of a Committee appointed by the Government themselves. The Government had treated this in the same way as they had treated some other matters, and in the same way as they had treated the late distinguished Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, at the behest of the Government, attempted to bring in a form of Home Rule by a side wind, and when he failed to pull the chestnuts out of the fire they dropped him just as they were now dropping the Report of this Committee! He again asserted that it was simply a quibble, and a despicable quibble, and his justification for that statement was to be found in page 19, in which the Committee stated—
"We have not seen our way to obtain any specific evidence as to the comparative rates of wages current in other occupations. So far as regards this portion of the reference to us, we came to the conclusion that no really useful purpose would be served by asking employers of labour to furnish precise details of the wages paid by them. Certain official information is already available, being obtain led and published from time to time by the Board of Trade. This evidence, supplemented by our own experience, affords more reliable data than any particulars we could hope to obtain in the way of evidence within the limits of an inquiry of reasonable duration.
"Moreover, it is difficult to make any valid comparison between a national, postal service and any form of private industrial employment, the entire conditions being necessarily so different; payment by results and promotion and dismissal according to the will of the employer, being inapplicable, if not impossible, under the State."
And yet the Postmaster-General brushed aside the whole evidence of that Committee and made it a charge against them that they had failed to comply with the terms of reference. How strange it was, as some writer had said, that men would stoop to do in their collective or corporate capacity things which they would scorn to do as individuals. He would give an illustration which he knew would appeal to the noble Lord. What would the noble Lord think of a great landowner, who for years had had difficulties with his tenantry in connection with the question of a reduction of rent

1371
and having combated the proposal to refer the matter to a Committee of surrounding landowners, did eventually agree to refer the matter to a Committee of expert land agents in the immediate vicinity; and if, when this Committee reported in favour of an all round reduction of rent, averaging 15 per cent., the landlord in question declared, "Oh, I have myself investigated this matter, and I have decided upon a reduction of 5 per cent." He was sure the noble Lord opposite would agree with him when he said that if that landlord's tenantry went to him in a body and gave notice to quit, the noble Lord would be the first man to say, "Serve him right;" and if that landowner happened to live in Lancashire, wherever farmers were gathered together, either for business or for pleasure, the language which would be used to describe the conduct of that particular landlord would lose nothing either in volume or in force.
The noble Lord asked them to take him as an authority on the wages question in preference to such men as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the director of a great railway, a great ship owner, and the managing directors of two of the largest and most important commercial concerns in this country. If the noble Lord expected them to do that, then he must have an exaggerated opinion of his own knowledge and experience in this matter of the rate of wages, and he must have also a very limited idea of the common sense of hon. Members of that House. But he was sure the noble Lord did not expect them to do anything of the kind. He yielded to no one in admiration of the many admirable qualities of the noble Lord. Among those qualities he would put cordiality, courtesy, and sound common sense. Therefore, the noble Lord did not expect them to accept him as an authority on the wages question, over and above the five gentlemen whose names he had referred to. But the noble Lord had no faith even in the scheme he himself proposed, because on January 12th, speaking to a deputation, he said—
"I do not pretend for one minute that I expect that in stating thus generally what the Government are prepared to do you will think I am right in what I am doing. I quite expect,
1372
and I am sure not without reason, that you will endeavour, by all legitimate means, to get a further increase, but I am also sure that any action you take will be temperate."
He (Captain Norton) would ask what was the noble Lord's object in bringing forward this scheme of his if he did not believe in its efficiency?
LORD STANLEY: This was said to the men themselves. I was perfectly right from the point of view of the employer. I said that probably the employees would not think so.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the noble-Lord went on to say—
"I am also sure that in any action you take you will be temperate."
Quite so, and if the action of the postal officials had not only been temperate but abundantly temperate, as he had over and over again stated, if they had ever crossed the border of discipline he would certainly not be their spokesman in the House, but would be speaking against them. But there was not the smallest shadow of doubt that they would continue, as all their associations had pledged themselves to do, this agitation and this demand, because they were fully justified in appealing, like all other classes of workmen, if he might use the word, from the management to the employer; that was to say, from the Government to the Members of the House of Commons, who were the representatives and the protectors of the taxpayer here, and who, in their turn, would be responsible to the taxpayers.
They talked of threats on the part of a certain limited number of postal officials. Why, the idea was preposterous. Had not every hon. Member the power of appealing to the taxpayers, and did he not frequently do it against any particular part of the taxpayers who sought to deal unfairly by his fellows. But the fact was that the public were now fully convinced of the justice of the claims of the postal officials. How did the man in the street look at this question? He said that the present Government had been in power some ten years. At the beginning they were able to give thousands of pounds in doles to their political

1373
supporters. They were able to squander not thousands but scores of millions on a disgraceful and mismanaged war. They had been so negligent of their duties that they had allowed the taxpayers to be swindled by contractors out of millions. It had been conclusively proved by the Committees that had sat that there had been deficiencies in the War Office accounts amounting to millions. Somebody must be responsible for that, and, while these millions had been lost from want of sufficient care on the part of tie Government, they denied to the permanent servants of the State a Living wage. The public realised that and they were on the side of the postal officials, and, therefore, they might continue the agitation in a temperate manner because the public were convinced of the justice of their cause.
Now, with reference to what he supposed would be known as the Stanley modified scheme, he said it had one merit, and one merit only. That was, that it was cheap. But, on the other hand, it had one demerit, and that was a very important demerit. It was justice long delayed, and still being denied. Therefore he condemned it. Perhaps some might doubt that statement. Let him read again from the Bradford Committee Report, paragraph 22—
"There are points in this scale at which we think improvements might be made. For example, it has been urged upon us with some force, and much evidence has been put forward to show, that the minimum wage is not a living wage and that great temptations beset young men who are left to support themselves unaided on an insufficient salary, also that the scale is insufficient to enable sorters to support a wife and family at a reasonable age."
Well, in spite of this under payment, aggravated by the general rise in wages and. prices to which the Committee had also alluded, there had not been any insubordination or any inefficiency on the part of the postal officials. On the contrary, if they read the Bradford Report, they would find that their superiors, over and over again, spoke in the highest terms of the way in which they had done their work. Now, he asked, would any other body, more especially such a large body as these, outside the public service, have behaved in this admirable manner? Was it not a tribute, and a very high
1374
tribute, to the excellent qualities of our public servants? He asked would the coal-miners of this country have patiently laboured under the disadvantages under which these men had laboured? Would they, if Committee after Committee had met the employers, and if time after time they had been foiled, still continue to do their work? Let those hon. Members who said that they represented the coal-miners in this House answer if he was right or not. He said it would not have been tolerated for one moment. He said it was their duty, as Members of the House and representatives of the taxpayers, to see that these officials were given at least a living wage. The demand he made to the House was that these men should have their case—not simply the case of wages alone, but all their grievances, the whole category of them—fully placed before a Parliamentary Committee of inquiry. Let that Parliamentary Committee of inquiry decide. There had been inquiries since 1881, and they had all failed to give satisfaction in regard to the grievances of the men. Here, now, this last Committee of outside men, totally un biased in every way, and who might be thought rather against the men than for them—these men had proved abundantly that the postal servants had been underpaid and that they had many grievances. He said at least that since the Government would not accept the dictum of their own Committee they should grant a Parliamentary Committee of inquiry. He was not alone in making this demand. More than forty Members on the opposite side had, on two occasions when approaching the Postmaster-General on deputations, declared it to be only—he forgot the exact words—just and right that the matter should be immediately attended to. This was the case that he had to lay before the Committee, and he did it with much confidence, feeling that there were Members on the other side of the House who, at any rate, had some independence, and who placed the matter of justice above a Party vote.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITin supporting the Amendment, said he had the advantage of knowing for more than twenty years, during which he had been in this House, somewhat intimately

1375
the details of this controversy. He was bound to say that so far from deserving some of the reflections which had been made on the conduct of the service and the imputation of their having exercised a most unjust and undue pressure—because that had been alleged—during that time he had seen much reason to admire their consistently constitutional conduct. He, at any rate, did not forget that when a strike, a few years ago, was very imminent, they were good enough to accept the advice given them by Members of this House, including himself, and to prefer the public convenience and interest to the assertion of what they then believed, as they believed to-day, to be their just rights. Whatever objection there might be to a Parliamentary Committee it had at least to be remembered that they had always said they would accept and abide by its determination, and that it would be a verdict of their own employers, possibly with some very slight representation of those who more particularly represented the labour interest in the House. He thought that that had been a reasonable and just attitude. And what was the House to do unless something of that sort was adopted. The Tweedmouth Committee made confusion worse confounded. Classification, and all other questions were discussed, but they were by no means settled, and now they were today to-day that a Committee which was heralded with certainty of practical success had been set on one side. What tribunal was there left but the House of Commons? Could this House determine the questions of detail which had been put before the Committee to-day? Only through a Committee. And yet, after all, as representing both employers and employed, this House was a tribunal even superior to the Minister himself. It must assume the responsibility of determining justly the question which had produced chronic discontent, born, in his opinion a, of injustice and inequitably low wages, which was proved by the fact that at the point of the bayonet and at long intervals those injustices had been partially, but only very partially, redressed. To-day what his noble friend had proposed was not, of course, a free gift to the Post Office servants. It was justice to the men, or gross injustice to the taypayer. But if it was justice it only who wed the measure
1376
of injustice to which they had been so long subjected. This discontent had often been denied by Ministers in the House. He had heard it said constantly that it did not exist among the servants as a whole, but he read in this Report a passage which he thought might be taken as conclusive, that there "was widespread discontent" arising rom just and real grievances. He put it to the Committee whether, after existing for nearly twenty years, it was a proper economic position, whether it was safe and in the interest of the State, that this discontent should continue, whether it should be dealt with by patchwork proposals, one after another, or whether it was not a wise and businesslike course which animated the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to submit the question to a business tribunal, and settle it so far as possible for some time. He still thought business men in this House could, would, and might deal with it with perfect safety.
He had said the Post Office servants had been underpaid, and there was never any economy in underpaid or ill-fed labour. He had heard interjections to-day and read in the papers about medical attendance and the like, and again he should like to refer to the Report of the Committee which had been investigating closely and in detail all these points. That Report said, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of the service, the medical aid—medical aid which, he would remind the Committee, had so often been rendered necessary by bad sanitation of post and public offices and the like, was not an unmixed benefit to the service. The Committee found that these additional aids were counter-balanced by many considerations which belonged to a service in which the employees had no right to barter for their wages, but in which the wages were arbitrarily fixed by the employing Department, and pensions were really only contingent deferred pay. Therefore, they might dismiss that incidental consideration. The main point for discussion to-day was, after all, the attitude of his noble friend towards the Report of the Committee of his own choice and of his own appointment. He could not get away from that cardinal fact. It was twice approved. It was appointed

1377
by the late Postmaster-General, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that Committee, hoping ultimately to meet with approval, went to the noble Lord and asked him to endorse it, which he did. It was his own Caesar to whom he had appealed, and having appealed to Caesar he brushed him aside, treated him with great indignity, and said he would have his own will and way. He did not know what other Members might say or do, but of course the noble Lord was setting up a lay Cæsar only to knock him down when he talked of this being an Arbitration Committee. One could not divest the Minister of responsibility and fix it upon arbitrators. What could be said was that when a Minister appointed a Committee, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did—"to strengthen his hands"—he could not afterwards say with any reasonable fairness that he would have no regard for it, or brush it aside. He put it to the Committee whether the noble Lord as a Minister was or was not bound to have a full and fair regard to the Report of a Committee of his own appointing which had gone Sully into the complex, intricate, and technical details which this House could not hope to unravel.
What was the origin of the Committee? It was dictated to the postal service and no representative of the employees was put on it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in appointing it said—
"I have come to the conclusion that the wages which postal employees receive are not in all respects satisfactory. My hands will be strengthened by the practical and business knowledge and experience which I can find from this impartial and independent tribunal. They will report for my information, and the plain question I put to them is: 'Are the wages of the Post Office servants adequate or not.'"
That was the plain issue that was left to the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was another significant word which he used, which be came very material when considering the action of this Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman said there must be a limit to inquiry for it must not be interminable.
If there had been a roving Commission into all trades it would act as was shown by the noble Lord, for the replies he received from employers would
1378
not be complete by any means, and if not complete would probably be misleading. If they had done that, the inquiry would probably have been going on now. His only doubt was whether the Post Office would not have been pleased rather than sorry if it had been so, for there had been long delays before that Report was published. There had been hopes and anticipations on the part of the men. It took months to print and to consider it, and it was only produced at the very fag end of the session when it was impossible to discuss it. He wanted to point out here that in all his observations in his speeches on appointing the Committee there was no word to indicate on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Committee that he expected they would inquire into the wages and conditions of other trades. He thought that was a significant circumstance, unless the reproach now laid upon the Committee was in reality an afterthought.
LORD STANLEY: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means by the Chancellor of the Exchequer never thinking that this Committee would not inquire into the wages paid in other trades.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he did not say that or refer to the reference itself. He said in all the observations of the Chancellor in heralding his Committee, about their business experience and knowledge and impartiality and independence, and strengthening his hands, he never said any word in his speech itself about his expectation that there would be a roving inquiry into other trades.
What happened? The staff, whatever they feared, loyally gave evidence. The Leader of the Opposition said the other night that it was the duty of the Department to see that its case was properly put before the Committee. The Committee themselves asked for the Post Office case and the present Secretary of the Treasury, Sir George Murray, the Comptrollers, and others, attended and gave their evidence as to the effect of any proposals the Committee might make. This Committee had done more than

1379
most Committees. It visited the General Post Office, came into contact with the staff, visited the Central Telegraph Office, went down to Liverpool and other provincial places, and saw how the work was going on and even travelled, through one of its members, on the North-Western mail car from Rugby to London to see even the details of dealing with letters in transit. Surely that was some reason for confidence in the Committee's Report. It heard matters in public and in the presence of the Press and heard all classes for and against this Report.
What did the Committee find; because, alter all, that was the main point—whether their findings could be reasonably justified, remembering that they had seen the witnesses and examined the circumstances. They found that in the younger classes the minimum wage was not a living wage. Was that the basis upon which a young man was to commence his life? Was it the basis on which he was to meet the temptations of early life? Was that the basis on which he was to enter upon marriage? If that finding was true, it was destructive to the system which had prevailed in relation to this matter up to the present time. He believed the Committee, after full investigation, said that there should be some substantial increase, and let not the Committee be mislead into thinking that these were generalities. He had the Report, which, with its appendices, was full of the most intimate details touching each class—sorters, tracers, telegraphists—and the subject had been threshed out thoroughly.
Then they were told that this would cost something. Of course it would cost something. That was the measure of the injustice, for there had been injustice. He knew the noble Lord was chivalrous, and he shared to the utmost what had been said about him, but he did not think that in quoting one uneconomic individual, a Mr. Young, who did say that the net revenues of the Post Office should go to the employees—an obvious absurdity and even for the purpose of Parlamentary debate, the Postmaster-General should not seek for a moment to fix it upon the employees themselves. They had done their best to repudiate it. He had heard it repudi-
1380
ated at public meeting after public meeting. He would say for them what he thought was a true proposition, that when they were dealing with a surplus revenue of £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 one of the first chares upon that was that all proper expenditure, including fair and just earnings and wages of those who produced the net revenue, was a first charge upon that service, and tin next charge, u less they maintained a special tax on letter writers, was the provision of additional facilities in respect to which we owed much to the noble Lord to-day for what he had proposed.
How had the noble Lord dealt with this matter? He had done something. He had done about one-sixth of what his? Committee found, upon his own estimate of what the carrying out of the Report would cost, and that was he measure of the previous injustice, But that sixth or so was not and would not be acceptable unless the wages were just and right as found by this or some other Committee which would have to deal wit it. The question was one of justice or the contrary. He believed the earners had justice on their side, but this House could not really determine the question. Take one case which was not dealt with in any way by this Report. It related to the Telegraph Office. They had heard often of a case in which they promised a prospect, through the Civil Service Commissioners, to any young telegraphist entering the service, of £190 a year. It was like the baton in the knapsack of the soldier and the possibility of his becoming Field Marshal. Very few had ever attained it. It was not a great sum as a wage for a skilled telegraphist after twenty-one years service, but nearly every pediment that could be offered had been presented. Instead of its being open to operatives, technical examinations, senior classes, and supervision had been interposed as barriers after the contract was made. He did not say it was a breach of faith but it was a breach of contract. The noble Lord proposed to leave that unredressed. He thought that was not equitable. He thought the telegraphists had a just claim in equity in that matter, for they would

1381
not be fairly dealt with until £190 maximum was conceded after twenty-one years service instead of £160. To a married man with a family, and increasingly long distances to travel, greater demands in many forms and in London certainly an increase in expenses, that was not a great sum. That was one of the cases and he added it specially to those mentioned. Without peace the work of the State could not be well carried on. In such a case parsimony was not economy.
In the reference to the Committee it was stated that the members were to inquire to the scale of pay and report whether the Wages, having regard to the wages in other occupations, were just. One of the chief members of the Committee was an eminent statistician. The official figures were at his disposal and there were also other members who knew what the current rates of wages were. There was, therefore, no need for inquiry on that point. The Committee included the head of a great railway company, a director of Harrod's Stores, and also the head of the Wholesale Co-operative Society. They were men with a concentrated knowledge which would enable them to deal with the terms submitted to them. This was a grave question of justice on the part of the State as an employer. Was it to be maintained? Was the Report to be brushed aside? If so, was the House of Commons incapable of producing fifteen impartial and efficient business men to consider the matter. If not, the House should have full and fair regard for the decision of the Committee. He desired that the State, as was represented by the Committee, should be a good employer of labour; that in its own interest it should pay proper remuneration; and that any increase in unfair cost of earning it should be a first charge on any revenue, before it was regarded and disposed of as net profit.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding. £6,920,438, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)
SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that, as one who had held the office of Postmaster-General, he
1382
should be sorry to think that any servant of the Government was not adequately paid. What was the test of adequate remuneration? Surely it was whether the market could yield labour according to the demand; and when they knew that there were five or six candidates for every position in the Post Office how was it possible to say that the pay was inadequate as compared with that in other employments? They had heard spokesmen of the Army declare that the inducement to enlist was insufficient as compared with private employment; but it was not possible to say that as regarded the Post Office. Hon. Members knew how the position of the employees of the Post Office had been advanced during the last fourteen or fifteen years. Mr. Raikes improved the pay of the establishment by £207,000; and as a result of the Tweedmouth Committee there was a further increase of £600,000. When he was Postmaster-General there were also increases; and the Duke of Norfolk and the late Mr. Hanbury followed on the same lines. Then the present Postmaster-Gene al increased the pay to the amount of £312,000; and altogether the increase in wages during the past fourteen or fifteen years amounted to £1,000,000. Nevertheless, hon. Members declared that the interests of these public servants had been disregarded. The Tweed-month Committee went exhaustively into the question and made many recommendations. These were carefully considered by the Duke of Norfolk and the late Mr. Hanbury; and the pay of the staff was increased by £600,000 per annum.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke of an agitation which would continue until what he called justice was done. At one time these employees were denied the franchise for fear they might bring undue influence to bear upon Members of Parliament in their own interest. It was not until 1874 that the Act of Parliament was altered and they were placed in the enjoyment of the franchise; but it was clearly laid down at the time that the Departments should have the right to regulate the extent to which their servants might engage in political agitation. But now hon. Members were to be

1383
seen encouraging public servants to engage in agitation. He thought it was most unfortunate that Members of the House should allow themselves to be influenced by the pressure which public servants brought to bear upon them, and should bombard the Treasury with Questions and representations with a view to extort increments of pay for these public servants, and so prevent the public service being regulated according to the rules of the labour market, viz., supply and demand. He earnestly hoped the Committee would not lend itself to this kind of pressure.
MR. SCHWANNsaid he was not surprised to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. When he was Postmaster-General he believed the right hon. Gentleman did give some small increases of two shillings a week to some of the postal employees. The right hon. Gentleman said that since that time great increases had been given to men in various grades. That was quite true, but during the same time the Post Office itself had made extensively increased profits. £500,000 profit was made in the year 1904 over the profit of 1903, and if any officials were entitled to receive additions to their pay, as he believed they were having regard to the work they had to do, it was those who made that profit. At the same time the country was repaid by the efficient carrying on of the Department. Referring to the Bradford Committee, he might say he did everything he could to urge the men to appear before it. He said it was composed of business men who, he thought, would deal impartially with the matter, but that at the same time if they leant one way more than another they would probably lean to the side of the State. Every man who was appointed on the Committee was an expert managing large numbers of employees. Yet their Report had been brushed aside and the most meagre attention had been paid to its recommendations by the Postmaster-General. Discredit had been thrown upon the Committee by the State, and he was therefore not surprised that after that took place these men should have refused to give their services to the Committee. The Post Office servants had
1384
received such treatment up to this date that they must insist on a Committee of this House being formed to deal with this matter.
Now there were one or two cases he desired to call to the attention of the Postmaster-General. The case of the sub-postmasters was one of the hardest of those which occurred under the régime of the Post Office. They had very arduous duties to perform and from the nature of those duties it was almost impossible for them to leave their offices. They were responsible for everything that occurred through the acts of their employees, and their pay was very inadequate to the services they gave. Now the sub-postmasters were a very large body. In London there were 901 sub-offices; in England and Wales 4,105; in Scotland 350, and in Ireland 210. There was a total of 5,566. There was a general impression among the sub-postmasters that every concession given to the public was really squeezed out of the sub-postmasters, and they would find that that was practically the case. In the money order business it was at one time impossible to get a money order for more than £10, and the post-master received a commission on each £. Now that it was possible to get money orders for £20, £40, and £50 the sub-postmaster missed the commission on each £10, and only got one commission on the whole. Then the parcels post had made it possible to send larger parcels, and this caused a considerable increase in the work of the sub-postmasters. With regard to sub-postmasters, the right hon. Gentleman had made a so-called concession by raising the payment for the first 1,000 money orders from 20s. to 30s. That I would benefit some of the smaller offices, but as the rate per 1,000 above 5,000 was to be decreased by 10s. the larger sub-offices would be considerable losers. For many years sub-postmasters felt that they had been tapped to provide money required in other directions, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give their complaints his serious attention.
Then as to engineers and linesmen, whom Sir W. Preece described as the backbone of the telegraph and

1385
telephone service, from 65 to 75 per cent, were not on the establishment, they were on probation, which the men thought was a very great debarment to them. They were buoyed up in the hope of being placed on the establishment, but too often the hope was illusory. Some of the supervisors had numbers of men under them, and hundreds of pounds worth of property in their charge, so that they were responsible men. It was unfair that such men should be on probation for from two to twenty-five years a term should be fixed at the close of which either the services of the men should be dispensed with, or the men themselves placed on the establishment, and receive the privilege attaching to that status. With regard to wages, they were paid for piecework at from 5d. to 5d. per hour in London, which amounted to about 23s. a week, whereas companies paid 7d. or 8d. an hour, amounting to from 31s. 6d. to 36s. a week. Moreover, when they worked outside the office they were allowed from 6d. to 8d. per day for lodgings, while the telephone company allowed 50 per cent., and some companies 200 per cent. more. Since the Bradford Committee, the men on the establishment had been docked of certain holidays, and all new men had to work fifty-four hours a week and also submit to certain reductions in the holidays awarded by the Tweedmouth Committee. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give these matters his best attention.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that from old associations his sympathies were naturally with the men in the public service. He believed that service was the best in the world, and it ought to be maintained at full strength and efficiency. His view had always best that the State should be a model employer, that it should pay its employees fairly, liberally, and even generously—not so generously as to constitute a bribe to men to enter the public service, but sufficiently to afford an example to other employers, so that through the agency of the State the standard of life might be raised rather than lowered. The general question the Committee had to consider was whether or not Post Office officials were fairly paid. The natural inclination was to pay the men as highly as possible,
1386
but how were hon. Members to judge whether these people were fairly paid? Reference had been made to profits. He regretted to read that a member of the recent deputation seemed to demand a very large share, if not the whole, of the profits of the Post Office—though certainly that was not the attitude adopted by the general body of postal servants. The State had a right to make a profit; but it should not be forgotten that for many years there had been a heavy loss on the telegraphs portion of the work, so that the question of profits had really nothing to do with the matter. An important consideration was the fact that for every post in the service there was a large number of applicants. That, after all, was the real test of the whole situation. ["No."]
The Committee had to consider not only the interests of the service, but also the interests of the taxpayer, and he declared emphatically that they must hold the balance fairly between the two. In his own constituency there were a large number of postal servants, and he would, doubtless, gain many votes if he said at once that they ought to have everything they asked for. But there were also an immense number of people anxious to get situations, and he undertook to say that hundreds, if not thousands, of them would jump at the chance of employment under the Post Office at present rates of pay. If there were so many anxious to enter the service on the terms now obtaining, he thought that was conclusive evidence that, as a whole, postal servants were not unfairly or unjustly treated. No doubt there were cases which required adjustment, and he took it, from the Postmaster-General's speech, that those-adjustments would be made. From inquiries he had made, it seemed that many men freely entered the service and then a year or two afterwards began to complain that the pay was not sufficient. That, he thought, was a very peculiar position.
He thought it unfortunate that so much pressure should be put upon Members of Parliament in connection with this matter. Ever since he had been in Parliament postal servants had been agitating for increased pay

1387
Various Committees had been appointed. As to the Tweedmouth inquiry, everybody knew that the Chairman was not likely to be influenced in any way by sordid considerations, but would endeavour to deal with the matter as liberally as possible. Practically, the carrying out of Lord Tweedmouth's suggestions involved an increased expenditure of £600,000 a year, and they thought that would have brought an end to the agitation. But it had not done so. He very much regretted that these charges were continually being made. Another test to apply to this case was the test of other employment. There was an institute carried on by the Civil Service known as the Civil Service Supply Association. It was a very large concern, commenced more than forty years ago. It was a profitable business and paid a large dividend, and out of 1,500 or 1,600 employees about 400 of them were paid less than £1 a week. Now this was an institution carried on by Civil servants themselves, who appointed the staff and settled the wages, and it was very largely on the lines of the Post Office, and it was very remarkable that they should pay such small wages. It was nevertheless a fact that they paid 25 per cent of their employees less than £1 a week. He was extremely anxious that the Post Office employees should be a contented and happy class of persons, but in this matter he sympathised with the Postmaster-General, because it seemed to him that if they were everlastingly increasing the number of persons employed by the State and by municipalities, and if they adopted a system under which there was a continual agitation for increased pay when that pay was as liberal as in any other private employment of a similar kind, the time must come when something must be done to put the system upon a different footing. He felt very strongly that this ought not to be made in any sense a Party question. It was very unfortunate that the matter could be worked in the way that it had been, by the threats of the withdrawal of support by the employees. This was a most unfortunate position of affairs and he was quite sure that Members on both sides of the House, whilst wishing to do justice to the men in every way, would remember that they had the taxpayer to consider as well as
1388
the public employee. Taxation had grown so heavy that he thought they were bound to see that they got the full value for their money, and that it was not wasted.
AN HON. MEMBER: How about South Africa?
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he certainly supported the Postmaster-General. They were bound to do that, and he hoped some measure would be adopted either for a Joint Committee to go into these questions or for a permanent body, such as the Public Accounts Committee, to look into them and see whether there was I fairness and propriety in the payments, and whether they could be satisfied that full justice was being done. If some such course was adopted, both sides of the House must do what was right and not allow pressure to be exercised unduly. So long as they allowed the system of agitation in the matter of payment in the Dublin service to continue, they would not only be permitting an injury to the staff but they would be paying more than was necessary, and undermining that real efficiency and good name of the public service which he trusted would always deservedly exist.
MR. BAYLEYsaid the hon. and gallant Member who moved the reduction of the Vote had dealt fully with the Post Office employees' grievances, but one point had not been touched upon. The Bradford Committee was appointed to settle all disputes for the time being, and the House as a whole accepted that appointment in perfect good faith, believing that the Postmaster-General and the Government were not deceiving the House of Commons in any way. The Report came out in good time and a very able Report it was. That Committee was composed of very competent business men, but the Postmaster-General, three months after receiving their Report, told the House that this Committee had exceeded the terms of reference. In such a case there was one very simple thing to do. If a Report exceeded the

1389
terms of reference the proper and courteous thing to do was to send that Report back to the Committee and ask them to explain why they had exceeded the terms of reference, or the alternative was to ask them for a fresh Report. Neither of those courses was taken. He did not think that Report had ever been acknowledged officially, and those gentlemen had not been thanked for devoting all their energies to this inquiry.
An ordinary case of law corresponded very much to this one. If they went to trial there was a period during which they could go to a Court of Appeal. When that time expired, and ether side did not avail themselves of that privilege, the judgment stood and could not be altered. The Government was exactly in that position. They did not go to the Court of Appeal for they did not send the Report back. Consequently they accepted it. It was the Government's own Court which made the inquiry, and they had allowed the time to go by for appealing. In so doing the Government had made a very great mistake, and were causing a great amount of dissatisfaction in the public service by their action in not accepting the Bradford award, and they were doing the very thing which they ought to have avoided. That disatisfaction was growing, and it had been caused by the Government and not by the employees, who were simply speaking of what they believed to be right and just. The Postmaster-General had made a very able speech, but he lacked imagination, and did not put himself in the place of the Post Office employees who felt, and felt rightly, that by not going to a Court of Appeal the Postmaster-General was keeping something back. There was a very strong feeling, not only in the House but outside, that the Government, by not carrying out the award of Sir Edward Bradford, were causing considerable irritation amongst Post Office employees in the country, and they were doing the Very thing they ought to have avoided.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that whatever might be the opinion upon the main question to be discussed, he was quite sure that the whole Com-
1390
mittee appreciated—and highly appreciated—the extremely good work that had been done by men acting under the Postmaster-General. He was satisfied that they had every confidence that the work was well done and they all desired, if there was a real grievance among a body of men like that, to have the grievance remedied. But they must be just before they were generous, and he hoped that the House of Commons would not forget their responsibility to the taxpayers, and would remember that if they did more than was necessary they were not acting fairly to the taxpayers of the country. It was a remarkable fact that whilst Members of the HOUSE of Commons were preaching economy in the public service and were finding fault with the swollen Estimates, they tried in every way to induce responsible Ministers to make larger demands upon the taxpayers for particular purposes. When a question like this came up economy was thrown to the winds and they were asked on altogether insufficient grounds to add to the burdens of the taxpayer an amount which was estimated by the Postmaster-General, and he thought agreed to by the hon. Member for South Islington, at something like £2,400,000.
LORD STANLEY; If the amount asked for by the employees before the Committee had been granted it would have amounted to £2,500,000 but the amount awarded under the Bradford Committee would have been £1,300,000.
MR. RITCHIE: I think the hon. Member for South Islington spoke about the amount as being six or seven times more.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: What I said was that the noble Lord offered about one sixth of what was asked for by the Report of the Committee, but I may say that I do not even agree with that estimate of my noble friend the Postmaster-General.
MR. RITCHIE: I rather gathered from my noble friend that the amount will ultimately reach a sum over £300,000.
LORD STANLEY: £372,000.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: That was not my calculation but in that case it will be somewhat more than one-sixth.
MR. RITCHIEsaid it was very little short of the sum he stated. The estimated cost of carrying out the proposals was between £2,000,000 and £2,400,000. That was the amount which the hon. Gentleman seriously contemplated casting upon the shoulders of the already heavily-burdened tax-payer.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: That was not a calculation of mine. I thought the sum stated by my noble friend was somewhat less. It is not a question now of what the men claimed but of what the Postmaster-General himself estimated as the cost of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee, viz., £1,250,000, and it was to a sixth of this estimate (not my own) I referred. None of the figures were mine.
MR. RITCHIEsaid it was not worth while quarrelling with the hon. Gentleman about the figures. At any rate, it would amount to something like £2,000,000. That was the amount which the hon. Gentleman was indignant that the Government did not at once concede. The demands were made irrespective of the amount they would cost.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: That statement is incorrect.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that if it could be shown that this amount was really necessary in order to do justice to the employees of the State he for one would not, and he did not believe that the taxpayers would, grudge it. But he would grudge, and he believed the taxpayers would grudge, the expenditure of this amount of money unless it was clearly shown that it was necessary in the public interest and in order to do justice to the employees. This claim was based on the Report of the Bradford Committee which had been spoken of as an arbitration committee. He should be very much astonished if any member of any Government would ever consent to occupy the position of saying that when a reference was made
1392
to a Committee he would feel himself bound to accept the conclusions of the Committee, whatever expense might be involved. The responsibility rested upon the Government and upon the Minister, and it was for them or him to consider the recommendations of the Committee. It was for him to consider all these matters and to come to a decision on his responsibility, and to make such recommendations as he might deem necessary to the House of Commons. It could not be otherwise it would be absurd to suppose that a Minister could discharge his responsibility, and especially his responsibility as to finance, by referring the matter to a Committee. He found that so far as the applications for employment were concerned, the number of applicants for posts in the General Post Office had been so great as to show that, in the opinion of those desirous of entering the public service, this was a very desirable service.
When his hon. friend the Member for South Islington spoke of those particular employees not being able to commence their career with a salary which would enable them to live comfortably he should like to ask him what service there was where the initial salary could provide for that contingency. Not only did the number of applicants show that it was a popular service, but that those who entered into it were satisfied with the terms offered. It had been, shown by elaborate comparisons with other Departments that the employees of the Post Office were not only on an equivalent in the remuneration they were paid, but in a large number of cases they were in a superior position to the other: classes of employees which had been mentioned, and that whether they judged by comparison of the number of the employees or the number of applicants for this particular employment, it was clear that there was no warrant from the-public point of view for the expenditure of so large a sum of public money as they were asked to expend by adopting the conclusions of the Bradford Committee. The Postmaster-General had naturally considered the Report and the evidence, and he had been led to make a considerable amelioration in the position, of a large number of employees. He was sure they,

1393
must recognise that the sum he had mentioned was by no means an insignificant sum to give to the class of public servants which they were now discussing.
Something had been said about appointing a Parliamentary Committee. No worse tribunal could be appointed for considering questions of this kind—a Committee consisting of politicians whether of one Party or the other. There were employees of the Post Office who had bombarded Members of Parliament with letters day by day asking them to come down to the House of Commons and support their proposals. But these employees did not confine themselves to these letters, objectionable as he thought they were. They actually used threats—unmistakeable threats—at a time when a general election was within measurable distance, and that made things much worse from the point of view he was now discussing. They were asked at such a time to refer the wages of these people to a Committee consisting of politicians. There surely could be no more unfit tribunal for determining a matter of this kind, and the Government would be most wrong and badly advised if they consented to anything of this kind. He did not in the least deny tint people in the public service should be allowed to make proper representations in order to obtain a remedy for any grievance under which they suffered, but he was perfectly certain that these letters continually coming from individuals in one's own constituency—sometimes a dozen in a day—was a wrong way to make representations. He was perfectly certain that representations made in a proper manner would always be considered by the Postmaster-General or any member of the Government whose Department was concerned, but this kind of representation the Government and the House of Commons were bound to resist to the utmost of their power. He was very glad to hear that the Postmaster-General had been able to make some amelioration and to adopt some of the proposals made by the Committee, but he hoped that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in considering what were the just demands of public employees, would also consider
1394
what were their duties towards the taxpayers of the country, and at a time like the present, when they groaned under very heavy taxation, he hoped they would set their faces resolutely against any such demand as that made on behalf of the Post Office employees.
MR. NANNETTIsupported the Amendment moved by his hon. friend. The noble Lord said this agitation began in an application for a Parliamentary Committee in 1903. He begged to remind the noble Lord that when the application was made for a Parliamentary Committee in 1903, it was not for an inquiry into the question of wages alone, but for an inquiry into all the grievances alleged at that time to permeate the postal service. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, on that occasion, when he found that the feeling of the House was against him, agreed to have the question of wages placed before the Committee. On that occasion he protested and said that the appointment of the Committee was merely to throw dust in the eyes of the postal service, and he thought he had been justified by the events which hid taken place, because the findings of that Committee had, to use the words of the noble Lord, been brushed aside. Some miserable doles had been handed out to the men which could not possibly satisfy them, and which could only lead to continued dissension and agitation and loss of time in this House considering the grievances.
Several hon. Members had stated that considerable feeling had been aroused in England, Scotland, and Wales over the action of the Government in brushing aside the findings of the Committee. Speaking for Ireland he could only say that a feeling of indignation and disgust permeated the whole postal service in regard to the manner in which they had been treated in connection with these findings. The sorters, telegraphists, and postmen, one and all, were dissatisfied with the decision of the noble Lord in regard to these findings, and he could promise the noble Lord that every possible effort would be made to bring about a reversal of the policy he had adopted, and to have a Committee of this House appointed so that the full measure of

1395
their demands should be conceded. On May 11th, 1903, he ventured to make the following observations—
"They were told that the Committee that the Postmaster-General had promised to appoint was to be an impartial Committee, but he believed that so far from dealing with the grievances it would have the effect of accentuating them, and that the complaints would all come up again. He therefore warned the postal servants to have nothing to do with it."
He was sorry to say that his advice was not taken at that time. The responsible officers thought it would be well to see what would be the findings of the Committee. They went to great expense for the purpose of getting up their case and they gave evidence before the Committee. After nine months the Committee arrived at their conclusions and reported that the wages of the postal servants were inadequate, and consequently they recommended an improvement in the scale. How had these recommendations been carried out? The noble Lord, in memorable words, had stated that the recommendations had been brushed aside, and a scale of increase had been adopted which was not commensurate with the demands which had been made upon him. It was not necessary for him to again quote the figures which had been given by the noble Lord. Comparisons had been made between the pay of compositors and that of postmen; but that comparison should have been all on the side of the compositor and not on that of the postman. He knew that because he was a compositor himself. A compositor after serving a five years apprenticeship began on full wages of 38s. a week; but it was only after a long term of years that a postal servant, even after he was fully competent, enjoyed a salary of £60 or £70 a year. The increase sanctioned by the noble Lord could not be accepted; and the sooner the House made up its mind to appoint a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the whole question the better. It had been proved that seething discontent existed in the postal service, altogether outside the wages question. The Government had, ignored the finding of the Bradford Committee, the members of which had been snubbed in such a way that it would be found difficult to appoint other Committees who would serve on such
1396
inquiries. The noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have forgotten that when an appeal was made to appoint that Departmental Committee, consent was not given until it was found that the strong feeling of the House was against them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said that—
"For his part he was confident that by men of both political Parties he should be supported in his decision to take this question of the wages of the servants of the Post Office out of the sphere of Party conflict, and get a verdict which would be received with confidence."
Well, that Committee had been appointed, and its verdict had been given; but had it been received with perfect confidence by the Treasury Bench? On the contrary, the findings of that Committee, appointed by themselves, had not been accepted by the Government. What was the complaint against that Committee? That they did not go out of their sphere of reference and take evidence as a roving Commission in regard to wages paid in other trades. But that was unnecessary, seeing that the wages returns of all I trades could have been found in the Labour Gazette for the last ten years. And what did the noble Lord, the present I Postmaster-General, say on another occasion?—
"All such questions as pay should be referred not to this House, but to some judicial body who could feel no outside influence, and look at the matter as between employer and employed, with the object of giving to the employed those wages which in the open market a good employer would give to his employees, and at the same time protecting the master from any outside influence."
Well, the Bradford Committee was a judicial Committee, but the noble Lord refused to carry out its findings. He advised the men at that time as to the course which they should take; and he was right. The men were justified in continuing their agitation for a Parliamentary Committee; but afterwards they gave their case away by giving evidence before the Bradford Committee. Now they saw their mistake; and their demand for a Parliamentary inquiry could no longer be denied. He thought that if the House wanted to settle this question once and for ever, that could only be accomplished by the appointment of such a Committee. The men themselves had promised that they

1397
would accept the finding of such a Committee. To talk about the interests of the taxpayer was all very well; but what about the money wasted in the South African War, in the doles to landlords, and in the South African stores scandals? He was sure that the taxpayers did not want this House to be shabby employers, but that they wanted to pay fair wages for fair work. It was, indeed, the duty of the State to pay its employees such a wage as to keep them from the starvation point.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he could not feel the same disregard to the interests of the taxpayers as some hon. Members appeared to have. Neither could he agree that because there had been extravagant expenditure in the South African War, therefore, there should be extravagant expenditure on the postal officials—if it could be called extravagant expenditure. The fault he himself found with the Treasury was that they paid far too little attention to the taxpayer. Every Member who came to the consideration of the point now raised—viz., whether the wages of the postal servants should be raised beyond their present point—approached it with a double allegiance and a divided duty. They had, in the first place, to consider it from the standpoint of allegiance to the taxpayers; and in the second place, with proper feeling for the welfare of the men in the postal service, especially for those in the lower ranks, whose wages he considered very small. He was not going into the question of the living wage. He did not know what that might be. It depended always on where a man lived, the man's own mind, and the prevailing fashion, and circumstances of the locality. After all, the question which the House was asked to ascertain and decide was what were the proper rates of wages to pay to postal servants? He could conceive of no tribunal less qualified to give a decision on that point than this House—either in itself or by a Select Committee of the House or by any such Standing Committee, as had been now suggested.
How were they to arrive at a proper rate of wages for a good piece of work? He knew of no other method than that pursued in the ordinary avocations of
1398
life. In those avocations, the rate of wages was arrived at by higgling and haggling and bargaining between employers and trades unions. They had trades unions as representative of the organised forces of the workers, who dealt with the employers. The employers were also organised; and when finally a figure was arrived at between them after negotiation, the employers had the enormous advantage that they might accept the decision as final and that it was perfectly certain it would be carried out. That was one of the great uses of trades unions, that they gave bargaining power to the workman and security to the employer. But in the case of the postal servants no adequate trade union was possible, because there was only one employer. The Post Office servants could not call out one section of employees so as to bring pressure to bear on another employer. Of course he was well aware that there was a very strong, compact body of Post Office employees, led by very capable leaders, who put their case in a very precise way. But they could not yet, for many reasons, as other trades unions acted, and their only course was to circularise Members of this House with arguments in which persuasion certainly did too often approach menace. He hoped that Members of that House, while ready to consider argument, would never allow themselves to be influenced by menace, which would be found in the long run, not to help but to injure those who used it. The question then remained a specially difficult one—what were the proper wages? The Post Office employed 183,000 servants. Every variety of duty was fixed upon them, with, consequently every variety of remuneration, from the rural postman, who received a few shillings a week, to the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench, who received a relatively exiguous and insufficient salary. What Select Committee of that House, what Standing Committee, what permanent body of any sort, was competent to settle the salary of the noble Lord and the wages of the rural postman? It was perfectly impossible. They must really have worn the shoe to know where it pinched, and how the remedy was to be made. The noble Lord made what be thought was a very frank and manly

1399
speech, though, the expressions "black-mail" and "blood-suckers" were, he respectfully submitted, too strong. There might be some leaders of the organisation to whom those terms might be applied, but he was certain that the great body of these public servants did not deserve them.
LORD STANLEYsaid he did not for one moment think of applying them to the whole service.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad of that explanation. Without it the expressions would, he was sure, have unjustly wounded a very worthy body of public servants. He had personal experience of the unscrupulous methods adopted by individuals but still the terms of the noble Lord could not be applied to the service generally. He thought the noble Lord had made what must be regarded as very considerable concessions indeed. They involved, to begin with, an additional charge on the taxpayers of £224,000, and when those concessions reached their maximum in ten or fifteen years that amount would be increased to £372,000 a year. Surely this was a very large increase in the wages of the postal servants. Hon. Members who argued that that was not sufficient, and who wanted another Committee, should first ask the postal servants whether they were now satisfied or not. He thought they probably would be. The Bradford Committee was not, he thought, very happily constituted and was no better fitted to fix rates of wages for the Post Office than would be a Committee of this House, for so special a case as the Post Office. The rate of wages must be arrived at and fixed by the people who knew and who were concerned. The test for a Department like the Post Office was whether there was a sufficient number of candidates to fill the vacancies, and no better best had yet been suggested. But even when the rate of wages was fixed it was only fixed for the moment. They could not fix it permanently, and in two, ten, or twenty years the whole question would or might have to be reconsidered. That was another argument against a Committee. He had come down to the House with a perfectly open mind on this subject, but, having heard both sides
1400
the question, he felt bound to say that the Postmaster-General had made great concessions and had established good case. The Postmaster-General had shown, moreover, a proper sense of duty in refusing to shoulder off his responsibility on any Select or Standing Committee. Consequently he should feel it his duty to support the Government.
MR. PLATT-HIGGINS, referring to the grievances of the engineering branch and storekeepers, said whereas the idea, so far as he could see, was that more or less every branch of the service should have some addition to its pay, these employees had had their wages reduced and their hours increased. The maximum for linemen and battery men in past times was 40s. a week, but now it had been reduced to 38s. a week, while their hours had been increased from fifty and a-half hours to fifty-four hours a week.
LORD STANLEYsaid he had classified them differently, and there were more now at the higher rate.
MR. PLATT-HIGGINSsaid the hours of these servants had been increased, and in respect of certain allowances they had well-founded grievances. Moreover, only 25 per cent, of them were on the established list, and he hoped his noble friend would undertake to increase that percentage. Then with regard to lodging claims. When he was in business years ago he always paid 2s. a day for lodging allowance where a man had to go about the country and sleep in a different bed every night. The Postmaster-General allowed 6d. What kind of bed could be got for 6d? He hoped the noble Lord would give his attention to these matters. If he did, he would find that these servants were anything but fairly treated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,said his noble friend authorised him to say that he would look into the matters raised by the hon. Member for Salford. He hoped the Committee would not think it impertinent of him to intervene in the discussion, but he was doubly interested in the main

1401
subject of the debate, whether the Government were or were not justified in declining to adopt in toto the recommendations of the Bradford Committee. In the first place, as Postmaster-General, he was responsible for appointing that Committee, and in the second, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the guardian of the public purse, he felt bound to place before the House his views when the public revenue was seriously threatened. Hon. Gentlemen had alleged that by his action in appointing this Committee he had bound himself in honour to accept their Report, whatever it might be, and to carry it into effect. The hon. Member for Huddersfield had quoted a phrase of his, in which he had spoken of his expectation or hope that he might obtain from the Committee an impartial and judicial decision. He thought it was too much to lay all this stress on a single word uttered in the course of a speech delivered in that House where no verbal preparation was possible; but, if those words were open to misconception, they were corrected in the course of the same debate; for, in reply to the hon. Member for Battersea, who accused him of shirking responsibility, he had said that be did not consider he was in any way derogating from his position by asking other gentlemen for advice, and that his responsibility must remain intact and undiminished.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid that a fortnight later the right hon. Gentleman used these words—
"I intend the Committee to be a Committee sitting to give judgment, and not a Committee sitting to advocate the interests of one side or the other."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was true, and what he had then laid stress on was the impartial character of the Committee. If he used any words which compared this Committee with a judicial tribunal it was in respect of the impartiality which he hoped would attend their deliberations, and which he thought was essential. But was there the idea in any man's mind at that moment that thus Committee was to bring in a verdict which should be binding on both parties? His noble friend had already read some of the statements made by the employees
1402
or their representatives, and he would supplement them by a quotation from the Telegraph Chronicle of August 26th last year, actually after this Report had been published—
"In writing to Members of Parliament it should be made very clear that we do not regard the Bradford Report as a substitute for that programme"—
the programme adopted at Liverpool—
"That Report may be a concession, but it is not all …. We never recognised the impartiality of the Committee nor its fitness to deal with our case. We shall not accept its Report as a final settlement."
It was only the representatives of the taxpayer who were to be bound; the employees themselves were to be free to recommence their agitation to-morrow, even if to-day the House of Commons gave them all that for the moment they asked.
There were one or two general considerations. It was the desire of the House of Commons that the employees of the State should be fairly and even well paid, but they had other obligations besides. They were trustees for the great mass of the people, who under no circumstances could expect to be employees of the State; and the money with which they paid those who were selected for the service of the State was contributed by that great mass, often worse off, very often no better off, than the servants of the State themselves. They had a double duty in that House—a duty to be fair to the servants of the State and a duty to be just to the taxpayers, who could secure protection from none but the House of Commons. And if this was at all times true, it was especially true in times like these, when the burdens on the taxpayers were very heavy. By a single vote in the House of Commons they might increase those burdens by millions of money. There was a growing demand for fresh services to be undertaken by the public, and unless they were economical in the conduct of the services for which they were already responsible they would bring that movement to disaster. They would force public bodies of every kind to retrace their steps after the ratepayers and taxpayers had borne an enormous burden unless there was economical management of this great business. In his view, even the parity and integrity

1403
of public life was involved in this matter. The worst form of corruption that could be found in public life in other countries was due to the system which had grown up of employing more men than were needed to do public work and paying them rather more than their work was worth. In this way they gradually produced a system which rested upon corruption and which became part of their political life, and, once it had taken hold, they found it almost impossible to control it. To create a privileged class of public employees either doing less work or earning more pay than they could earn in good employment of a similar character outside was to strike at the root of our free institutions, to poison them at their source, and to vitiate all that followed from them. It was for that reason that in drafting the reference to this Committee he put in the words—
"That the Committee, in making their recommendations, shall have regard to the conditions of employment of the classes they deal with, and to the rates of wages current in other occupations."
He ventured to say that that was the only standard by which they could test the fairness of the rates the Government paid.
His hon. friend had read the paragraph in which the Committee stated that they had not seen their way to obtain any specific evidence as to the comparative rates of wages current in other occupations. They explained this by saying that they had the Returns of the Board of Trade before them, and that they had had business experience of their own. If he had been relying only on their business experience he should have asked them to give evidence, and he should not have appointed a Committee to take evidence. But that was not all. Not only did they make up their minds not to take any of the evidence which was directly pointed to in the terms of reference, but they themselves had laid down principles which in their opinion should govern the State in these matters. The Committee said they thought postal employees were justified in resting their claims to remuneration on the responsible and exacting character of the duties they performed, and on the social position they filled as servants of the State. He did not know the exact meaning of that
1404
sentence, but he presumed it meant that they were to be in some way separate from and more favoured than any of their fellow-workmen in any employment not paid for by the State. That principle was a departure from anything that any responsible Minister or any responsible Government had ever accepted. It would leave wages either to a haphazard determination by the Minister of the day, or any equally haphazard demand which the employees might choose to make. Applying their principles the Committee went on to make the very remarkable statements which had been read by his noble friend. Those passages showed why it was not possible for the Government to adopt that Report and why no responsible Government, without a breach of their duty to the country, had ever adopted a Report based upon those principles. There would never be settlement for a day if they said it was only necessary for employees to express discontent in order to have the question of wages reopened and in order to be able to demand an increase.
The Committee having dealt with the matter as they had done, the Government had been forced to do for themselves that which they hoped the Committee might do for them. They had been obliged to make comparisons of wages for themselves, examples of which his noble friend had already given to the House. These comparisons showed, he said, that there was no justification for the wholesale increase in the wages of Post Office officials which the Bradford Committee recommended. Might he just give one or two other figures? Hon. Gentlemen might suppose from the way the case was presented, that little or no advance had been made in recent years in the salaries of the Post Office employees. Let him take one or two comparisons between 1885 and 1903, giving for each year the average weekly pay. The average weekly pay of male sorters in London in 1885 was 28s. 5d., and in 1903 it was 40s. 8d., a rise of 43·1 per cent. Male telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office received in 1885 28s. 10d. and in 1903 40s. 2d., an increase of 39·3 per cent. In the rest of the United Kingdom male sorting clerks and telegraphists, who in 1885 earned an average

1405
weekly wage of 27s. 2d., received in 1903 an average wage of 33s. 2d., a rise of 22· 08 per cent. Postmen of all grades who in the earlier year earned on the average 19s. 10d. had risen to 24s. 6d., showing an increase of 23·52 per cent. These increases were given before the additions which had been made by his noble friend. The Committee, therefore, would see how large had been the increase already given.
He asked the Committee to consider what would be the cost of doing that which they were asked to do to-day. His noble friend had given the figures showing what the recommendations of the Bradford Committee would cost if carried out. Did the Committee realise that, if the recommendations of the Bradford Committee had been in full operation this year, there could have been no reduction in taxation, and that the tea duty would have remained at 8d. instead of being, as now, at 6d.? Did they realise, what was a far more serious consideration, that the demands of the Post Office servants were only the beginning of the matter, and if they were conceded there were many other grades of Civil servants which must be treated on the same basis, to the great increase of the expenditure of the country? He did not hesitate to say that the demand represented by the Report of the Bradford Committee would mean at the very least an increase of the sugar duty by 50 per cent. That was the least which the taxpayers of the country were asked to pay in order that a privileged few might maintain their social position as servants of the State.
The question at issue was not one between the two political Parties. It was above Parties. It was whether there was to be good economical government in this country at all, or whether Civil servants in the employment of the Crown could make such use of their votes, as citizens, for the purely selfish purpose of forcing the public to pay more for their services and so increase the expense of a great Department of State. He did not know how long they
1406
could go on in the position they had now reached, under which pressure was brought to bear on hon. Members of all Parties by their constituents. He was certain that if any scheme could be devised, such as was foreshadowed by his hon. friend the Member for North Islington, so-that they might take this question altogether out of the region of political life—not merely out of Party life but out of Parliamentary life—it would be a great advantage. It would tend to preserve the Civil Service free from that political influence and independent of the changing fortunes of political Parties which had been their great boast and security in the past. If there were a general feeling in the House that an object of that kind was one on which all Parties might well co-operate, then His Majesty s Government, whilst maintaining as resolutely as they had in past years their objection to referring these specific grievances to a Select Committee appointed in the ordinary way for that particular purpose, would be prepared to assent to the appointment of a Committee of this House consider the state of affairs which had arisen; to see if they could devise some remedy for it, to lay down the principles by which they should be governed in these matters; and to advise whether it would be possible to establish some permanent body or Commission, outside the sphere of electoral pressure and above and beyond any of our Party conflicts, which might advise the Government in applying those principles to particular cases. Such a Committee could, of course, only be successfully conceded with the goodwill of all Patties in the House; and if the whole House were animated by a desire, if possible, to set this question at rest. With that goodwill, he thought, it might serve a useful purpose. The object to be attained was of such vast importance that he, for one, would not refuse any method by which they might hope successfully to compass it and to maintain the Civil Service in that high position of which, with its great traditions they had such just cause to be proud and. such good reason to be grateful for.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 249. (Division List No. 248.)
And, it being after 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.
  ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTY OF LONDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).

    SECOND READING
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BOUSFIELsaid he had been asked to support the Motion as a London Member. If the House would give dispassionate consideration to the Bill, they must necessarily come to the conclusion that, for good or evil, it would have an immense bearing on the future of London in the development of industrial enterprises. They would hardly-find, among the keenest opponents of the Bill, any one taking the view that the supply of electric energy to London, at a price of somewhere about ¾d. a unit, would not be a boon of inestimable advantage to London. On the 600,000 h. p. machinery now other wise propelled in London, it was estimated that an annual turn of about £3,500,000 would be saved by electrical power at such
    1412
    a figure, but the large gain to existing proprietors of machinery would be small compared with the advantage to London as a whole, industrially and economically. Cheap electrical power meant that they might have again that system of small industries carried on in London, especially in the East End, which had been gradually displaced in favour of large factories and. companies with very heavy capital. It might mean almost a revolution in the conditions of labour in the East End of London. Apart from that, 250 large users of machinery all over London had united, in petitioning that that Bill should pass. What had succeeded on the Tyne must necessarily succeed in London, where the price of coal was enormously enhanced; but it was one of the essentials for success of such an undertaking that it must be conducted on purely business lines and bring in the bulk of the users of power. It must be located where seaborne coal could be supplied, for cheap coal was the very crux of the whole thing, and this company had arranged for its supply to generating stations on the Thames at a maximum of 8s. 6d. a ton. Another condition of success was that very large units for the generation of power should be used, and the company proposed to use steam turbines of 20,000 h.p. capacity. A fourth requisite was that the supply of power should be constant and available at all times, quite independent of electric lighting.
    Could the existing companies and municipalities do the work this company-proposed to do with their existing plant? It seemed to him that their existing

    1413
    plant was unsuited for the work. They were founded for the supply of electric light, and at the time of the maximum demand for light practically the whole of their plant was taken up in the supply of light, and the location of their generating stations was absolutely inconsistent with economy in coal and the ability to supply power cheaply. It was said that they were already supplying power at 1d. or ¾d. but that was only an ad captandum assertion. It happened that for a considerable period of the day in winter and for a longer period in summer they had plant more than sufficient to cope with the lighting demands, and, therefore, during such periods it paid them to supply power or the mere cost of the coal. He contended that it was only when power was sold as a by-product that the London companies and municipalities could sell it cheaply. But they could not supply power steadily at the same time that they were supplying the maximum demand for light. Therefore to supply the maximum demand for power more plant would be required. If they did it by combination—and he did not know how they could do that—they must raise the necessary capital exactly as this company was going to do, and must erect plant in the same locality and work on exactly the same lines.
    Was the establishment of the proposed company fair to the existing companies and municipalities? He contended that it would be grossly unfair for the latter to try to monopolise the supply of power. Theirs were essentially lighting undertakings, and stood on a wholly different footing from the supply of power, which was just as much a by-product with them as coke was a by-product in the manufacture of gas. Then, again, the whole of their capital was profitably occupied with the supply of light and was only just sufficient for that purpose. There were clauses in the Bill which provided that the company should not supply power in the districts of existing undertakers without the consent of the Board of Trade, and if that consent was given the company would be placed under the same requirements as those undertakers were themselves. He believed it would be a great boon to existing companies and
    1414
    municipalities to be able to buy energy from this company on the terms on which it proposed to sell, that was to say, at a price at which they could not hope to produce it themselves. In his opinion the London municipalities had taken a wrong line on this Bill. Moreover, they were already beginning to see that it was to their true interest that this company should be established. Stepney, for instance, had agreed to take all further power from the company, and by so doing would save at a blow a quarter of a million of capital which would have had to be spent on generating stations. The supply of electric power to London would some day become as important as the supply of water, and it might be necessary in the interests of London to create an Electricity Board similar to the Water Board. If this were ever done, Parliament would have to decide who should be entrusted with the undertaking. He would only add that in order to avoid the possibility of excessive claims by the company in the event of a purchase of the undertaking in the future, the company suggested that the Select Committee should settle the terms of purchase now, and that such terms should exclude any allowance for compulsory purchase, goodwill, or prospective value. He submitted that nothing could be fairer than that. He hoped the House would give a Second Beading to the Bill. If the House took the responsibility on the Second Reading of withdrawing this Bill from the consideration of the Committee upstairs it might be doing an injury of great magnitude to London.
    MR. REMNANTsaid he agreed that opposition should not be offered to this Bill unless there was some strong reason for doing so upon grounds of public policy. Whilst he was anxious to give London the cheapest supply which it was possible to give, he differed from his hon. friend as to the way in which that object should be accomplished. The House was asked to confer enormous and unprecedented powers of supplying energy upon a small speculative syndicate in no way connected with London. The company not only asked for powers in the Metropolitan area, but added the words "and adjoining districts." in the Metropolitan area and

    1415
    a great part of these adjoining districts there was already available a supply of electrical energy in the hands of local authorities and companies acting under statutory powers. The companies were bound to supply every one who required a supply, and at this moment, not withstanding the assertions of his hon. friend, they were in a position to supply all present demands and all possible demands for all purposes at a price not exceeding a maximum which was liable to periodical revision by the Board of Trade.
    MR. TENNANT: At what time?
    MR. REMNANTsaid if the hon. Member opposite would wait until the finish of his remarks he should be very glad to give some facts which would satisfy even him upon that point. These statutory undertakings were open to purchase by the local authorities after a certain period, and they were debarred from combining. These obligations might have been rightly imposed at the time when they were imposed, but at present the companies would be glad to be free from them, and to group themselves together for the purpose of supplying electrical energy in bulk. In the belief that the Board of Trade would not give powers to any other body on more favourable conditions £14,000,000 of public money had been provided. It had been urged that power and lighting ought to be divorced from one another. On the contrary, if electric companies were to be commercial successes, it was desirable that they should not be obliged to confine their work to one branch of electrical energy.
    The Bill was exceedingly unfair to the existing authorities. It proposed to allow a speculative syndicate to compete with them unhampered by the same restrictions, and to compete with them in the best and most remunerative part of the present supply. This unequal competition had been sanctioned by the Board of Trade, and it had been sanctioned although no fault had been found with the present companies or with the way in which they had been managed. Those companies had done their work extremely well, and no com-
    1416
    plaints were made against them; and yet the Board of Trade had sanctioned this free competition as against the restricted competition under which the companies now had to work. The existing companies came into working existence under circumstances and conditions which, in his opinion, rendered their unfair disturbance now an actual breach of Parliamentary faith. He wished to remind the House that in the year. 1882 when it was first suggested that these, statutory powers should be given to these companies it was proposed that they should only be granted them for a term of twenty-one years. It turned out that they were unable to get from the public a sufficient amount of I money subscribed under those conditions to carry out their undertakings. They then applied to the Board of Trade, and after a considerable time had elapsed it was agreed that because the public would not subscribe the money at twenty-one years the period should be forty-two years; and now before that period bad expired it was proposed to introduce a competitor into London free from the restrictions imposed upon the existing companies. Where were they going to draw the line? From what he could gather, they would be only too glad to have an opportunity of being free from the restrictions imposed upon them and of entering into free competition with any competitors the Board of Trade chose to allow to enter the area of London. Any monopoly on the part of the present companies was guarded against by a clause in the Act which allowed any competitor to come in, but that clause laid down also that any competitor should be subject to the same restrictions as they. If this Bill were allowed to pass the property of the companies would be diminished by no fault of their own, but because of a wrong impression that London itself was unable to supply all the electric power needed and that it was necessary to go outside and allow a speculative syndicate to come into London and take the best part of the area. The Lords' Committee recognised the hardships which would be inflicted on the companies, but in spite of that it was now proposed to allow the syndicate to come in unrestrained by the present restrictions imposed on the statutory companies.

    1417
    Ha denied that the existing companies were unable to supply the total demand in periods of stress. He was afraid that upon this point the hon. Member for North Hackney could not have got his facts from headquarters. He would take one company as an illustration which was supplying over 40 per cent, of its total output for motive energy. [An HON. MEMBER: Name.] The company he referred to was the County of London Electric Supply Company. This company supplied 11,000,000 units per annum, whereas their total capacity was 30,000,000 units per annum. What was true in this case was true in others. The great demand for electrical energy had only been created within the last few years, but, nevertheless, these statutory companies, realising that they would have to do their best for London, had invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in order to provide for the demand which they saw rapidly approaching. The company to which he had alluded, although hampered by the restrictions which had been imposed upon them by the Board of Trade, was supplying large consumers with electric energy for ·75 of a penny, or ¾d. per unit, and they had actually under offer the supply of power at a cost of ·45 of a penny. Great injustice would be done to the public if this proposal was admitted, for it would take away the most remunerative part of the area of the present companies. As far as he could see and hear, Parliament had never taken away rights which had been formally granted and upon the strength of which large sums had been expended. If this Bill were passed it would enable it to be said that business men could no longer rely on Parliament to protect the interests which it had itself brought into being and on the faith of which public money had been subscribed and invested. The passage of a Bill of this character would seriously and detrimentally affect public confidence in such undertakings, and would go a very long way in the direction of handicapping new industries in this country. He hoped the House would refuse to sacrifice the interests of the whole community for the aggrandisement of a speculative syndicate which dame to
    1418
    London to do what London was quite able to do for itself.
    MR. JOHN BUENS, in seconding the Motion for rejection, said that it was only the fortune of the ballot that sent this Bill to another place first, so that the London Members could not be heard on Second Reading. That was why the Bill should be debated now. The Committee of the House of Lords was entitled to respect; but its Members were less commercially-minded than the House of Commons and they seemed to be innocent of the wiles of the provincial promoter. The Lords' Committee did not consider the most vital concession which had now been made by the promoters they did not see the purchase clause which had been unloaded at the last hour to save this improper and dangerous Bill from destruction. That fact alone was sufficient reason for the rejection of the Bill. The new clause was not similar to other clauses of the kind. It was evasive, illusory, and indefinite as to the number of years, and innocent men like himself not used to Stock Exchange speculation, would say that it lent itself to marketable purposes more than similar clauses in existing companies Acts. The clause altered the Bill from top to bottom yet neither the local authorities nor any of the other interests concerned had seen it, and it was really one of the most unsatisfactory attempts to avoid a Second Reading rejection he had ever seen. He was really surprised that the hon. Member for Hackney should appear as the advocate of an organisation formed for the purpose of exploiting London, seeing that only two years back he supported and backed a Bill, the object of which was to prevent such a possibility. But how many more London Members would take the same; course?
    MR. BOUSFIELD: The majority of them.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that would be seen when the division was taken. At any rate, they would not support the Bill for the re sons put forward by the hon. Member for Hackney, who said that he-supported this Bill in the interests of

    1419
    small industries. Did the hon. Member wish to go back to the hand-loom and the paleolithic order of industry? If he did, this Bill was the very opposite of what he wanted for it would crush out many small undertakings. In the words of the American saying, "Big fish eat little fish, and little fish have to eat mud," and when the hon. Member urged the acceptance of this Bill "in the interests of the smaller industries of the East End," he was defending the East End in a very remarkable way. The House heard a great deal about the unemployed in connection with this s abject, and multi-millionaires had come to him with tsars in their throats, "with bated breath and whispering humbleness," to say, "John, in the interest of the unemployed, support our Bill." But if the claim of the promoters was true, it would rather damage the unemployed, because its object was to cheapen production. But he would not trouble so much about that argument if this Bill were moral, honest, and equitable. The advance of machinery could not be resisted, and being an engineer he was all for cheap energy, cheap light, and the summoning of the latent forces of nature to do man's work. It was because he believed all this could be done better by other agencies that he opposed the Bill.
    Then, as to the necessity for having cheap coal, many of the principal existing stations were already situated on the river, and some of the councils availed themselves of the use of canals, so that they were able to get river and seaborne coal quite as cheaply as this company would be able to do. As to power being a by product, Shoreditch alone last year sold 2,300,000 units of energy for light and 1,200,030 units for power. How could it be called a by product when from 40 to 50 per cent, of the total energy was supplied for power? The municipalities were not on the wrong line; they were where they were three years ago, when the hon. Member for Hackney supported a Bill for empowering borough councils to link up and buy out existing companies, and go in for a bulk undertaking. He appealed to provincial Members who attached importance to the principles of local government to support the municipalities of London. There were
    1420
    sixteen borough councils in London definitely against the Bill. Nearly all the extra-Metropolitan authorities whose jurisdiction the Bill invaded were also against it, and the City Corporation, which knew something about syndicates, especially in connection with electric light, was strongly with the borough councils against the Bill. Then there was the County Council, whose interest in this question was not that stated by his old employer Sir George Taubman Goldie in The Times that morning. Sir George Taubman Goldie represented that he was primarily responsible for the County Council being in opposition to the Bill. That was not the case. He admitted that he was fond of London, and generally stood up for it; but that was a virtue, not a fault. If he were twitted with standing up for the present companies, he would remind the House of the old saying, "Better the devil you know than the devil you who not of." The thirteen companies had many faults, but they had passed through many troubles and difficulties; and when a private enterprise asked for a Parliamentary guarantee for a term of years, during which it would exhaust its shareholders' money in pursuit of a public object, Parliament ought to hesitate before casting these companies lightly on one side and subjecting them to an enterprise which had bigness for its justification, money for its present object, and lobbying and canvassing to an extent that would make a Philadelphia lawyer blush. There were twenty-nine private and public undertakings in London working to produce light and power, and the House was asked to brush them on one side, that the borough councils should "scrap" their £6,000,000 of plant raised by the money of the ratepayers, that the £14,000,000 invested in the thirteen companies should be ignored in the interests of an undertaking that had only bigness, but not greatness, as its claim to recognition.
    The justification of the policy was that London would get cheap electricity, because the existing undertakings could not produce it. This was not the case. He would take one typical case. St. Pancras had invested £460,000 of public capital in electric power. Last year the borough's revenue was £75,000 gross,

    1421
    with, a net profit of £20,500. That profit went to supplying local works of utility which otherwise the borough would have had to do without unless they raised extra rates. Moreover, the borough council was able to sell electricity for light and power at the present moment at d. per unit less than the company had offered to supply them five years hence. The justification for this company coming in was that they would supply power at ¾d; in five years time. But before that date arrived St. Pancras, Shoreditch, Battersea, and nine or ten other borough councils would be able to supply it at prices ranging from 1d. to ½d. It might be said that a profit, of £20,000 was too much. He would like to see the £20,000 profit of St. Pancras reduced by lowering the cost of light and power to consumers, but that was purely a matter for the Board of Trade.
    Where was the proof that the company would supply more cheaply? Shoreditch obtained an offer from them to supply in bulk 750,000 units per annum, but their price was 1·25d., or ·25d. more than the rate at which Shoreditch could produce it for themselves. He could give nine or ten cases with similar figures. The charge for power by Fulham was 1d., Hammersmith 1d., Shoreditch ¾d; Southwark 1¾d; Stepney 1d., St. Pancras ¾d; to 1d., Woolwich 1¼d; to 2d., West Ham ¾d; to 1½d;, Battersea 1¼d;, Islington 1d., and Poplar 1d. to 1½d. Therefore so far as cheapness was concerned this Bill had no right to a Second Reading either for light or for power. It might be said that power was not cheap enough. Possibly not. But the way to cheapen it was not by reading the Bill of the company a second time, but by the Board of Trade pulling down the 10 or 14 per cent, dividends of the existing companies by applying to them the sliding scale which was applied to gas companies. He asked the House to remember also that the borough councils had succeeded in cheapening light and. power under restrictions as to territory which were ridiculous.
    But it might be asked what were the works costs of the borough councils. The works costs of the borough councils were rapidly going down year
    1422
    after year. Hammersmith in two years had reduced its works cost from 2d. to 1·17d. per unit, Shoreditch from 2d. to 1d. in three years, and St. Pancras from 2d. to 1d. in three years. The argument of the company was that they could do things on a larger and, therefore, cheaper scale than the borough councils, because they would get many big customers. But would they? They would not get Clifton Robinson's Middlesex Tramways, because they could produce power more cheaply than this company, therefore the largest extra-Metropolitan consumer was out of the question. They would not get the London County Council tramways, because in two years time the Council would have its own generating station on the riverside and would be producing power at ½d; Nor was it likely that they would get the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, when they electrified, as they were making other arrangements, and the District Railway would produce their own. The Lots Road Station cost £20 per kilowatt, and although this company said they would do it at £8, every engineer knew that they could not do it at less than the sum at which Messrs. Yerkes and Perks had installed their station.
    The Bill was unprecedented and unfair. Under it the companies least able to resist would be attacked first, and by degrees the larger ones would be absorbed until in four or five years London would be in the hands of a large syndicate running on American lines, and would be faced with the same difficulties it had experienced in the past in connection with telephones, water, telegraphs, and other monopolies. Talk about London smoke was beside the question, for London smoke was disappearing from other causes. They had to thank Sir George Livesey and the introduction of 350,000 gas stoves for diminishing that nuisance. It would be a bad day for private enterprise and public probity when franchises solemnly and deliberately granted by Parliament, whether to private or public bodies, were torn up and ruthlessly thrown on one side. The effect of that kind of thing in America had been the introduction of an unscrupulousness in public life that he did not wish to see here, and to over borrowing in the Colonies. The House

    1423
    might take it that when the hon. Member for Peckham and he were both opposed to the same Bill the reasons for their attitude were unanswerable. The eternal equities were on the side of both of them when they were fighting against a measure of this kind. It was because he believed that this measure was inimical to the best interests of London from every point of view that he seconded the Amendment, and trusted the provincial Members would put their financial speculation or private prejudices on one side and reject the Bill by an overwhelming majority.
    MR. REMNANT, by leave of his seconder and the House, substituted for his Amendment the following:—"That this House declines to read the Bill a second time until the House has come to a decision upon the Supply of Electricity Bill."
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out all the words from the word 'that,' and add the words 'this House declines to read the Bill a second time until the House has come to decision upon the Supply of Electricity Bill.'"—(Mr. Remnant)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,said he always listened with pleasure to speeches from the hon. Member for Battersea on occasions of this kind. His speech just delivered was even more interesting than usual, and what must have particularly impressed the House was the exceedingly eloquent way in which he protested against the "lobbying" of Members of this House in favour of this particular measure. He wished to say at the outset that the question before the House was not a Government question. It would be left to the decisfon of the House; there would be no Government tellers; but it must be obvious that this was exactly the kind of question which it was the duty of the Board of Trade to consider before it came up
    1424
    for decision in the House. Having considered it they must come to some opinion about it, and it was equally the duty of the representative of that Department in the House to state what that opinion was and give as discreetly as he could the reasons in favour of that opinion.
    This particular subject had been most carefully considered by the Board of Trade for many reasons. He had himself received a larger number of deputations in regard to it than he had ever received on any subject of this kind since he was connected with the Board of Trade. He had, therefore, heard every point for or against the Bill from those interested in it. Considering this question from the point of view of what the action of the Board of Trade should be, it seemed to him that there were two considerations only to be kept before them. The first was, would this Bill give a cheap supply of power in a reasonable time for manufacturing purposes in London? The second, which he deemed equally important, was, admitting that a cheap supply would be given, could it be given without injustice to existing bodies—companies or local authorities—which were engaged in the supply of electricity? It was not possible to exaggerate the importance of a cheap supply of electricity for London, which was not only a great manufacturing town, but the greatest manufacturing town in the kingdom. That might surprise some hon. Members. He knew himself how important a manufacturing city it was; but until he had the figures looked up he had no idea that there were employed in factories in this city as many people as in Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, or any of the largest of our provincial cities. No single consideration, therefore, was more important than a supply of cheap power for London's machinery. That was proved, if necessary, by the fact that when the motive power was steam manufacturing centres grew up where there was a cheap supply of coal. Some Members of the House would hardly realise to what an extent, even in this country, during the last five or six years electricity had taken the place of steam as a motive power. In other countries, he was sorry to say, they were ahead of us in this respect.

    1425
    It was evident that nothing could be more important to every manufacturer than that there should be a cheap supply of electricity for motive power. It was far more important for London for two reasons. First, in London there was a great amount of manufacturing on a comparatively small scale, and it was obviously impossible for the small manufacturer to afford to get the plant for driving his machinery. It was extremely important, then, in London that there should be a cheap supply of motive power, which was easily subdivided, and could be taken on user on a small scale. Secondly, the price of coal was high in London, owing to the expense of handling it. This scheme proposed to get over that disadvantage; coal was to be used and electricity generated at the banks of the river, whence the power would be sent. This would to a large extent get rid of the handicap under which manufacturers were now placed in London through the comparatively high price of coal. Manufacturers were also often handicapped in London because the ground was particularly dear.
    The object and justification of this Bill, if it had a justification, was that, owing to the size of London, electricity could be supplied cheaper there than anywhere else. The question was, however, would this Bill give a cheap supply such as he had described? His hon. friend the Member for Battersea said it would not give that cheap supply. This very point was debated for six weeks before the House of Lords Committee. The aim of the opponents of the Bill was to show that this claim for cheapness could not be justified, but as far as he could judge by an examination of the evidence that attempt completely broke down. There was one debating point which the House would appreciate. The learned counsel who supported the companies in the opposition to the Bill, a man second to none at the Parliamentary Bar, laid stress on cheapness not being everything. That was a familiar sentiment, with which he had a great deal of sympathy; but, if the learned counsel could have said, with any chance of being believed,
    1426
    that this claim for cheapness was unfounded and that the Bill would not give the cheapness, he thought counsel would have preferred that argument. There was another way of testing the question by experience. The promoters had been spoken of as a speculative syndicate. Of course all private companies were presumably looking after their own interests, and it was not any part of his business to examine that question. He noticed, however, that on that subject the Chairman of the Committee sail it was unnecessary for counsel to say anything—that they were entirely satisfied on that point. So he thought it might be assumed that the syndicate were able to carry out the obligations they undertook. The promoters of the Bill were to a large extent the same men who had successfully carried out a similar undertaking on the Tyne, where there had bean as a result little less than a revolution. The effect of that power company had been to change the whole appearance of the north side of the river, and some of the largest manufacturers had taken their electricity from the company, many of them actually scrapping their own electric, plant because they could get power so much cheaper from the company. These facts seemed to him to prove that this method of centralisation was by far the cheapest way in which the motive power could be obtained. He was convinced himself that this Bill would undoubtedly give cheap power to the manufacturers in London, and from the Board of Trade and the public point of view he was bound to say that one consideration of more importance than any other was that the manufacturer should get that cheap supply of electricity.
    Whether that could be done without injustice to the existing bodies was the second question, and he said at once that he was not going to speak in the same positive way at all in regard to that question. He did not feel competent to do it, and he thought, indeed, that it was a question that could not be fairly settled by a Second Reading debate in the House of Commons. Ex parte statements were made on both sides. The facts stated by the hon. Member for Battersea might be

    1427
    quite true, but they had no meaning unless they were examined. The hon. Member did not deny that unless the company supplied electricity for power purposes at ¾d; it could not get its standard dividend, which would he 8 per cent.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I compared light with light, average price with average price, and exceptional price with exceptional price, and if the hon. Member opposite goes into the matter he will find that in each ease the prices are lower.
    MR. BONAR LAWsaid if that statement was accurate it entirely contradicted all the evidence that had been given to him on the subject. It was one of those statements which must be subject to cross-examination. At all events this company could not get its dividend if the average price exceeded three farthings. Therefore it must give electricity for power purposes at prices at which it had not been supplied up to now in London.
    But this question should be referred to a Committee for another reason. If Committees of Parliament had one use more than another, it was to protect vested interests. The fact that a Committee of the House of Lords had passed the Bill with protection to the existing companies showed that they thought they had fulfilled that duty. He did not say they had. The proper course was to have their opinion checked by the opinion of a Committee of that House who could examine the protection given, and satisfy themselves that it was adequate. What was the nature of the protection given in this case? Who were the bodies who were said to be unjustly treated? The interest of the London County Council in the matter was really very small. Their interest really was in the future. They had themselves brought forward Bills on previous occasions, and they would like in the future to do very much the same thing that this company wanted to do. Frankly, he thought that was not the best way to get it done. It was a kind of business which could only be secured by extreme business push and energy, and by taking risks which local authori-
    1428
    ties ought not to take. He did not think the proposal of the County Council was practical politics. The Member for Battersea made a speech on this subject to the County Council a few months ago. It had been suggest that if they opposed this Bill they must have an alternative scheme. He was rather surprised at the indignation of the hon. Member in regard to Sir George Goldie's letter. He had heard many compliments paid to the hon. Member for Battersea, but he had never heard one equal to that contained in the letter written by Sir George Goldie, who mentioned the name of the hon. Member so many times that it gave one the impression that the London County Council and the hon. Member for Battersea were exactly the same identity. At the meeting he referred to the hon. Member replied with a simile derived from a pugilistic source, and said his alternative was a policy of "One down, the other come on." If that was the Council's policy, it did not hold out an early prospect of a cheap supply of electricity.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid his individual view must not be mistaken for the official view of the Council. He suggested that if the Council offered an alternative plan the existing companies would base upon it a claim for too generous treatment. His advice was that the Council should adopt the principle of "One down, the other come on." Then would be the time to make an alternative proposal. In the meantime, he appealed to the Council only to go on contending against this Bill.
    MR. BONAR LAWsaid he did not think his interpretation was very unfair. If that was the alternative, they would have long to wait for cheap electricity. He did not say that the existing companies would not be subjected to serious competition. But to say that they would be subjected to competition was not to prove injustice. It must be remembered that many of the existing companies had forced their way into localities that other companies or municipal authorities were already supplying, against the opposition of the existing authorities, and they were

    1429
    allowed to do so because Parliament supposed that competition was a good thing and not a bad thing. The companies now said that this competition was unfair competition. That was really the crux of the question. In what respect was it unfair composition? The first contention was in regard to purchase. That had now been dropped but, as he understood, what the Committee of the House of Lords said was that they would be glad to leave the question of purchase in the hands of a Committee of this House to decide, and therefore this portion of the argument as to unfairness of competition fell to the ground. What was far more important to the companies, and what was really the difficulty of this Bill, was that the companies were limited in their area, while the administrative company was allowed to cover a very large area. A great deal of what had been said about the action of the Board of Trade was beside the mark. These companies were perfectly free, if they had seen that this demand was coming, to come to Parliament exactly as this company had done. But though these companies were entitled to justice and fair treatment, they were not entitled to a monopoly. If these companies had proposed to come in as a lady amalgamated to supply power to the whole of London, it would really have meant that there would be a monopoly, whereas now, whether it was just or unjust, from the consumers' point of view this, instead of being a monopoly, tended in the direction of getting a cheaper supply of electricity. He held, therefore, that an amalgamation of these companies would have had no chance of passing Parliament, and if we were to have a cheaper supply of electricity at all, all that Parliament ought to do was to see that every possible protection was given to the existing companies.
    The protection given by the Bill as amended by the House of Lords' Committee was a great deal more than hon. Members would have assumed from the speeches which had been made in that House. In the case of an existing company being able to supply as cheaply as the new company, there was absolutely no room for competition
    1430
    at all. The fact was that the company could not sell one unit of electricity in the area of any supplying company until it had proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that they could supply at a price which the existing company could not touch, and before this clause about purchase was put in there was this further protection that, in making that estimate, the Board of Trade had to take into account that the companies were subject to purchase, and that allowance ought to be made for a sinking fund. But, assuming that the new undertaking could supply ever so much more cheaply than the companies, then there was protection, too. In that case the companies were entitled to go to the new body and say—"You are taking from us the cream of our business. It is not fair. We do not want to be left with what remains. You are bound to supply us with our total supply of electricity at a price which will enable us to sell to consumers and to make a profit." And the Board of Trade were to be the judge of whether that profit was reasonable or unreasonable. That seemed to be a greater protection than probably was ever given by Act of Parliament before. It really amounted to this, that in the worst case the companies could be sure of getting a profit without any risk. He was not competent to say whether that protection was adequate or not; but he did say it was an enormous protection, and it would rest with the Committee of this House, if the House allowed the Bill to go upstairs, to examine whether it was adequate or not, and, if it was not, to provide further protection, if further protection were possible.
    The hon. Member for Battersea, dealing with the question of outlay, said that, if the new company came in selling electricity so cheaply, the municipalities who had an immense amount of capital invested in generating stations would have to "scrap" their plant. That was really a question of arithmetic. It came to this, that, if the existing companies found that they could get their supply so much cheaper than they could make it themselves, it would pay them to take it from the company, and still make a profit sufficient in a reasonable number of

    1431
    years to pay the value of their existing plant, then it would be good business to do that. Municipalities might And themselves in the same position as manufacturers on the Tyne, and find that it would pay them better to "scrap" their existing plant, because they could buy electricity for distribution at a cheaper rate than they could produce it. Another point should be kept in mind, and that was the danger from the growth of municipal indebtedness. It was stated in evidence on behalf of one of the best managed of the electrical lighting authorities that they had in contemplation the expenditure of £250,000 on generating plant, but when the Bill was passing through Committee they changed their minds, and came to the conclusion that they would be able to buy electricity cheaper than they could produce it, making an equal profit and being free from the obligation of the £250,000 indebtedness. The House should not lightly dismiss the possibility for municipalities obtaining electricity at this cheap rate. After all, the interest of a municipality was not in making a profit out of what they sold, their interest was the prosperity of their district. If it was a fact that they could obtain the electricity cheaper, then there was a good case for the Bill.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid that no one could have listened to the interesting speech of the Secretary to the Board of Trade without seeing that there were important points involved in the Second Reading of the Bill now before the House. No one could deny that it was of great importance, particularly in the East End of London, that electricity for manufacturing purposes should be supplied as cheaply as possible. Whether cheaper supply of power could be given for those purposes depended entirely on the nature of take area and the conditions under which the supply was to be given. If the existing producers of electrical power were to have the same facilities as were proposed to be given to the new company under this Bill, then he said they could supply it at as cheap a rate for manufacturing purposes. He admitted that nothing could be more important than the question of a cheap supply in the reasonably immediate
    1432
    future, but he did not believe that either in the immediate future or the long run they would attain that result by overloading the electrical industry with capital. It was a strong element that they should have the supply of light and power in the same hands. There could be no doubt that electricity could be supplied at a cheaper rate when the supply for light and power was in the same hands. The important point upon which the Secretary to the Board of Trade expressed some doubt was whether the powers in the Bill could be given without injustice to existing bodies supplying electrical energy. Who were the existing bodies? The existing bodies were really the ratepayers and the shareholders of any existing company, and, as regards those two interests, there ought to be no difference of treatment at all. Both were entitled to fair treatment; and the whole question was this—Could they give the powers sought in this Bill, having regard to the conditions imposed on existing authorities and the companies, without treating them unfairly in the sense of breaking a Parliamentary bargain on the faith of which they had invested their money in the undertakings? No terms which the Committee laid down could possibly take away the initial injustice which would certainly be done if the House gave a Second Reading to this Bill.
    This question began in 1882, when the terms and conditions were so hard that the progress of the electrical industry was practically stifled in this country. It was stifled because the then Board of Trade imposed such hard conditions that no capitalist would come forward and invest his money in the electrical-energy industry of this country. The result was that an Act was passed in 1888 giving better terms, and to his mind, the whole question of justice, so far as the Second Reading of this Bill was concerned, turned on those conditions. Having recalled to the House what were the restrictions and limitations imposed by the Board of Trade within the London area, the lion. Member submitted that the fact that the Bill had somehow been read a second time in the first instance before the House of Lords was no reason why this House should not exercise its independent

    1433
    judgment, and, if the House came to the conclusion that the powers now sought could not be granted without injustice to, and unfair competition with, existing interests, they ought to throw out the Bill. If this Bill were passed they would have a company with practically unlimited area, not subject to any of the restrictions which now affected existing companies, placed in a position of unfair competition contrary to the whole policy of the Act of 1888 and to the settlement arrived at since. It would in the end mean wasting a large amount of capital and be an additional burden upon that cheapness of supply which all admitted to be necessary. At the present moment something like £20,000,000 was invested in the London area in electrical supply, partly by ratepayers and partly by shareholders, and he protested strongly against the ratepayers being subjected to that unfair competition. They gave unfair competition to the detriment of every one who had found capital on the bargain originally made under the Board of Trade and sanctioned by that House whenever a Provisional Order had been brought forward. It seemed ludicrous to hear the Secretary to the Board of Trade talk about the small concern. Under the existing powers the companies were bound to supply the small concern.
    MR. BONAR LAW: My hon. friend is distinctly mistaken as to the facts. If this company comes into any area it comes under the same obligation to supply anybody in it as any other company.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid it would not go into the poor areas, but into those areas where they got the cream of the business. That was not the position of the existing companies, which were bound to go there.
    MR. BONAR LAW: If they do not go into an area then they cannot compete. If they do compete, they must go into the area.
    MR. CRIPPSdid not think that was an effective argument. He contended that they would leave poor areas. That took
    1434
    away the argument as to cheap supply to poor areas, and made the competition most unfair.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid this company could not compete with any company at all unless it undertook the whole obligation of that company as regarded supplying throughout the area of that company, whether the area was rich or poor.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid that what the hon. and learned Gentleman said did not touch his point, because a power of selection of the richest areas would be given to this company, whereas the old companies had to bear the burdens and obligations to which he had referred. Let them maintain in Parliament the great principle which was the greatest encouragement to capital and industry—namely that the poor or the rich man in subscribing to an undertaking under a Parliamentary bargain should be able to feel certain that that bargain would be observed. That was the great principle they were discussing on the Second Reading of this Bill. He was not going into the minor matter relating to St. Pancras or into the question of municipal trading, but the shareholders of the existing companies were entitled to be protected. The initial mistake—if mistake it was—was to give them these powers, but having given them, the companies should not be treated in an unfair and unjust manner. The House would be well advised, whatever might be done in a Committee of the other House, not to be led away from that great principle by this cry of a cheap supply of power for London.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that in the few words he wished to say on this subject he need hardly say he spoke for himself. The question had been debated at great length and with great ability. He did not propose to discuss the question either of the right or claims of the municipalities or the vested interests existing companies. He only wished to deal with what struck him as the broad, general position in which the House found itself. This was a proposal to create a gigantic company which was likely to absorb and dominate the whole power

    1435
    supply of London. He would not call it a monopoly, because the promoters denied that it was a monopoly; but he thought it was, at any rate, very likely to become a monopoly. There were two other plans before the House; the plan of leading the smaller companies to do that work; and the plan of leading the municipalities to do it. The House was not at present in a position to express any opinion on such large and great issues as these were. He contended that the House could not in a debate of three hours deal with all the questions involved in this proposal. Nor was this a matter, as it appeared to him, fit for the deliberation of an ordinary Private Bill Committee, especially a Committee which was to be appointed in the middle of July. These vast proposals ought to have been examined and determined by a strong special Committee like that which had dealt with the general question of electric power supply. In its ultimate results this question was quite as large as the question of London traffic, which had been investigated by a Royal Commission. Parliament had to think of the general interests of the people of London. Were those questions fit for a Private Bill Committee? He was told that it was a hardship to the promoters to put them off another year. If that were the case, still it was no reason why the House should now take this decisive and irrevocable step. Without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the scheme or the decision which the House might ultimately take, he could not but feel that a Bill of this immense magnitude and of such far-reaching consequences ought not, without very much further inquiry than could be given at this period of the
    1436
    session, to be left to a Private Bill Committee.
    MR. HALDANEsaid his right hon. friend had introduced a new suggestion into the debate, which came for the first time—viz., that the main question was not for this House to deal with at the present time. He could not but think that the question was essentially one for this House to determine. He should have thought that the House had nearly all the materials they desired for forming a judgment on the broad question. He should have thought that the question involved in the Bill was not one for any Commissioner Parliamentary inquiry of this kind, but one of board principle for the House to decide upon. In the East of London there was an enormous area which was very insufficiently, if at all, supplied with electric power. The total machinery employed was equal to 497,000 horse power, and the present electric lighting authorities were only capable of supplying 16,172 horse power. That showed, in itself, that there was a want in London which, to his mind, was essentially one for the consideration of this House. Electricity was as essential as machinery; without it we could not possibly keep up to the modern and industrial standard. It was impossible that justice should be done to the industrial chances of the people of London unless some step of this kind were taken. That was a broad question for the House to decide upon—was this to be done or not? He would like to ask his hon. and learned friend opposite whether he held that after an exhaustive inquiry into this matter before a Committee of another House they should

    1437
    reject the Bill in toto and should not send it upstairs even for inquiry. If the Bill went upstairs it would be open to further consideration. Why were the existing companies afraid, if it were true that they could supply power at¾d.?
    MR. REMNANT: What about the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade? That is the main point. All these companies are subject to a bargain entered into with the Board of Trade.
    MR. HALDANEsaid surely the hon. Member heard the speech made by the hon. Member who represented the Board of Trade.
    MR. REMNANTsaid it never touched the point.
    MR. HALDANEwould have thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow touched the point most closely, He shown clearly that the Board of Trade had imposed this condition, that they took the obligations in regard to the sinking fund into account in allowing a differential rate to the private companies. He would have thought that the hon. Member had showed most clearly that the Board of Trade took into account all the obligations which the private companies were under. But there, again, the question was surely one for the Committee upstairs. It was a complicated and difficult matter which had to be looked into most closely, but why should they reject the Bill on that account? These were not days in which we could stand still. The House of Commons, after all, had to look to the interests of the industries of the country. When they found the petition of these
    1438
    people put up for greater industrial facilities, when they found an opportunity of giving them the chance of putting themselves on a level with their competitors, then he would say that the House should pause before it rejected such a Bill as this. He trusted that no mistaken notion of the rights of municipalities would prevent the House from sanctioning the principle of a measure which at least would give an opportunity of considering whether something substantial could not be done to further the industrial interests of the people of London.
    MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that, having given much time to the consideration of the question, and having listened carefully to the debate, he had no hesitation in according his vote against the Second Beading of the Bill. He asked the House to pause before giving the Bill a Second Reading. It involved not only the question of electricity, but the much greater question which was so ably put before the House by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford, of Parliamentary guarantees. That was the point which weighed most in his mind. He desired to draw the attention of the House to a Return of last session respecting the granting of powers for electric supply to a number of companies throughout the land. Parliament had granted in 1901–2–3 large powers to various companies all over England for the supply of electric energy, and yet in many large areas very little progress had been made in the exercise of these powers. In the Midland counties these powers had been granted too hastily. In fact, the

    1439
    only part of England in which the Return showed that these powers were carried out to any satisfactory purpose I was the district of Newcastle. But Newcastle stood on its own feet, and they could not prophesy what this company might do in London from what its promoters, who were the same persons, had done in Newcastle. He did not know the amount of capital laid out in electric undertakings in London by municipalities and companies was, but it must be very large indeed. It could not be just to allow a new company to come in on much better terms. The main question was the Parliamentary bargain which had been entered into, and he hoped the House would not tamper with that bargain. The matter might well wait, as the right hon. Member for Aberdeen suggested, for inquiry by a strong Committee. He hoped the House would refuse the Second Reading.
    MR. GUESTsaid it had been conceded that on this occasion the House of Commons had a very difficult duty to perform, and that difficulty had been aggravated by importing into the Second Reading debate questions which properly belonged to Committee. His hon. friend the Member for Battersea had given some figures to the House, but these differed from the figures given in evidence before the House of Lords Committee and it was perfectly obvious that they were at present quite incompetent to decide which set of figures was correct. He contended that this Bill offered to London the brilliant and flattering prospect, from a commercial
    1440
    point of view, of being transformed from he worst equipped to the best equipped industrial centre in the world. It seemed to him that it would be wrong to eject, on the slender evidence before hem, a scheme so fraught with profit to London and certain to react on all the conditions of labour. At any rate he insisted that a prima facie case had been made out for a Second Reading. The great question raised had been that of justice to the existing companies; but it was perfectly obvious that their special claims could not possibly be considered by this House under present conditions. Committees existed for he purpose of adjudicating between various conflicting interests, and he bought it would be a very unfortunate thing if the Bill were not sent to a Committee.
    MR. CUMMING MACDONNArose to state that both sides of the House by their action lad adopted and hitherto adhered to the principle that local authorities should lave the management of their own affairs. The Liberals when they brought in heir Local Government Bill by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and the Conservatives acting in the same manner then introducing the Boroughs Bill for London. It was a strange anomaly that now, when the opportunity had arisen for the exercise of their just rights, they both should be ridden over rough-shod by a syndicate from Newcastle, he earnestly protested on behalf of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe against so great an injustice.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 158. (Division List No. 249.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Hammond, John

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Harcourt, Lewis

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hamsworth, R. (Leicester)

    O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.)

    Atherley Jones, L.

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Austin, Sir John

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Mara, James

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Malley, William

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bell, Richard

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

    Parrott, William

    Benn, John Williams

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Partington, Oswald

    Boland, John

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Perks, Robert William

    Brigg, John

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Joicey, Sir James

    Price, Robert John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    Priestley, Arthur

    Burt, Thomas

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Reddy, M.

    Buxton, NE (York, NR, Whitby

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

    Caldwell, James

    Joyce, Michael

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cameron, Robert

    Kearley, Hudson, E.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs).

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Robert on, Edmund (Dundee)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Kitson, Sir James

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Labouchere, Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Lambert, George

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lamont, Norman

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Cremer, William Randal

    Langley, Batty

    Rose, Charles Day

    Crombie, John William

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Crooks, William

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Cullinan, J.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Shackleton, David James

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Leng, Sir John

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Delany, William

    Levy, Maurice

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Lough, Thomas

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Slack, John Bamford

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Maclver, David (Liverpool)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Spencer, Rt. Nn. C. R. (Northants

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Strachy, Sir Edward

    Edwards, Frank

    M'Crae, George

    Sullivan, Donal

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Kean, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. Radcliffe

    Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Tennant, Harold John

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Thomas. Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

    Mansfield, Horace Rendail

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

    Tillett, Louis John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Mooney, John J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Toulmin, George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Moss, Samuel

    Wallace, Robert

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain, F.

    Muldoon, John

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Murphy, John

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

    Newnes, Sir George

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Weir, James (Galloway)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Norton and Mr. Watson Rutherford

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

    Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Arkwright John Stanhope

    Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Mon'mth

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lawson. Hn H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. Manc'r

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. Mancn'r

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Finlay, Sir R B. (Inv'rn'ss Bgh's

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. Leeds

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lowe, Francis William

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Bigwood, James

    Gardner, Ernest

    Malcolm, Ian

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Garfit, William

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Bond, Edward

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

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

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Bousfield, William Robert

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

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Brassey, Albert

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHamlets

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Milvain, Thomas

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Greene, Sir E W (BurySEdmunds

    Mitchell, William (Burnley)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Bull, William James

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Butcher, John George

    Hain, Edward

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

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

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Campbell, J. H. M. Dublin Univ.

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray, C.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

    Heath, Sir J (Staffordshire N. W.)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Myers, William Henry

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

    Helder, Augustus

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Chapman, Edward

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Coddington, Sir William

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Percy, Earl

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Howard, John (Kent Faversham

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Randles, John S.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

    Rankin, Sir James

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Denny, Colonel

    Kerr, John

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Keswick, William

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Renwick, George

    1410

    1411

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Stock, James Henry

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Stroyan, John

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Taylor Austin (East Toxteth)

    Worseley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Thorbum, Sir Walter

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

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Shewes-Cox, Thomas

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Tuff, Charles

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong.

    Smith, H, C (Northumb. Tyneside

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Younger, William

    Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Spear, John Ward

    Turnour, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Stanley, Et. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Partington, Oswald

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Pease, Herbert Pike Darlington

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO

    Hamilton, RtHnLord G. (Midd'x

    Percy, Earl

    Arrol, Sir William

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Perks, Robert William

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hardy, Laurence Kent, Ashford

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW

    Price, Robert John

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Randles, John S.

    Birran, Rowland Hirst

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Rankin, Sir James

    Bartley Sir George C. T.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hn H. (Somers't E

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield. Brightside

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Renwick, George

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Bingham Lord

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Ritchie. Rt. Hon. Chas, Thomson

    Brassey, Albert

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropshr.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Keswick, William

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Rose, Charles Day

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    Burt, Thomas

    Lamont, Norman

    Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

    Butcher, John George

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Lawson. Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

    Slack, John Bamford

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H.A.E

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

    Crombie, John William

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Smith, Rt. Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lowe, Francis William

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Spear, John Ward

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Spencer, RtHn. C. R (Northants.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Stock, James Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Healey

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Edwards, Frank

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Montagu, G. Huntingdon

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

    Montagu, Hon, J. Scott (Hants.

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Tomkinson, James

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark NE

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Moss, Samuel

    Tumour, Viscount

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Newnes, Sir George

    Wallace, Robert

    Garfit, William

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H-

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

    Gordon, HnJ. E (Elgin & Nairn

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

    Gordon. Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

    O'Malley, William

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

    1442

    1443

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Bousfield and Mr. Tennant.

    Wilson, John Glasgow

    Wordey-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    NOES.

    Allen, Charles P.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Bailey, James (Walworth

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Mount, William Arthur

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Murphy, John

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Forster, Henry William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bell, Richard

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Benn, John Williams

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bigwood, James

    Galloway, William Johnson

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

    Boland, John

    Gardner, Ernest

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Dowd, John

    Bonlnois, Edmund

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    O'Kelly; Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Brigg, John

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Bright, Allen Hey wood

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Parrott, William

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Groves, James Grimble

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bull, William James

    Hammond, John

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Buxton, NE. (York, NR, Whitby

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Reddy, M.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar

    Harwood, George

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Caldwell, James

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Carvill, Partick Geo. Hamilton

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Cawley, Frederick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Shackleton, David James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Shipman, Dr. John George

    Chapman, Edward

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cremer, William Randal

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Kilbride, Denis

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Crooks, William

    Labouchere, Henry

    Toulmin, George

    Cullinan, J.

    Langley, Batty

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Tuff, Charles

    Devlin, Charles Ramay (Galway

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Levy, Maurice

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Lough, Thomas

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lundon, W.

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong-

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    M'Crae, George

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    M'Kean, John

    TELLER FOR THE NOES—Faber Mr. Remnant and Mr. John Burns.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read the third time.
  R. SWIFT MACNEILL R. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.) moved that this Bill be rejected, and did so simply to call the attention, not perhaps of the House, but of the public to the very shocking system of maladministration of martial law in the British Army at the present time. When the Army was put under exceptional legislation, as it was by the Army Annual Act, and when certain liberties were taken from the soldiers, there was this protection, that there should be a Minister in this House responsible to this House for the way in which the exceptional law was administered. The Judge-Advocate General had always been a man of considerable eminence at the bar, and he was made a Privy Councillor. And why? Because the Army was still the King's Army. He was a Minister, not only responsible to this House, but to the King. It was his prerogative to approach the King personally, and lay before His Majesty the letters of Courts-martial and give the King advice in reference to these Courts-martial. The Judge-Advocate General was also responsible to this House by way of Motion and interjection as to how martial law was administered. On several occasions Commissions were appointed to make inquiries with reference to the way in which this House should be made cognisant of the administration of martial law; and the last Commission reported that the office of Judge-Advocate General should be maintained. Then came the
  1446
  appointment of Sir Francis Jeune, afterwards Lord St. Helier, in 1892, who continued in office until 1904, with Sir John Stocks as Deputy Judge-Advocate General. But now, under this constitutional Government, there was no one responsible to the House as to how martial law was administered! The present gentleman who acted as Deputy Judge-Advocate General was not a Minister in this House; he was not a Privy Councillor, and had no right of personal access to the Crown, and could not even be appointed to a County Court Judgeship. He maintained that that was an intolerable position. The duty of the Judge-Advocate General was to revise the decisions of Courts-martial. In 1900 there were 17,794 Courts-martial, forty-seven of the decisions of which were quashed. In 1901 there were 19,000 Courts-martial, the decisions of sixty-seven of which were quashed; and in 1902 there were 14,000 Courts-martial, the decisions of forty-seven of which were quashed. On occasion the Deputy Judge-Advocate General had to review the decision of as many as twenty-four Courts-martial in a few hours. That would be laughable, but it was cruel to the men who were subject to it. He would give a concrete instance. A Court-martial was held a short time ago in a town in Ireland of a young lad who had been betrayed into one act of drunkenness. The unfortunate boy was arrested, tried by Court-martial, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. But in the same regiment a well-favoured serjeant had been three times convicted of drunkenness and let off with a caution. In order to protest against the way in which martial law was administered, he moved that this Bill be read a third time this day six months.
  MR. NANNETTIseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months'"—(Mr. Swift Mac-Neill.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,said that last year the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised a discussion as to the constitutional character of the appointment to the office of Judge-Advocate General and suggested that that official should be an independent person, a man of sufficient authority; he ought not to be an unkown or obscure person, but a gentleman learned in the law. With all these suggestion he entirely agreed. It was true that since the death of Lord St. Helier there had been an ad interim administration of this very important office. The tenure of this office by Lord St. Helier was exceptional and without precedent, and it had been necessary to consider carefully the best method of continuing the office after that exceptional tenure had expired. It had now been decided to follow in this matter the example of
  the Admiralty, and to appoint to this office not a Judge of the High Court, but a lawyer of eminence, who would satisfy all the conditions laid down by the Leader of the Opposition. The gentleman who would be selected would to appointed to this office alone. He would be a Civil servant, and would give the whole of his time to the work of his department. He would be appointed, as the Judge-Advocate of the Fleet was appointed, to do work for the Army corresponding to that of the Judge-Advocate of the Fleet for the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if this gentleman would be amenable to Parliamentary criticism?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would be amenable to Parliamentary criticism in the same way as the Judge-Advocate of the Fleet was. He would be appointed by the Secretary of State. His salary would be placed on the Estimates, and the representative in this House of the War Office would be responsible for him just as the head of the Navy Department was responsible for the Judge-Advocate of the Fleet.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 250.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. Leeds

  Butcher, John George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Arnold-Foster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H.

  Bingham, Lord

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Knowles, Lees

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

  Doughty, Sir George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, Hn. H.L. W. (Mile End

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Gordon, Hn JE (Elgin & Nairn

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tuff, Charles

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Percy, Earl

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley,

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N. W'

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Howard, John (Kent. Faversham

  Randles, John S.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rankin, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Keswick, William

  Renwick, George

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Malley, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Osward

  Boland, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Brigg, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Reddy, M.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbigbs.)

  Buxton, NE (York, NR, Whitby)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lamont, Norman

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Thomas, David Alfred (Mertbyr

  Delany, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Levy Maurice

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lundon, W.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Nannetti.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, John

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL
  Order for second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made and Question proposed.
"That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood)
MAJOR SEELYasked what would be the business on Wednesday and Thursday next. He had the authority of the hon. Member for Waterford to state that in view of the great public interest taken in the question of the Volunteers he would not insist on Irish Estimates being take on Thursday. He acknowleged the great courtesy of the hon. Gentleman in the matter.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,said he wished to remind the House that there was one more allotted day, as far as he could judge, for the Army Estimates He preferred to wait and give an Answer on Monday as to the business for Wednesday and Thursday next, especially as to the arrangements that could be made for a discussion on the Volunteers. The Secretary for War would prefer a day for the discussion of Army questions at a later period of the session, but the Government would yield to the wishes of the Opposition. On Wednesday he hoped to finish the debate on the Scottish Churches Bill.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he recognised the importance of the Volunteer question to England; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not postpone his Answer until Monday. A number of Irish Members were in Ireland and he hoped that a reasonable notice would be given before Irish affairs were discussed.
MR. McCRAEsaid that there had not yet been a definite statement given as to the future of the Volunteers. There was
1452
considerable apprehension in the matter; and a definite explanation should be given.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,said that hon. Members from Ireland sometimes attended the House at considerable inconvenience. He had arranged next Thursday for Irish Supply; and when he was suddenly asked to change Irish Supply into English Supply he could not arrange it in a few hours.
MR. MCKENNAasked if only one more day was to be given to the Army.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that there was a general feeling in the House that the question of the Volunteers and the Militia was a matter for immediate discussion.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid that the Opposition would be glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's views on the subject to-morrow.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should be glad to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the borough of Carlisle, in the room of the right hon. William Court Gully, now Viscount Selby, called up to the House of Peers.—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
Adjourned at two minutes before One o'clock.