Commons Sitting of 27 March 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.
  To be read a second time to-morrow.
  ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY (LONDON) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committtee:—

  1. "That, in the case of the Poole Water, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for a Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Clause 27 be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  3. "That, in the case of the Channel Ferry Railway and Quay (Dover) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  4. "That, in the case of the West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramway No. 10 be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  5. "That, in the case of the Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 2) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be
  1038
  permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramway No. 3B be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  6. "That, in the case of the Cork Link Railways Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers of subscription proposed to be conferred upon the Great Western Railway Company, the London and North Western Railway Company, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, the Cork Bandon and South Coast Railway Company, the Cork Blackrock and Passage Railway Company, the Cork and Macroom Direct Railway Company, and the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company, and the powers of subscription and guarantee proposed to be conferred upon the County Council of the County of Cork and the Corporation of the City of Cork be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  7. "That, in the case of the Cork and Waterford Railways Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers of subscription proposed to be conferred upon the London and North Western Railway Company, the Great Western Railway Company, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, the Dublin Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company, the Cork Bandon and South Coast Railway Company, and the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company, and the powers of subscription and guarantee proposed to be conferred upon the County Councils of the Counties of Cork and Waterford be struck out of the Bill, except where proof is given before the Committee on the Bill that Special Meetings of any or all of the said Companies have been held to consider the Bill, or that the Bill has been submitted to and approved by either or both of the said County Councils:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  CORK LINK RAILWAYS BILL.
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be read a second time.

  CORK AND WATERFORD RAILWAYS BILL.
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be read a second time.

  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the granting of superannuation allowances to the officers and servants of the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green; and for other purposes," [Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for rendering valid certain letters patent granted to Samuel Mathews Vauclain for an invention for improvements in compound steam locomotives." [Vauclain's Patent Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the conversion of the stock of the Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Company Limited into five per annum cumulative preference stock, preferred ordinary stock, and deferred ordinary stock; and for other purposes." [Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer additional powers upon the Hull Joint Dock Committee for the construction of dock works, and upon the North Eastern Railway Company for the construction of new railways; and for other purposes." [Hull Joint Dock Bill [Lords.]
  Sunday Trading, That they propose that the Joint Committee, appointed to inquire into the subject of Sunday Trading, do meet in Committee Room A on Tuesday next, at Three o'clock.
  Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]; Vauclain's Patent Bill [Lords]; Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Bill [Lords]; Hull Joint Dock Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bolton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Albrighton; Arthingworth; Ash; Aston cum Aughton (two); Berkley; Birtley (two); Bloxham (two); Box; Brompton; Bury (two); Buxhall; Carsington; Chelwood; Chertsey; Claverley (two); Clipston; Codford St. Mary; Compton; Corston; Courteenhall; Crewkerne (two); Crunwere (two); Darley Abbey (two); Dean; Doddington; Dowlish; Dunton; Eakring; East Hendred; Edgcott (two); Elton; Fordwich (two); Foxley (two); Fressingfield; Great and Little Woolston (two); Halton Shields; Hambledon; Haslebury Bryan; Heaton; Heaton Norris (three); Hindsford; Holy Trinity, Kilburn; Hopton and Griffs Grange; Hordle (two); Hornby (two); Howtel; Hucclecote; Huntley; Kirknewton (two); Leaton; Leigh Delamere; Lever Bridge (two); Lillingstone Lovell (two); Longton (two); Luccombe; Ludgershall (two); Margaretting; Marston Trussell; Maften; Milton Bryan; Milton Keynes (two); Monk Hesleden; Netherton; North Frodingham (two); Pertenhall (two); Pittington (two); Poling (two); Portbury; Prestwich; Ramsbottom; Rodington; Rousham; St. Anne's, Stretford; St. John's, Dukinfield (two); St. Peter's, Cricklewood; Shabbington; Shere (two); Shilbotel; South Ossett (two); Snowshill; Stanton; Stowe (two); Studland (two); Sturry (two); Stinchcombe; Sunnybrow; Swainswick; Tattingstone; Thornbury; Tirley; Tynemouth Priory; Upton Lovell;

  1041
  Upper Slaughter; Wem (two); West Brompton; West Knoyle; Weston; Wickham; Wigginton; Willen; Willington; Winchester (three); and, Woolstone; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ALIENS NATURALISATION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 13th March; Mr. Herbert Samuel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 93.]
  MEDICAL COUNCILS.
  Accounts presented, for 1905 of the General Medical Council and Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Barnstaple, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Hairdressers' Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AT PRICES OF 1900.
  Copy presented, of Tables showing for each of the years 1900–5 the estimated value of Imports into the United Kingdom, and Exports from the United Kingdom, of articles of British and Irish production at prices prevailing in 1900, with an introductory Memorandum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MANUFACTURED IMPORTS AND EMPLOYMENT.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th March; Mr. Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 94.]

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901 (HOME WORK.)
  Address for "Return as to the administration, in each county and county borough during 1904, by the local authorities of the Home Work provisions of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, as shown by the reports of the medical officers of health sent to the Home Office under Section 132 of the Act, giving par-
  1042
  ticularly the following information: (a) generally, the number of inspections of home-workers' premises, the number of notices served in respect of them, etc.; (b) the number of out-workers' lists received by the local authority under Section 107, and the number of outworkers shown by them; (c) the number of notices served by the local authority under Section 108; (d) the number of orders made by the local authority under Section 110; (e) the number of cases of infectious disease notified in home-workers' premises; (f) the number of cases of non-compliance, and the number of prosecutions, under Sections 107, 108, 109 and 110 respectively; and (g) the number of medical officers reporting specially on the administration of those sections."—(Mr. Ramsay Macdonald).

  EXPORTS TO CHINA AND SOUTH AMERICA.
  Return ordered, "showing, so far as can be stated: (1) the Exports to China, inclusive of Hong Kong, from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States, for the years 1885 to 1904, and the average for each of the quinquennial periods ending 1889, 1894, 1899, and 1904, showing increase in value and percentage between the averages for the first and last periods; (2) a similar Return for the same periods, showing exports to Argentina from the same countries; and (3) a similar Return showing exports from the same countries to the whole of South America."—(Viscount Turnour).
  IRISH FISHING-BOAT BUILDING.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the number of Fishing Boats built for, and of new Fishing Boats purchased by the Congested Districts Board, the description, tonnage, price, where built, and the dates of their construction to be given; (2) similar information as to the Fishing Boats for the building of which loans have been made to fishermen by the Inspectors of Fisheries (as far as they can supply the information) and by the Department of Agriculture."—(Sir Thomas Esmonde).

  DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON.)
  Address for "Return of the number of Deaths in the Administrative County

  1043
  of London, in the year 1905, upon which a Coroner's Jury has returned a verdict of Death from Starvation, or Death Accelerated by Privation, together with any Observations furnished to the Local Government Board by Boards of Guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 285, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Talbot).

  UNTENANTED LANDS (IRELAND.)
  Return ordered, "of Untenanted Lands in rural districts, distinguishing demesnes on which there is a mansion, showing: (1) rural district and electoral division; (2) townland; (3) area in statute acres; (4) valuation (Poor Law); (5) names of occupiers as in valuation lists."—(Mr. Ginnell).
  MILITARY EXPENDITURE (UNITED KINGDOM, COLONIES, AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.)
  Address for "Return showing:—A. The total Military Expenditure, during the last financial year, of (1) the United Kingdom; (2) India; (3) the self-governing Colonies; (4) other Colonies and Dependencies; (5) the chief Foreign countries; B. The Military Establishments maintained at the cost of the Imperial Exchequer in the various Colonies and Dependencies, and the approximate cost in each case."—(Mr. Lehmann).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Board of Agriculture Leaflets—and Tuberculosis.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has given instructions for the withdrawal of that portion of the leaflet recently issued by the Department of Agriculture suggesting that tuberculous cattle should be fattened for sale as food; whether it is intended that proceedings should be taken against those responsible for the issue of the said leaflet similar to the prosecutions levelled against traders in native meat who purchase bona fide at full price in open market subject to veterinary inspection, animals which are subsequently condemned and confiscated as being tuberculous; and
  1044
  whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to remedy this inequality of treatment.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 12th instant.† The Department of Agriculture are arranging for the issue without delay of a revised leaflet, and the passage to which exception has been taken will be so worded as to leave no room for doubt as to its meaning. I have already indicated that the passage in question was not intended to bear the interpretation which the hon. Member places upon it. The cattle referred to are not properly described as tuberculous. The Answer to the second inquiry is in the negative. In reference to the final inquiry, I beg to refer to the reply given by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board to the hon. Member's Question of the 20th February.‡

  Kinvara Mail Service.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that complaints have been made for a considerable length of time past regarding the deficient mail service to Kinvara, county Galway; and whether he will take steps to ascertain at once if it is possible to establish a mid-day service.
  (Answered by Sydney Buxton.) I find that the cost of the existing service to Kinvara is at present very high as compared with the amount of the correspondence, and I am sorry that I cannot therefore establish a mid-day service as well.

  Promotions in Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, without exception, on the various occasions on which vacancies in the rank of acting postmaster have hitherto arisen on the staff of the Belfast office, a notice was duly posted in both the sorting office and telegraph departments, intimating the existence of the vacancy and inviting applications from the respective staffs; and if any exception exists in
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 907–8.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clii., 211.

  1045
  respect of this practice within the last ten or fifteen years, will he specify the date of such exception; if not, will he state the particular circumstances under which this practice was departed from on a recent occasion; and will he state what safeguards have been or will be introduced to protect the interests of members of long service under the present system.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It was formerly the practice to invite applications for the duty of taking charge of vacant offices, but this is not always now done. The claims and qualifications of the eligible officers are carefully considered whether they make application or not, and the claims of officers of long service are thus safeguarded.

  Correspondence relating to Treasury Grant to Cork Junction Railway.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will furnish a copy of the correspondence which passed between the right hon. Member for South Dublin, the Treasury, and Lord Barrymore, during the session of 1905, with reference to the making of a grant by the Treasury in aid of the proposals contained in the Cork Junction Railways Bill of last Session.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I can find no trace in the Treasury records of such a correspondence.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. GINNBLL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-

  Number of Years' Purchase. (Rent, £100.)

  Before the Act of 1903, at 4 per cent. (Term, 42½ years.)

  Under the Act of 1903, at 3¼ per cent. (Term, 68½ years.)

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  17¾

  71

  57

  13

  10

  22

  88

  71

  10

  0

  25

  100

  81

  5

  0

  Taking the purchase money at seventeen aud three-quarters years' purchase on a rent of £100, the advance both before and since the Act of 1903 is the same, viz., £1,775. That the entire
  Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the entire amount, including principal and interest, paid in a term running its full normal course by a purchaser of a rent of £100 under The Land Law (Ireland) Act 1896, at seventeen and three quarters years' purchase, and under the Land Act of 1903 at seventeen and three quarters, twenty-two, and twenty-five years' purchase, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that, under The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, in the case of a rent of £100 at seventeen and three-quarters years purchase, a purchaser, in paying the advance, pays during a term of forty-two and a half years in principal and interest the sum of £3,017 10s. Under the Land Act of 1903 the amount payable during a term of sixty-eight and a half years is as follows—A rent of £100 at seventeen and three-quarter years, £3,951 15s. 3d.; a rent of £100 at twenty-two years, £4,897 15s. 0d.; a rent of £100 at twenty-five years, £5,563 18s. 3d. It is, however, to be observed that the land purchase annuities before and since the Act of 1903 are at the rate of four and three and a quarter per cent. respectively. The rate of interest included in each annuity is the same, viz., two and three-quarters per cent., but the sinking fund included in annuities created prior to the Act of 1903 is £1 5s., as compared with 10s. in annuities under that Act. At the different rates of purchase mentioned in the Question the annuities would be as follows—
  amount payable, including principal and interest, is more under the Act of 1903 than before, is due to the fact that the principal is left longer outstanding.

  Portuguese Railway Loan.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information which may be made public, regarding the issue of a Portuguese railway loan; and, if so, whether such loan is intended in part for the construction of railways connecting Nyassaland and Portuguese Zambesia with the coast.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Grey.) The Portuguese Government have published a prospectus announcing the issue of a loan for 3,371,310 milreis in bonds of the nominal value of ninety milreis, bearing interest at 4½ per cent. guaranteed by the revenue from the State railways. Although the fact is not mentioned in the prospectus, this issue appears to be part of an authorised loan of 7,000,000 milreis to be applied to the development and improvement of Portuguese railways. We have no information that any portion of this loan is intended for the construction of the railways mentioned.

  Labour Recruiting in British Central Africa.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that it has proved necessary to cease recruiting from British Central Africa for the Transvaal mines owing to excessive mortality among the emigrants, and in view of the fact that British Central African labour is wanted for British Central Africa, the Colonial Office will consider the advisability of revoking the permission granted to recruit in the Protectorate.
  (Answered, by Mr. Churchill.) The question of recruiting from British Central Africa has for some time received careful consideration, and the Secretary of State has decided that, unless the mortality returns for the year ending the 30th June next show a marked improvement, recruiting from the Protectorate must cease.

  Mortality of White Labourers in Transvaal Gold Mines.
  MR. HILLS: To ask the Under - Secretary of State for
  1048
  the Colonies whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he will take immediate steps to ascertain the mortality per thousand of white labourers working in the Transvaal gold mines, as distinguished from the mortality among the white population generally.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I regret that my previous Answer to the hon. Member on this point was not quite accurate. The Secretary of State has not the figures of mortality among white miners in the Transvaal for the whole of 1905, but the figures for the quarter ended 30th September, 1905, are given as 23·657 per thousand (see p. 45 of Cd. 2819). For the two previous quarters they were 19·407 and 19·711.

  Anthrax at Messrs. Campbell and Harrison's Works, Bradford.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the Report of an inquest held at Bradford on the 19th instant, to inquire into the deaths of two operative wool-workers who died from general anthrax, where the jury declared that not sufficient care had been taken; and whether he is aware that several deaths from the same cause have taken place within a recent period at Messrs. Campbell & Harrisons, one of the firms concerned; whether, having regard to the seriousness of the situation, he will furnish the House with a list of the cases of anthrax which have been contracted at the firm referred to; and can he state the source from which the wool is derived upon which these operatives have been employed and the price paid by the importers for the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Yes, I have had before me Reports on the two cases mentioned in the Question. In regard to one of these the jury expressed the opinion that sufficient care had not been taken to extract the dust from the wool, but in the other case they considered that every possible precaution seemed to have been taken for the protection of the workpeople. It is the fact that during the last two years a number of cases

  1049
  of anthrax have occurred at this firm's works, sixteen in all, of which eight proved fatal; and I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a list of them if he desires to have it. In the majority of the cases the wool used was of Persian origin, but, as the firm do not purchase wool but comb it on commission for other firms, it has not been possible to ascertain the price paid. I may add that, in compliance with the new regulations, a number of structural improvements have been carried out by the firm, as well as several suggestions on points outside the regulations which have been made by the inspector, and a doctor has been engaged at the company's expense to visit and treat any person in their employ who reports illness from any cause. Special attention will continue to be given to these works, especially in connection with the process of sorting.

  Closing of Licensed Refreshment Houses at Nottingham.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can explain why licensed refreshment houses in the city of Nottingham are allowed to be kept open till midnight; and, if there is no legal authority for the practice, can he take steps to ensure that the law regulating the hours of closing such houses is duly observed in that city.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am informed that the refreshment houses to which the Question is understood to relate are not licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and though they are required by an Act of 1864 to close at the same hour as premises so licensed, viz., 11 p.m., it has not been thought expedient in Nottingham to enforce this strictly. The opportunity of obtaining food or refreshments in them till midnight has been found convenient and quite compatible with public order. I am not charged with the administration of the Act of 1864. The Watch Committee of Nottingham are the police authority of that city, and any complaints about this matter may properly be addressed to them.

  Mine Accidents—Special Rescue Corps.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire whether the Westphalian Mining Corps, which rendered aid at the Courriéres disaster, consisted of miners, or of persons not themselves miners, but specially trained as a life-saving corps for service in mining accidents; and if he will consider the propriety and the means of providing a special rescue corps for each large group or district of coal mines in Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As I stated in reply to Questions on the subject last week, the question of the provision of facilities for rescue work in case of accidents in mines is to be referred to the Royal Commission on Mining, who will no doubt make full inquiry into the system adopted in Westphalia.

  Hours of Closing of British Museum Reading-Room.
  MR. SCOTT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury on what grounds was the hour of closing the reading-room of the British Museum changed in the autumn of 1904 from 8 p.m. to 7 p.m. and what result has the change had on the attendance in the evening after 6 p.m.; and whether with a view to render this national institution available for other than professional students, he will consider the advisability of keeping the museum open later.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Trustees state that, whilst the reading-room is largely attended during the earlier hours of the day, very few readers made use of it between 7 and 8 o'clock. On the other hand the cost of keeping the room open till 8 o'clock and of continuing the working of the electric light, is considerable, and, in view of the scanty attendance after 7 o'clock, does not seem to the Trustees or to the Treasury to be any longer justified.

  Incomes Exceeding £2,000 per Annum
  MR. GROVE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state how many incomes

  1051
  in Great Britain and Ireland exceed £2,000 per annum; and, if he has not such information, whether the Treasury will take steps to supply the information required.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have not this information, nor have I the means of obtaining it.

  Postal Deliveries at Moneyvroe, County Waterford.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will recommend a daily postal delivery to Moneyvroe, near Cappoquin, county Waterford.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject and on its receipt I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Testing of Post Office Weights and Scales.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the weights and scales for letters and parcels in the post offices are tested from time to time by duly qualified inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Post office weights and scales are not liable to inspection under the Weights and Measures Acts; but they are tested from time to time by officers of the department.

  Repairs of Irish Schools.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any complaints have reached him from Catholic school managers in Ireland as to the demands of school inspectors for the repairs of existing schools, including the erection of lavatories in localities where the same could not possibly be erected; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action on these complaints.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I do not remember having received any complaints of the nature referred to. The Commissioners of National Education have furnished me with a copy of a circular letter which they sent to managers of schools in 1903, calling attention to serious defects in school
  1052
  houses and school premises, including those indicated by the hon. Member. The question of the sanitary arrangements of national schools is one for the Commissioners to deal with.

  Appointment of Female Pupil-Teachers to Boys' Schools in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on and after the 1st July, 1906, it is proposed to appoint female pupil-teachers in boys' schools in Ireland, with a view to the increase of the mixed schools in Ireland; and, if so, whether, in view of the objections, on moral grounds, of Catholic managers to this change, it is intended to persist in this proposal.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education do not propose to appoint female pupil-teachers in boys' schools after the 1st July, 1906. Junior assistant mistresses may, in accordance with a recent regulation, be appointed after the 1st July, 1906, in boys' schools in which the average attentance ranges from thirty-five to fifty. The Commissioners are not aware of any objection to this regulation.

  Applications for issue of School Requisites in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in 1905, the Education Board for Ireland notified the local school managers that they had a surplus of school requisites on hand which they were willing to give away; that the right Reverend Monsignor O'Farrell, P.P., V.G., Ardagh, thereupon applied for some for the five Catholic schools in his parish, the pupils on the rolls in which number 396; and that, whilst the one Protestant school in the parish with fifteen pupils on its rolls got their share of these articles, not one of the Catholic schools got theirs; and what explanation there is of this action.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that applications for the issue of school requisites are dealt with

  1053
  in the order in which they are received. The fact that the application from the school mentioned in the last part of the Question was dealt with before the applications from the other schools referred to, was due simply to priority of application. All the applications referred to have now been dealt with.

  Sale of the Thompson (Clonfin) Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state whether any reply has yet been received by the Estates Commissioners to their representations to the Scottish Provident Insurance Company, as mortgagees in possession of the Thompson (Clonfin) Estate, North Longford, with a view to its sale to the Commissioners for stripping, and also for providing homes for the evicted tenants of County Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners are pursuing their inquiries into this matter. They have not yet received a reply to the communication they have addressed to the owners.

  Use of Transport Car for Conveyance of County Inspector.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the county inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Londonderry is given the allowance for a horse and servant; and, if so, why is a mounted man of the Royal Irish Constabulary and transport car employed daily to convey him from his private residence to his office at Victoria Barracks, a distance of nearly three miles; and whether he will arrange that this mounted man shall be employed otherwise in the public service.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The county inspector's official correspondence is necessarily conveyed each morning to his residence, 1¾ miles from his office, by mounted orderly or by transport car. In the latter case the county inspector usually takes advantage of the opportunity afforded by the return of the car to drive to his office when his duties do not call him elsewhere. This arrange-
  1054
  ment meets with the approval of the Inspector-General. It is necessary that the horses should be exercised, and when the car is not engaged upon other public business there is no reason why it should not be used in the manner indicated.

  Addition of Rent to Purchase Price under the Land Act.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in order to facilitate sales under the Land Act of 1903, it is permissible to add the current year's rent or any part of it to the purchase price, although the bonus may not be paid on such current rent or part thereof; and, if so, will such rent, on allocation, in case of a settled estate be paid to the tenant for life.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The purchase price to be paid is a matter for agreement between vendor and purchaser. Under Section 48, Sub-sections (1) and (2), of the Act of 1903, the bonus is to be calculated on the amount of the purchase money advanced under the Land Purchase Acts. The Answer to the last part of the Question is contained in Section 24 (8) of the Act.

  Pay and Duties of Colonels of Foot Guards.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the duties in peace and on mobilisation of the colonels of regiments of Foot Guards, as regards the regular service, and what is the estimated value of their annual pay and allowances.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The duties in peace and on mobilisation of the colonels of regiments of Foot Guards, as regards the regular service, are to act as officer commanding the regiment and regimental district and officer in charge of the records of the regiment, in which capacity he is responsible for the recruiting of the regiment and for calling up the reservists of the regiment on mobilisation. The estimated value of his pay and allowance is about £760 a year.

  Report of Outbreak of Epizootic Lymphangitis at Waterford.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will furnish to the hon. Members for Waterford City and for East and West Waterford a copy of the Reports made by officers of the Army Veterinary Department in reference to the outbreak of epizootic lymphangitis at Waterford.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Such Reports as are forwarded by officers of the Army Veterinary Department are confidential, and it would not appear expedient to make any exception in the present instance.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Hired Accountant Clerks in the Admiralty.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the duties on which it is proposed to employ the hired accountant clerks, as set out on page 151, Vote 12 of the Navy Estimates for 1906–7, are in any respects temporary, and, if so, in what respects; what number of the hired accountant clerks will be employed on such temporary duties, and what number on duties that are not considered temporary; and whether he can give an approximate date when the state of the work will admit of the services of temporary men being dispensed with.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The system of employing hired accountant clerks in the Accountant-General's Department has been in force for a year. The total number at present authorised is 151. The duties on which these clerks are employed are permanent.

    H.M.S. "Britannia"—Beagling Grant.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that beagling is provided for the cadets of H.M.S. "Britannia" out of public funds; and whether he will make it a condition of continuing the grant out of which this form of sport is maintained that beagling
    1056
    be discontinued and a drag hunt subsituted.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The question of the maintenance of the pack was considered last year, and the matter was loft to the discretion of the college authorities. But it was decided that the cost of the pack, if retained, should be a charge upon the sports fund, and that the expense should be strictly limited and should not be made a reason for increasing the subscription of the parents, out of which the sports fund is maintained, beyond the sum already allowed. Until, however, the college attains its full strength in May, 1907, it was decided that the cost of the kennel-man should be charged to Navy Votes.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point of the Question. What he wished to know was whether, having regard to the cruelty involved in this form of sport, which was obnoxious to large numbers of people, the grant would be withheld until a drag hunt was substituted.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsuggested that if the hon. Member wished to raise this point he should put a separate Question on the Paper.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the Question which he drew up covered the point, but it had been sub-edited out of all recognition.

    Obsolete War Vessels.
    MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to offer for sale by public auction at an early date a number of obsolete ships; and, if so, whether, in view of the recent decision of the Admiralty to discharge 600 men from those dockyards, and in view of the poverty existing in the neighbourhood, he will abandon such sale and order that such ships be broken up by the employes of such dockyards whom the Admiralty have decided to discharge.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The course suggested by the hon. Member is impracticable, as it would result in serious congestion in the docks and basins which

    1057
    are intended for construction and repair work, and not for the breaking up of obsolete vessels. Even if space were available, the work could not be economically undertaken in the absence of the requisite shipbreaking plant and specially trained workmen.
    MR. JENKINS: Has it ever been attempted? Was the result unsuccessful financially?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONpromised to inquire.
    MR. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of insisting that these vessels are broken up in this country instead of being taken abroad?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I will inquire as to what the present rule is.

    Wei-Hai-Wei.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with the disbandment of the Chinese regiment at Wei-Hai-Wei, any troops whatever will be left there; and whether he can see his way to make any further use for the expenditure of £53,000 incurred at Wei-Hai-Wei on permanent works under Military Works Loan Acts since 1897.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): No troops will be left at Wei-Hai-Wei. I am not in a position to give any reply to the latter part of the Question at the present time.

    St. Helena.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to withdraw the whole of the troops at present stationed in the island of St. Helena, to dismount the guns, and leave the island entirely unprotected; or whether it is intended to revert to the plan of quartering there a battalion or half-battalion of the West India Regiment, together with detachments of Royal Engineers, Army Service Corps, Army Ordnance Corps, and Royal Army Medical Corps.
    MR. HALDANE: It is intended to withdraw the whole of the garrison, but arrangements will be made for the despatch of a garrison in case of war. The question of the disposal of the guns is under consideration. There is no intention of sending any of the West India Regiment there.

    West Indian Islands Garrisons.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, since the announcement by his predecessor of the withdrawal of the garrisons from certain West Indian islands, it has been decided to leave in any of such stations detachments of Garrison Artillery or other military corps; and, if so, whether he will explain the object which such detachments are intended to serve.
    MR. HALDANE: It has been decided to leave in Jamaica the necessary force of Royal Garrison Artillery and Royal Engineers for the imperial fortress of Kingston, Jamaica.

    Epizootic Lymphangitis at Waterford.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the cases of epizootic lymphangitis first appeared among the Army horses in the Waterford barracks; can he state how many cases occurred in the barracks before February 7th, 1905, when the first case among civilian horses was reported; were horses that had been stabled at the barracks allowed out to grass, and were these horses subsequently destroyed as being affected with the disease; and whether, seeing that the Chief Secretary on July 5th, 1905,† said that the disease appeared to have been introduced through the medium of Army horses, he will order a public inquiry to be held at Waterford into the matter, and give the Waterford County Council, as representing the ratepayers, an opportunity of being represented at the inquiry and offering evidence.
    MR. HALDANE: This disease first appeared among Army horses in Waterford barracks in October, 1903. Up to February 7th, 1905, seventeen cases occurred, twelve being troop horses and five officers' private horses. No case has
    † See (4) Debates, cxlviii., 1135.

    1059
    occurred since at Waterford. No troop horses were sent to grass, but among some officers' horses which were run at grass at Williamstown was one which had been stabled at the barracks; the disease appeared among these horses while at grass, and they were destroyed. The Chief Secretary stated on June 29th last that he did not consider a formal investigation of this matter necessary, and in this view I concur.
    MR. POWER: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman says that the War Office is not responsible, and yet Lord Onslow on July 11th last † said the disease has been almost wholly imported into Ireland by Army horses, and that Lord Spencer had stated that a distinguished officer had warned the War Office against bringing back any horses, will he grant full compensation to the owners of horses slaughtered?
    MR HALDANE: I cannot accept the responsibility. We have looked into the matter and I have announced the conclusion we have arrived at.
    MR. POWER: On the first possible occasion I will draw attention to this matter.
    MR. JOYCE: Is this one of the blessings of the war?

    Royal Sparkbrook Small Arms Factory.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the negotiations for the sale of the Royal Spark-brook Small Arms Factory to a private company commenced; and whether the Government has promised this company 25 per cent. of the orders that are given out to private contractors.
    MR. HALDANE: The negotiations commenced in November, 1905. Twenty-five per cent. of the orders that are given out to private contractors were promised to the company for the three financial years ending March 31st, 1909.

    Colonial Contribution to Imperial Defence.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the amount of the contributions
    † See (4) Debates, cxlix., 227.
    1060
    from the Colonies to the upkeep of the Imperial Forces, Army and Navy, for the last completed financial year, and the amount chargeable for the same purpose to the people of the United Kingdom; and whether he can state the total revenue for the same year of the British Colonies and the United Kingdom respectively.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The total of the annual contributions of the Colonies for the latest Colonial financial years for which returns are available is £876,665. I am informed that the expenditure in 1904–5 from Army and Navy Votes was £65,793,006, and that the total Exchequer Receipts of Revenue were £143,370,405. The total revenue of the British Colonies cannot be stated exactly for the same year, owing to the different dates of commencement of the financial year in the various Governments, but I would refer the hon. Member to page 15 of the Colonial Statistical Abstract for 1905, which shows that, excluding Protectorates and including Australian State revenues, the total for 1904 was approximately £85,713,284. These revenues are, however, not strictly comparable with Exchequer receipts, as they frequently include revenues analogous to those of local bodies in this country.

    Transvaal Mining Shares.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of persons holding bearer shares in the Transvaal gold mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I am not able to state the number.

    Orange River Census.
    MR. COUTRTHOPE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the recent Census of the Orange River Colony will be published.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the summary of the Census published in July, 1904, at pages 14–19 of Cd. 2103, as well as to pages 169–175 of Cd. 2660. I have

    1061
    not learnt whether it is proposed to publish a further and more detailed statement.

    St. Helena Garrison.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Governor of the island of St. Helena any representations either in favour of, or in objection to, the proposed withdrawal of British troops from that island.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No; except that the Governor has telegraphed that grave concern is being caused throughout the colony by repeated newspaper statements that all the troops are to be withdrawn.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: Will the substance of the telegram be communicated to the War Office?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am not aware whether the Secretary for War has been communicated with; but, of course, the whole question has been carefully considered both by the War Office and the Colonial Office, and also by the Committee of National Defence.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: But the Secretary of State for War has just informed me that all the troops are to be withdrawn, and under the circumstances, ought not this expression of opinion to be put before him?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I believe the anxiety is caused by the rumours that the troops are to be immediately withdrawn, which would dislocate the actual economic position in the colony. But, as a fact, some interval will elapse, during which other arrangements can be made both for the purposes of defence and in the interest of the islanders.

    Land Taxation in India.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in 1879, when the revenue derived in India from the taxation of land was (roundly) £13,5000,000 annually, Sir W. W. Hunter, K.C.S.I., the Director-General of Statistics, declared in the
    1062
    Legislative Council of the Viceroy, of which he was a member, that the Government assessment did not leave enough food to the cultivator to support himself and his family throughout the year; and whether, seeing that the land tax has since increased, by £5,000,000 a year, to £18,500,000, he will sanction the further increase of £735,500 proposed in the Budget Estimates for 1906–7, just issued by the Government of India.
    MR. REESasked, before the Secretary of State answered, whether the Secretary of State was aware that many other members of the Viceroy's Council had expressed opinions wholly different from that of the individual member on the assumption of the correctness of whose opinion the Question was based.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,): I have no doubt that the Secretary of State is aware of the fact referred to in the second Question. In 1879 Sir William Hunter was not a member of the Legislative Council. In 1882 he was a member, and made a speech, in which he quoted a passage from a report by a Judge in the Deccan Districts, to the effect that in average years the Deccan ryot does not gain enough from his land to pay the assessment and to support himself and his family. Sir William Hunter was referring solely to the assessments in the Deccan, where the circumstances, I am advised, were exceptional. The apparent increase of £735,000, as between the revised Estimate for this current year and the Estimate for 1906–7, is mainly to be accounted for by the fact that remissions and postponements to the extent of £440,000 have been granted during the current year. I do not propose to with hold my sanction from the Budget proposals of the Government of India.
    MR. J. WARDasked whether, although the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the fact that a certain state of poverty existed at that time in a certain limited area of the Indian Empire, is it not the fact that more recently famine had been general all over the Indian Empire.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I must take exception to the expression "all over"; but, undoubtedly, speaking generally, the answer to the hon. Member's Question must be in the affirmative.

    Tibet.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when further Papers on the agreement with Tibet will be laid upon the Table.
    MR. ELLIS: There would be some inconvenience in presenting Papers just now, but I hope further information will be laid upon the Table at no distant date.

    The Open Door in the Congo Basin.
    MR. J. CATHCAET WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the General Act of the Conference of Berlin provides that all nations shall enjoy a complete liberty of commerce in the territories situate in the Congo Basin, the limits of the territories being accurately set out in the said Act, and that the Treaty or Act has been broken by the ruler of the Congo Free State, His Majesty's Government will either take the necessary steps to bring the whole transaction under the review of the Hague Tribunal or take into consideration the advisability of denouncing the Treaty under which the Free State came into existence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Before deciding upon any action in the direction indicated by the hon. Member, His Majesty's Government must wait and see in what manner the question of freedom of trade will be dealt with in the instructions shortly to be issued by the Congo Government on the recommendation of the reforms committee which has recently concluded its labours at Brussels. One of the signatory powers is, however, not competent to denounce an international agreement.

    Congo—British Merchants' Claims.
    MR. J. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the friendly I relations now existing between the
    1064
    English and French Governments and the people of both countries, and the fact that over two years ago the French Government agreed to submit the claims of British merchants, who had been ruined by French and Belgium concessionnaires, to arbitration, he will state what has been done to terminate the state of affairs now existing; and whether he concurs in the doctrine laid down by French and Belgium concessionnaires, that the products of the forest did not constitute trade, and that British merchants could only trade in what the native produced in art or industrial work not based on natural forest production.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The question of these claims continues to receive the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, but no definite statement can be made at the present stage of the negotiations. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

    Factory Regulations—Precautions against Fire.
    MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he endorses the opinion of His Majesty's inspector of factories for Camborne, Corn wall, expressed when giving evidence at an inquest on March 5th, namely, that it would be unreasonable to expect that, where only two people were employed, the owner should be compelled to place a staircase outside; and, failing agreement with this decision, whether he will secure a full explanation from the said inspector.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am not sure what were the exact words used by the Inspector, but I do not think it would be safe to conclude from the report published in the Western Morning News that he did make this statement. If he did, then I do not agree with it. It is difficult to fix an exact standard of safety in these cases. But my own view is that it is the duty of every occupier of a house who is responsible for the safety of its inmates to make proper provision for egress in case of fire; and that where there is but a single staircase, it is especially necessary to provide an alternative way of escape

    Waste Lands and Afforestation.
    MR. C. NICHOLSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now say definitely whether the proposed Royal Commission on coast erosion and kindred subjects, will deal with the questions of waste lands and afforestation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): No, Sir; it is not proposed that the reference to the Royal Commisson on coast erosion shall extend to the question of afforestation or to the question of waste lands except in so far as they are sloblands.

    Unemployed and the Distress Committees.
    MR. THORNE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the North East Division of Manchester I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state to the House the number of persons who have applied to distress committees for work, and the number for whom work has been found; and whether it is intended to introduce a Bill which will enlarge the powers of distress committees so as to enable them to adequately perform their duties.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): According to the latest figures, which were published in the Labour Gazette of the Board of Trade for March, the total number of persons who between the opening of the registers and the end of February had made application to the Distress Committees under the Unemployed Workmen Act was 106,312. The number of cases investigated was 79,705, and out of 75,145 of these 1 2,729 were found to be ineligible or not suitable for assistance under the Act. The number of persons receiving employment under the Act in February appears to have been 24,903. I cannot at present state the total number of persons who have had assistance under the Act, but I propose in due course to obtain complete figures on the subject so far as England and Wales are concerned. The Government have intimated their intention of bringing in a Bill for the amendment of the Act.

    Manchester Unemployed.
    MR. THORNE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the N.E. Division of Manchester I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of unemployed workmen were recently engaged through the Manchester Corporation Distress Committee, as sandwichmen, at 1s. 6d. per day, being 6d. less than the usual rate; and whether he will recommend these committees to maintain an established rate of pay.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have communicated with the Clerk to the Manchester Distress Committee and am informed that the men referred to had their names down on the Labour Register and that they were engaged by an advertising agent from a large number of men who were assembled in the Police Yard. I am also informed that the terms of payment were a matter of arrangement between the men and the employers, and that the Distress Committee had nothing to do with the fixing of the rate of payment or the selection of the men engaged.

    Hayes Sewage Disposal Inquiry.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Reports, of the 27th July and the 3rd August last, of the inquiry at Hayes by two of the Board's inspectors in reference to a loan to meet excess expenditure on works of sewerage and sewage disposal, and to the proceedings of the engineers to the scheme, as disclosed in those Reports; and whether he will say what action he intends to take in the matter.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have seen the reports in the Sanitary Record of the dates mentioned relative to the inquiry at Hayes, and I understand that it is to these reports that the Question refers. After the inquiry I caused a letter to be sent to the Urban District Council as to various matters arising out of it.
    MR. J. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to laying on the Table Papers connected with this business?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Not in the least

    Shop Assistants and the Living-in System.
    MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to seek powers by legislation, or otherwise, to apply the conditions of inspection for model lodging houses to premises where shop assistants are compelled to sleep in under the living-in system.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I presume that my hon. friend desires that the provisions enabling by-laws to be made for the inspection of houses let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family should be expressly made applicable to premises of the kind to which he refers. I will take note of his suggestion, so that it may be considered when a suitable opportunity presents itself for legislation on the subject. I could not undertake to deal with the matter this session.

    National Telephone Company, and the Hull Municipal Telephones.
    MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the recent offer of the National Telephone Company for the purchase of the municipal telephones of Hull; and whether, seeing that the offer was higher than the offer made by the Post Office for the same property, and that the assets of the National Telephone Company are purchasable in full by the State a few years hence, he will, in the public interest, take steps to secure that this company shall not offer, in competition against the State, sums which the State itself is pledged to reimburse.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have not made any definite offer to the Corporation of Hull for the purchase of their telephone system. On two occasions representatives of the Corporation Telephone Committee and of the Corporation have discussed the question of purchase; first, with my predecessor, and again with myself. We were given to understand on both occasions that the Corporation were not prepared to entertain an offer of less than the repayment of the full capital expended. This is a price which makes no allowance for depreciation, and is con-
    1068
    siderably higher than the valuation made by my engineers. In the interests of the taxpayer, I do not feel justified in offering it. The Corporation have not further approached me on the subject. I understand that the National Telephone Company have made an offer to purchase the Corporation telephone system; but the price to be paid by the Telephone Company (supposing their offer be accepted) will not in any way affect the price to be paid by the State in 1911 for the plant which the Postmaster-General is under agreement to purchase at that date. That price will, under the agreement, be the then value of the plant, etc., which is purchased, having regard to its suitability for the purpose of the Postmaster-General's telephonic service.
    MR. BELLOCasked whether he was to understand that these great efforts on the part of the National Telephone Company to buy up plant were being made out of philanthropy, or had they reference to the obligation of the Government to reimburse them in 1911.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he imagined the company expected to make a profit between now and 1911. The Government would pay only the then value of the plant, having regard to its suitability for the purposes of the Postmaster-General.
    MR. BELLOC: If I am a Member of the House I will remember it on that occasion.

    Swiss Parcel Post Rates.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General have the postal authorities of Switzerland expressed themselves willing to discuss the lowering of parcel postal races, and an increase in the weight of ordinary postal letters passing between the United Kingdom and Switzerland; and will he instruct the British delegates attending the forthcoming Universal Postal Congress in Rome, favourably to view and help forward concessions so beneficial to the interests of both countries.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Swiss Post Office has proposed a reduction of the rates of postage on parcels passing

    1069
    between this country and Switzerland; but it has not hitherto been practicable to meet its wishes. The Anglo-Swiss parcel post is carried on under a special agreement which will not be discussed at the Rome Congress. Certain proposals for reducing the letter rate will be discussed at the Congress, and the British Delegates will give all these matters their attention.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLORwas understood to ask if it were permissible for the British Government to come to an arrangement with the Swiss Government.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONreplied that under the Postal Union there were agreements between the various countries concerned, but it had not been found possible to accept the Swiss Government offer for reasons which he would communicate to the hon. Member privately.

    Bersham (Denbigh) Postal Arrangement.
    MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether his attention has been called to the application made by the Parish Council of Bersham, in the county of Denbigh, with regard to the system of delivering letters in their area; whether he is aware that while there is a second delivery of letters in a portion only of the said parish, namely, in part of High Street, Heol Maelor, and in the sparsely-populated district of Vrondeg, which comprises a few farmhouses only, the densely populated districts of the Smelt, Talwyn, Adwyrclawdd, and the Nant, with a population of over 5,000, have been refused a second delivery; and whether he will take steps to give effect to the wishes of the parish council and the inhabitants of this parish, by allowing the second delivery of letters to cover the same area as the morning delivery.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The applications referred to have been sent to the district surveyor, and on receipt of his report I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Importation of Store Cattle into the United Kingdom.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can say whether the restrictions at present in force in regard to the importation of store cattle into
    1070
    the British Isles are to be withdrawn; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds this decision has been taken.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The restrictions to which the hon. Member refers cannot be withdrawn without further legislation on the subject. The decision of the Government with respect to it will be stated when the Bill now before the House comes forward for Second Reading.

    Pupil Teacher's Ring—Holyhead Case.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a young lady teacher in the Holyhead Intermediate School, Miss Peggy Williams, daughter of the Rev. John Williams, was ordered to remove a ring from her finger, which she wears with her father's consent, and that, having refused to comply, she was suspended by the head teacher; and whether, in view of this case and the one at Rotherham recently, he will issue instructions to the principal teachers in all schools receiving Government or rate aid, prohibiting the use of such powers over female teachers by their superiors.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): I have seen a newspaper report of the case at Holyhead referred to. I may point out that girls in both these cases were pupils and not teachers in the schools. I quite agree with the hon. Member that the treatment of these girls appears to have been of an arbitrary and most unwise character. At the same time sumptuary laws of this kind are very common, especially in girls' schools, and are, so I am informed, attended with very satisfactory results. I do not think that the central authority in Whitehall should interfere with the discretion of the governors or managers of the schools in laying down rules of discipline unless such rules have led to a loss of efficiency in the school.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that Miss Turner is not prevented going on as a teacher, seeing that her engagement has been broken? Is hers not a grievance which it is within his duty to deal with?
    MR. BIRRELL: I deal with that case in answer to the next Question.

    The Rotherham Education Committee and Miss Turner.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will inquire of the Rotherham Local Education Committee if they resolved on February 7th to dismiss Miss Daisy Turner for having refused to remove her engagement ring at the bidding of her mistress, Miss Hodge, and that, on discovering that their action was illegal, they, on February 21st, decided on the alternative course of cancelling her engagement as a pupil teacher, and offered her £5; and, if so, whether he regards the explanation offered to him in the recent explanations of the council correct and satisfactory; and whether he has conveyed to the council his disapproval of their treatment of Miss Turner.
    MR. BIRRELL: The regulations of the Board require that all pupil teachers should be engaged under a proper agreement, but I have no power to prevent a local authority from terminating any agreement under conditions specified in the agreement itself. I do not think, therefore, that I can properly interfere in this case, but I quite agree with the hon. Member that the action of the local authority appears to have been arbitrary and most unwise.
    MR PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg further to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the Rotherham Council of Education terminated the engagement of Miss Turner as a pupil teacher, without her consent, and six months before the completion of her indenture, for no other fault, actual or alleged, than having refused to remove her engagement ring, Miss Turner is now prevented from pursuing the profession of a teacher, her apprenticeship not being completed; whether the Pupil Teachers' Centre in Rotherham is supported, in whole or in part, by State funds; and, if so, whether he will interfere to prevent Miss Turner being deprived of her engagement, actual and prospective, or secure that she shall be adequately compensated for the loss of her means of living.
    MR. BIRRELL: It will still be open for Miss Turner to follow the profession of an elementary teacher, if she passes one of the examinations which will qualify her for recognition as a teacher under the Code. The Pupil Teachers' Centre at Rotherham is in receipt of grants from the Imperial Exchequer. As I have already stated, I have no power to interfere to prevent the cancelling of Miss Turner's agreement, or to obtain for her further compensation, beyond the maximum compensation provided for in that agreement. The only ultimate power possessed by the Board of Education over the local authority in cases of this sort would be the extreme measure of withdrawing the Grants in respect of the Centre on the ground that the action complained of had rendered the Pupil Teachers' Centre educationally inefficient.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not accountable for the efficiency of the teachers who receive payment from the State, and on that ground is he not entitled to intervene in the matter, and to see that this lady is not interfered with until she gets through her examination?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid I cannot go so far as that. I may say that the teaching staff is efficient, and I can only trust that they give efficient teaching to the pupils.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman did not say if he was aware that this lady was dismissed, although the authorities at Rotherham denied that they had dismissed her.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is undoubtedly the fact that the agreement was terminated by payment of a £5 note, which was one of the conditions for determining the engagement, and therefore her connection with the Centre has terminated, but she can continue her education as a teacher in the way I have referred to in the Answer.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not the fact that the Rotherham authority first dismissed her, and then, finding that their action was illegal, took the other method of dismissing her?
    MR. BIRRELL: I believe that is so.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On that point, then, they stated what was absolutely untrue when they said they did not dismiss the girl. Will the right hon. Gentleman take notice of that fact?
    MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member seems to think I possess much greater control than I have actually over local authorities. This House is in favour of local popular control, but I am afraid that my powers of interference with local authorities, even when they act arbitrarily and irregularly, are very limited.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I hope the Rotherham authority will be ashamed of themselves, as everybody who acts like this ought to be.

    Teachers and Vaccination.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has received an application from the Education Committee of Leicester, asking that the teachers may be excused from being vaccinated against their will; and whether, in view of the fact that vaccination is no longer compulsory by law, he will allow persons with a conscientious objection to vaccination to be accepted as teachers.
    MR BIRRELL: I have received the application mentioned in the Question. It has always been the practice of the Board to require that all persons proposing to be engaged as teachers should be vaccinated. I understand that in certain districts local authorities find it difficult to obtain teachers owing to the fact that a considerable part of the population has not been vaccinated. As it is the local authority and not the Board which engages the teacher, it is a matter for consideration whether it might not be possible to throw upon local authorities the onus of consenting or refusing to employ un-vaccinated teachers. But the question is one of so much importance that I am not yet prepared to make any definite statement.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: I will repeat the Question in a few days.

    New Government Offices in Whitehall.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of
    1074
    Works whether it has been decided to cease completing the towers on the new Government Offices in Whitehall; and, if so, whether, in view of the number of masons who would be thrown out of employment and the amount of stone that has been dressed and carved, he will consider the advisability of completing the original design
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): After consultation with the architects and the Advisory Committee, I have decided not to carry the towers on the Charles Street side of the new public offices to the full height, as originally designed. This decision was arrived at on two grounds; first, that owing to the narrowness of Charles Street there is hardly any point of view from which they would have been visible; and, second, if carried out as designed they would have obstructed so much of the light available for the India and Local Government Board Offices on the opposite side of the street as to render some of their already limited accommodation practically useless. With regard to the tower on the Great George Street side, no decision has been taken as to its ultimate completion, but it will not be carried up to its full height at present, as it must be some years before the remainder of the building towards St. James's Park can be completed or even commenced, and until this is done the erection of only one of a pair of high towers would be architecturally and structurally undesirable. Considerations of economy have not entered into the question.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: Is it not the fact that there has been no work on these buildings for some weeks?
    MR. HARCOURT: NO, Sir. There has been no stoppage of work except on the towers.
    MR. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has communicated with the contractors with a view to getting the men who were employed on the towers employment on some other part of the building?
    MR. HARCOURTwas understood to reply in the affirmative.
    LORD BALCARRES: May I ask what is the estimated

    1075
    economy which the mutilation of the original design of these buildings will produce?
    MR. HARCOURT: I did not consider the question of economy at all.

    Temporary Clerical Assistants for the Admiralty.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury under what Order in Council, or other authority, the grant of over £13,000 has been made to the Accountant-General of the Navy for temporary clerical assistants; what were the circumstances advanced to move the Treasury to approve of this arrangement; what safeguards, if any, have been introduced to ensure that the persons employed are properly qualified and adequately paid, and that the money is being spent on its legitimate purpose; and also, whether he will consider the advisableness of withdrawing the covering sanction of the Treasury, and restoring the clerical staff arrangements of the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy to open competition in accordance with the Order in Council of June 4th, 1870, Clause II.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. McKENNA,): As was explained to my hon. friend on the 8th instant,† no new principle is involved in extending to the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy the system which has been for some years in operation in the Supply Departments of the Admiralty, whereby hired (non-pensionable) assistants are engaged to perform subordinate clerical duties. The scheme, which is based on the principle of retaining in the service only those who prove efficient, is understood to be working well in practice and to provide adequate remuneration for these hired accountant clerks. The legitimate expenditure of this money is secured by the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I see no reason to go back on the arrangement.

    National Galleries—Custodian's Emoluments.
    COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will explain why a
    † See (4) Debates, cliii., 601–2.
    1076
    difference exists in the emoluments of custodians employed in the several National Galleries of Art (Trafalgar Square, Kensington, and the Tate Gallery); and whether, having regard to the identity of the conditions of appointment and of responsibility, he will consider the desirability of making the rates of emolument identical.
    MR. MCKENNA: I assume that my hon. and gallant friend refers to the attendants in the galleries. It is true that the conditions of appointment of these officers are the same, but their duties vary considerably in responsibility. The salaries in each case have been fixed with regard to the importance of the services entrusted to the staff, and I do not think uniformity of rates would be desirable.

    The Turco-Egyptian Frontier.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there was any truth in the report appearing in the morning papers of the previous day to the effect that failing agreement between the Egyptian and Turkish Government, in regard to the occupation of Akaba the position would be bombarded by a British war ship;, and whether the Egyptian Government had ever exercised any authority in Akaba.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I should like to take the opportunity of my hon. friend's Question to dispel some of the apprehension which has been aroused by mis-statements in some quarters. No ultimatum has been sent to the Turkish Government, and no question has been raised as to Akaba, which is in Turkish territory. Tabah, on the contrary, is in the Sinai Peninsula, which for several generations has been recognised as being under the administration of Egypt, Tabah and one or two other posts in the Sinai Peninsula have quite recently been occupied by Turkish troops; it is obvious, that this aggression upon Egyptian administration cannot be allowed to continue, but this question is now the subject of negotiation.

    Glasgow Parish Council Nurses.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland

    1077
    whether he is aware that the Glasgow Parish Council have approved of new regulations for nurses in their employ, whereby the said nurses have had their average weekly hours of labour increased to seventy-one, and their maximum salaries reduced to £35; and seeing that the Exchequer gives maintenance grants towards these nurses' up-keep, does the Government intend to sanction the new regulations.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The facts are as stated, but the Government has no power to interfere either with the regulations, or with the present distribution of the grant. The regulations will not come into force for some weeks, and a petition has now been presented to the Council by the nurses asking that they may have each alternate Sunday off duty, which I am informed will meet their wishes.

    Education of the Blind in Ireland.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Report of the late Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the condition of the blind in the United Kingdom, and the recent Report of the International Conference held in Edinburgh last year, he proposes to grant State aid for the education of the blind in Ireland; and, if so, when.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): His Majesty's Government are considering the question of reintroducing the Irish Education (Afflicted Children) Bill of last session, under which it was proposed to give state aid towards the education of blind, deaf, and other afflicted children.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will adults be included in the scheme?
    MR. BRYCE: I cannot answer that without notice.

    Irish Land Purchase Statistics.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the entire amount, including principal and interest, paid in a term running its full normal course by a purchaser of a rent of £100 under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, at seventeen and three-quarters
    1078
    years purchase and under the Land Act of 1903 at seventeen and three-quarters, twenty-two, and twenty-five years purchase, respectively.
    MR. BRYCE: The Answer to this Question contains tabular statements which would be rendered more intelligible by a printed reply, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will have my answer circulated with to-night's Votes.†
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the fact that, while under the Land Purchase Acts of 1885, 1881, 1891, and 1896, when the price averaged seventeen and three-quarters years purchase of the rents, the Land Commission refused to sanction the prices which the tenant had agreed to pay in 7,838 cases, on the ground, generally, that those prices were excessive and the security insufficient, there have been only 693 refusals on similar grounds under the Act of 1903, though the prices with the bonuses average more than twenty-five years purchase of the rent, being an increase of seven and a quarter years purchase; and can he refer to any statistics showing that these higher prices are not excessive and that the advances are sufficiently secured.
    MR. BRYCE: It seems to be the fact that during the five years preceding the Act of 1903, the price of land sold under the Land Purchase Acts averaged seventeen and three-quarters years purchase, while under the Act of 1903 it has averaged 22·7 years purchase, or an increase of five years purchase. There are no statistics showing that the later prices are excessive, and obviously no conclusion on this point could be formed without a knowledge of the comparative value of the property sold. Moreover, it is reasonable to suppose that owing to the lower rate of annuity under the new Act the people have found it to their advantage, in free bargains, to pay the price they have given. Nothing has transpired to show that the amounts so advanced are not secured.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that an
    †See column 1045.

    1079
    annuity for sixty-eight and a half years is the same as one for forty-two or forty-nine years?
    MR. BRYCE: I cannot answer that without entering into an argument.

    Letterkenny Guardians and Canadian Cattle.
    MR. CHARLES McVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Resolution passed by the Letterkenny Board of Guardians, county Donegal, protesting against the threatened importation of Canadian store cattle; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received the Resolution referred to. I have already stated that the interests of Ireland in this matter will be duly considered. The existing statutory prohibition of the importation of store cattle cannot be removed without legislation.

    Chancery Leases.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether tenants whose landlord was a minor in Chancery in 1881, and who was obliged to sign a seven years Chancery lease, have been excluded from the benefits of the rent-fixing Acts, and, if so, does he propose to provide any relief for such tenants from the burden of excessive rents.
    MR. BRYCE: The facts are as stated in the Question. Lettings in matters relating to minors have always been held to be excluded from the rent-fixing clauses of the Land Acts. If legislation to amend the Irish Land Acts should be found necessary, the claims of these tenants will be considered by the Government.
    In reply to a further question Mr. Bryce said the decisions of the country had been uniform on this subject.

    Lord Clanricarde's Agent and the United Irish League.
    MR. DUFFY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a letter sent by Mr. Tener,
    1080
    J.P., agent to the Marquis of Clanri-carde, to Mr. Martin Ward, of Loughrea in which he assigns as the reason for the legal proceedings instituted against Mr. Ward for the recovery of his house and premises, that he was a member of the United Irish League; is he aware that a decree for possession was granted during the course of the week; and what steps the Government propose to take in order to safeguard the rights of men such as Mr. Ward.
    MR. BRYCE: I have now seen a copy of the letter referred to, and have been informed that a decree for possession was recently granted. Whatever opinion may be entertained as to the propriety of such action as was taken in this case, the Government have no power to interfere, and could only obtain such power by legislation.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Then we are to understand that Lord Clanricarde's agent did assign this as a reason for evicting Mr. Ward?
    MR. BRYCE: The letter has been published, and I think that is the construction to be put on it.

    Irish Butter Industry.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say on what basis the estimate was made of the amount of £5,250,000 worth of butter produced in Ireland in 1905; whether he can say how the amount of £3,250,000, stated as the export figure of 1904, was arrived at; and is he now aware that the amount in both cases is much larger than the figures quoted above.
    MR. BRYCE: The estimate made by the Department of Agriculture of the total production of butter in Ireland in 1905 was made on the basis of the number of milch cows, exclusive of heifers in calf, and the estimated supply of milk available for butter-making. The estimate of the value of butter exported in 1904 was based on the returns of imports and exports obtained from the several port and harbour authorities and from shipping companies. It did not include butter sent by parcel post or carried as ships' stores, as there were no reliable means of estimating these quantities. The

    1081
    Department have no information to show that their estimates in these two cases were insufficient, but they would welcome a detailed statement from those who have arrived at higher estimates, showing how these estimates, have been arrived at.

    Inspection of Irish Creameries.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a number of creameries in Ireland are registered by the Department and subject to regular inspection; and, if so, is there anything to prevent the Department registering other makers and exporters of butter who are satisfied to have their premises registered and inspected at any moment by an official of the Department.
    MR. BRYCE: Under the scheme of the Department of Agriculture for encouraging improvement in the management of creameries, a great many creameries are regularly inspected and a register of those in which the prescribed conditions are observed is published annually. There is nothing to prevent the owners of private dairies from taking advantage of the scheme, but several of the conditions are not such as would suit the business of a butter exporter.

    Scully Estate, Kilkenny.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the result of the negotiations for sale to the Estates Commissioners of the Scully estate, Tullaroan, county Kilkenny, which were entered into in 1904.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they made an offer for the purchase of this estate, but the owner declined to accept it.

    Evicted Tenants in Kilkenny.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what was the number of evicted tenants entitled to reinstatement under the Act of 1903 in county Kilkenny at the date of the passing of the Act; and how many of those have been restored to their own or equivalent holdings.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have received 153 applications from persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants in county Kilkenny. They have not yet had time to ascertain the nature of the claims of all of these persons, but will make enquiries as soon as may be possible. Three evicted tenants have been reinstated in this county to the knowledge of the Commissioners.

    Beet Cultivation in Ireland.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that beetroot can be profitably grown in Ireland, even on land of inferior quality, and that on analysis it has been found that Irish-grown beetroot is superior to that grown in Germany; and whether the Department of Agriculture will take any steps to encourage the growth of that crop in Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: In the opinion of the Department of Agriculture, the average analysis of sugar beet grown on small plots in Ireland has shown that beet of good quality can be grown in the country, but there is no evidence to indicate that this crop, if grown widely, would yield a profitable return, when the comparatively high cost of cultivation and of the necessary plant is taken into consideration. The Department do not feel that they would at present be justified in recommending the growing of beet as a general crop.

    Cloonkeen Teacher's Salary.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Cornelius O'Callaghan, N.T., Cloonkeen, Leap, was suspended in 1904; and whether, seeing that there was an epidemic of measles in the district when the inspector made his report of the school, and that although the Rev. M. Cunningham, P.P., manager of the school, requested a re-examination he was refused, and that after a service of twenty-nine years this teacher's salary was withdrawn and a pension refused, steps will be taken to fully investigate the circumstances of the case with a view of reinstating O'Callaghan in his former position.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that on the 10th May, 1904, Mr. O'Callaghan was removed from the principalship of Clonkeen boys' school. In that year, and for a series of years previously, the reports on his work were of an extremely unfavourable character, and he had been repeatedly censured and once fined. In July, 1904, the manager made a request for a re-examination of the school, but the application was not entertained. Mr. O'Callaghan was in any case ineligible for a pension by reason of insufficient age. The Commissioners inform me that they do not propose to re-investigate the case.

    Faked Hams in Ireland.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the cases of faking hams in Ireland; and, if so, will he say what action, if any, has been taken in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The attention of the Department of Agriculture has been drawn to a letter published in a newspaper on February 28th, which contained an allegation that the writer knew that American bacon and hams had been imported into Ireland, branded with an Irish brand, and sold as Irish produce. An inspector of the Department at once visited the writer, but failed to obtain from him any evidence in support of his statement.
    MR. JOYCE: He did not want to get it.

    Merchant's Quay, Kilrush.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will make inquiries as to what steps, if any have been taken in the lighting and safe guarding of Merchant's Quay, Kilrush county Clare, where several lives have been lost; if the inspectors who visited the place in or about December, 1905, and who have sent copies of the docks and quays regulations under the Factory Acts to Mr. Vandelure, pointing out his responsibility under them, have furnished him with their Report; and whether he will make inquiries why this danger to tin lives of the inhabitants of Kilrush and to
    1084
    the sailors and others who have business to transact there is not abated and the quay properly protected.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The quay in question is a small one used by only one firm. The statement in the Question that several lives have been lost there is new to me. An inquiry was made and a report received from the factory inspector in November last. This did not disclose any very serious irregularities, but the occupier was served with the dock regulations, and his attention drawn to his responsibilities under them, and to the necessity of lighting and I fencing when vessels are loading or unloading. I have called for a further report upon the place.
    MR. HALPIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this property I belongs to the Grand Jury of county Clare?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I was not aware of it.

    Cork Junction Railways Bill.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will furnish a copy of the I correspondence which passed between the right hon. Member for South Dublin, the Treasury, and Lord Barrymore, during the session of 1905, with reference to the making of a grant by the Treasury in aid of the proposals contained in the Cork Junction Railways Bill of last session.
    MR. MCKENNA: I can find no trace in the Treasury records of such a correspondence.

    Ministers and Company Directorships.
    MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask I the First Lord of the Treasury whether the rule as to the resignation of directorships, on acceptance of office, was made in order to prevent Ministers from occupying their time on matters other than their official duties; and, if so, why private businesses are made an exception; and whether this rule tends to exclude men of commercial experience from all Liberal Governments of the greatest commercial I country of the world.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): No, Sir, I think my hon. friend's fears are exaggerated. I know of no such tendency. All men of commercial experience are not directors of public companies. There is an obvious difference between a partner in an ordinary private business and a director in a public company.

    The South Africa Committee.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe that on Thursday it is proposed to take the Army Estimates. Since that was arranged something has occurred which we on this side of the House consider of great importance, the appointment of a Committee to visit South Africa in reference to an inquiry into the Constitution. In these circumstances, and considering that the matter is very urgent, as the Committee is immediately starting, I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will put down the Colonial Vote for Thursday,
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think we can interfere with the arrangements for this week, as they have been announced.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Committee proceeding to the Transvaal will be instructed to have in view in their inquiries and report the paramount necessity of maintaining British interests in the new colonies and preserving them as an integral part of the British Empire.
    SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; no such instructions will be given. The necessity which the hon. Gentleman describes affects the action of the Imperial Government, and they have no desire or intention of transferring their responsibilities in that matter to any Committee. The inquiry by the Committee sent to South Africa relates only to the facts upon which their decision will rest.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: In view of the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and of the great anxiety which was felt by a great many Members and a great many people in this country, and also of the imminent departure of the Committee to
    1086
    South Africa, and of the difficulty made by the First Lord of the Treasury in setting apart a day for the discussion of this question, I have to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the omission from the directions to the Committee which is about to proceed to South Africa to inquire and report into matters connected with the constitution of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies of any instruction to the Committee in any inquiry they may make and in any report they may submit to have in view the paramount necessity of maintaining British interests in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony and of preserving these new colonies as integal parts of the Empire.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member can hardly bring that question within the rules of urgency. The matter is a very important one, but the Committee, I understand, is leaving this week or the week after, and it must take a month to get out to South Africa. During that time there will be opportunity of telegraphing out instructions which would meet the Committee on its arrival. During the month or six weeks there will be opportunity for the hon. Member to raise the question either in Committee of Supply or upon the Motion of Adjournment for the holidays; therefore I do not think the rule was drawn to cover a case of this kind. The rule was drawn to cover a case where no other opportunity offered for raising an important question.

NEW BILLS.
  CROWN LANDS BILL.
  "To amend the Crown Lands Act, 1829 to 1894," presented by Mr. McKenna; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]
  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  "To authorise the exchange of parcels of waste in the Forest of Dean, and to amend the Dean Forest (Mines) Act, 1904," presented by Mr. McKenna; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
  "To transfer to the Local Government Board the Powers of the Treasury under enactments relating to Local Authorities," presented by Mr. McKenna; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate and control Sunday Trading in Scotland," presented by Mr. Cameron Corbett; supported by Mr. Robert Balfour, Mr. Gulland, Mr. McCallum, and Mr. Wood; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
  TEXTILE WORKERS (SATURDAY AND SUNDAY HOLIDAYS) BILL.
  "To prohibit employment between noon on Saturday and six o'clock on Monday morning in woollen, worsted, and silk factories," presented by Mr. Jowett; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
  EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the Education and Conveyance to school of Epileptic and Crippled and Defective Children in Scotland," presented by Mr. Gulland; supported by Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. McCrae, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Barnes and Mr. Watt; to be road a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
  SHOP CLUBS ACT (1902) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To extend the provisions of Section 1 of the Shop Clubs Act, 1902, to membership of Trades Unions and Industrial and Provident Societies," presented by Mr. John Ward; supported by Mr. Steadman, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Brace, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Bell; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

  PRIVILEGES.
  Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Blake, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Ellis, Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham) were nominated members of the Committee of Privileges.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

  OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS, ETC.
  Ordered, That Mr. W. F. D. Smith be discharged from the Select Committee on Official Publications, etc.
  Ordered, That Mr. Bowles be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

  SUNDAY TRADING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Haviland-Burke be a Member of the Committee appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords on Sunday Trading.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
  MR. J. R. MACDONALDwished to substitute the name of a Labour Member for that of Mr. Haviland-Burke on the ground that the working-classes should be amply represented at an inquiry into a subject in which they were so closely interested.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDpointed out that Mr. Haviland-Burke should be on the Committee as representing the Irish Nationalist Party, and failed to understand why he was objected to.
  MR. J. MACDONALDwithdrew his objection.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEmoved to omit the name of Mr. Gulland and substitute a Member of the Labour Party. He had, he said, no objection to the hon. Gentleman personally, but this was a matter which practically affected the convenience of the working-classes and the smaller shopkeepers, and therefore the Labour Party ought to be more strongly represented on that.
  Amendment proposed—
  "That the name of Mr. Gulland be omitted."—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
  MR. WHITELEYsaid the Committees had been set up with great care, and he did not think the hon. Member could

  1089
  suggest that trades unionism was not represented. Mr. Enoch Edwards represented the largest trades union in the United Kingdom, and was chairman of the trade unionists on the Government side of the House. He did not think any complaint could be made in regard to the selection, and he was sorry he could not substitute another name for Mr. Gulland's.
  Amendment put and negatived, and Motion agreed to.
  Sir HENRY KIMBER and Mr. STUART SAMUEL nominated other Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered That two be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. GUESTsaid the Bill had two objects; one was to apply to foreign ships the same provisions with regard to sailors as were applicable to our own ships, and the other was, from the national point of view, to do something to encourage British seamen. He did not think that anybody could deny that the application of the load-line to foreign ships was needed in the interests of the safety and welfare of the sea-faring population, and it could hardly be contended that those foreign ships which used our ports should be exempted from this provision which had redounded so very much to the credit of the gentlemen who first secured its application. The possession of a certain amount of knowledge in the English language was equally important in the same direction. He did not think hon. Members opposite would be able to charge his right hon. friend with any protective instincts or protective ideas in the Bill which he had
  1090
  introduced. Of course, it might be suggested that they had, in fact, a slightly protective effect, but that was not the object which his right hon. friend had in making those provisions. Seeing that they were justifiable and that he did not think any Member of the House was of opinion that they were undesirable, it would not be for them to accuse him of introducing protective legislation for British seamen. But there was a much more important object, from a national point of view, than the introduction of safety measures, and that was the encouragement of British seamen. Everybody who knew anything about shipping or who had the good fortune or the misfortune to represent a seafaring port, knew perfectly well that one of the greatest deterrents to the adoption of a seafaring career was the fact that, if a British seaman engaged under present conditions on an English ship, he was very apt to find himself in the position of being in a foreign country. Very often it happened that every other seaman on the ship was a foreigner, and there was small inducement to British seamen to serve. Another great grievance which British seamen had had to endure in the past was the scale of food to which they I had been subjected. Many people had assured him that one of the most important considerations, if they wished to have a British crew and if the British crew was to be satisfied and to be satisfactory, was that there should be a good cook and a good scale of provisions. Most of the best shipowners appreciated that fact, and steps had of late years been taken very much to improve the conditions of living on board British ships. That provision in the Bill, therefore, would have the effect largely of levelling up shipowners to the standard of the best shipowners in the country. The better pro vision for the repatriation of distressed seamen left abroad must also have a similar effect upon encouraging British seamen. That object, as he had said, was a national object. It was surely of the very greatest importance in these days, when we relied so much upon the Blue-water school, that there should be in this country at any given time a large available supply of seamen to whom we could look in time of war to

  1091
  fill up the gaps in our Navy. It would be a very disastrous thing if, owing to oversight or indifference, British seamanship were allowed to diminish, until, perhaps, British shipping had passed almost entirely into the hands of foreign seamen. This Bill, therefore, had his support on national grounds as well as on the grounds of safety. He knew there were Members in the House, and especially the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, who thought that the provisions of the Bill, with regard to foreign seamen, should be extended in part, if not in bulk, to the exclusion of lascars. He imagined that that hon. Member thought lascars were as much foreigners as Greeks, Norwegians, or Spaniards, but he would tell the House an experience which he had during the recent electoral contest. It went a long way to prove that, in the opinion of the public, lascars were British subjects and were so regarded. At one of those usual dockyard crowds which it was the lot of a candidate to address at election times, he was approached by an Englishman, who complained bitterly of the foreign competition which prevented him from earning a livelihood. The man was pale and hungry, and he would have made an impression upon anybody thus interviewed by him. Whilst he was urging his case and asking him (Mr. Guest), if returned to Parliament, to do something for him and others like him, a negro came up and proceeded to protest in voluble, but not very good English that he was suffering from similar competition. Thereupon he (Mr. Guest) said, "You are protesting against the competition of foreigners. Here is a foreigner, and he is protesting against similar competition." "Oh, no," said the crowd," he is a British subject; we do not object to him." In that protest his pinched and starving friend was one of the first to join. It was, therefore, absolutely clear to his mind that in our ports Englishmen did feel that British subjects stood upon a different basis to foreigners, and whose competition was entirely foreign competition. In view of that fact, he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would resist any attempt to exclude lascars or any other British subjects
  1092
  in the way he had excluded foreigners by the clauses of the Bill.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: May I correct the hon. Member? I do not object to the employment of lascars, and never have objected. All I say is that they should not be used for the purpose of driving Britishers out of British ships.
  MR. GUESTsaid he understood that the hon. Gentleman wished to limit their sphere of competition in some way or another. Here was a negro. He did not know where he came from, but he was recognised by a Party crowd to be a British subject, and he came there in distinct competition with the man who was complaining very bitterly and suffering so much from all forms of foreign competition. Although the man was extremely bitter and hostile about the foreign competition to which he was subjected, he did not in the least object to the competition of the negro, because he was a British subject. He did not believe that English seamen in the least objected to the competition of British seamen whether they come from England or were natives of self - governing or Crown Colonies. What they did object to was the competition of foreign seamen. He did not think his right hon. friend was concerned with the question of competition; he was concerned with the question of safety; and he did not doubt that the negro was quite capable of understanding words of command given in the English language. He believed this measure would meet with the approval of the shipping community in general, and that it would not inflict any unnecessary burden upon the shipping industry. He did not believe it would do more than in some cases level up the practice of the less public-spirited shipowners to the level of the more public-spirited shipowners. In his opinion it would not have a hampering effect upon trade, and it would provide a much-needed improvement in shipping Acts as applicable to seamen.
  MR. GIBBSasked for the indulgence of the House, as a new

  1093
  Member, to say a word or two upon the question of alien pilots in British waters. He expressed his gratitude to the President of the Board of Trade for his sympathetic attitude towards this question in his speech last week. Up to the present time only eighty-five certificates had been granted to foreign pilots. That might not seem to be so very serious, but he maintained that, if something was not done, the certificates would increase, and the matter in time would become very serious indeed. The profession of a pilot was one of great responsibility and should be remunerated accordingly. If the number of certificates was increased by certificates being granted to foreign masters and mates, then, while the responsibility remained, the profitableness of the profession would be diminished. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, which authorised piloting authorities to grant certificates to masters or mates of any ship of any nationality, caused a great injustice and was a great danger to the State. A pilot's living was gained by navigating ships through the intricate courses which had to be followed when approaching or leaving this Island Kingdom of ours. He would quote an instance. The approach to the City of Bristol, a Division of which he had the honour to represent, required considerable skill in navigation, and the native pilots there considered it a great hardship that the masters of foreign ships should be allowed to pilot their vessels up the river. In nearly all other maritime countries the necessary local knowledge was limited to a body of native pilots, and, in fact, he believed in some cases pilots' certificates were not granted even to native captains. Our system of compulsory pilotage was modified by a provision being made to grant certificates to masters and mates of ships which habitually traded through the particular port authorising them to pilot their own ships. He believed at first the local authorities considered that this regulation was supposed only to apply to Britishers, but the Board of Trade thought differently and held that no exclusion of foreigners was implied. In this was foreigners had obtained equal rights, and not only could they pilot their own ships in our waters, but, by so doing, they
  1094
  saved pilotage dues. The consequence was that the native pilot saw foreign hips pass by navigated by men who had not one-half the local knowledge he possessed, and he felt at the same time that he was being deprived of what he might fairly consider to be his rights. Apart from all this, the House should look at the inducement for foreign mercantile officers to get British pilotage certificates. The possession of such certificates increased their chance of promotion in the naval reserve force of their own country very considerably, and in that way it seemed to him we were training a body of men who would strengthen the intelligence department of foreign countries, and, without doubt, constitute a very grave danger in time of war.
  MR. REESsaid he had listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, who had expressed similar views to those put before the House by one or two hon. Members of the Labour Party on the Second Reading of the Bill. There was no town in his constituency on the coast, and he would not be justified in troubling the House with any observations were it not that he thought that no man was worth much who did not speak up for his friends, on whatever side of the House he sat. He should like to say a word or two on behalf of the lascars, and in reference to the petition which was read in the House. When the petition was read, some doubt was expressed as to whether it was written by a lascar. A question was actually asked on the subject. It was likely enough that it was not written by a lascar. He believed it was not written by one, but it expressed, in the most exact manner, the feelings of the lascars. He would explain how these things were done. In the East it was not the custom to do things for one's self which it was somebody else's business to do. In this country a man might shave himself without offence, but in the East if a man were to shave himself he would be regarded as interfering with the rights of the barbers. In the same way it was not the custom to write petitions: it was a profession to write petitions. A petition writer would be sitting in the

  1095
  street and no sooner did he see a lascar coming round than he proceeded to get the petition written, and it was almost done before the lascar told him what he wanted. The petition might commence, "There is in the British Parliament a good kind gentleman called Havelock Wilson, who is the father and mother of sailors and lascars." That would be the conventional form, but it did not exactly meet the case. The fact was that the lascar wanted to complain of this hon. Member because he proposed to give him more cubic space than he needed. He did not want it. It was in his opinion a noxious draught. The fact was that the lascar did not want the benevolence of this Gentleman, who was described as the father and mother of the British sailor. That was a correct description of the case, and for that reason he was extremely pleased to hear what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon said of the lascars, when he testified to their competence as sailors. There might be difficulty in dealing with them in view of the competition of Eastern and Western labour, but he wished to testify to the fact that these men were deserving of all consideration. He did mean to say that to press such provisions in regard to the lascars was in point of fact utterly unreasonable. It was a well-known fact that if a native of India owned a palace, he would sleep in a corner. He disliked space and absolutely enjoyed crowding. These facts might not be acceptable in the House, and they might not be understood. But they were precisely what the lascars thought. There were a great many people on the continent of Europe who were absolutely unwilling to have an open window during many months in the year. The regulations which applied to British seamen were wholly unsuitable to lascars, and if the question arose it should be dealt with on a proper footing without applying regulations suitable for Europeans to people of a different colour who did not want them. It had been suggested in the course of the debate that the lascar's ignorance of English might give rise to danger. The fact was that the lascar, like all his race, was a born linguist. He himself had never seen a lascar who did not
  1096
  perfectly well understand the words of command, and he was convinced that no difficulty or danger would arise with these men on that account. No objection of that kind could really hold water. If the employment of the lascar competed with that of the British sailor he deeply deplored it. He had lived in India, and he would put the British sailor first, but at the same time he believed it was a fact that there was plenty of room and plenty of work for both. The lascar was a very honourable counterpart in the East of the British sailor in the West. He hoped the House would excuse him for making a few remarks on this branch of the subject with which he was really acquainted.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that in the Bill as it stood there were some omissions which might be rectified by the Grand Committee. There was no mention made in it of any alteration in the space allowed to seamen. He was a member of a Select Committee two years ago which threw out a Bill of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and they made a special report at that time, stating that it was desirable that the Board of Trade should deal with the question of crew space. At present, under the Act of 1854, the space allotted to each seaman was only 72 cubic feet. That provision had been acknowledged by the President of the Board of Trade to be too small. He was well aware that that was exceeded by nearly all the vessels now trading, but the fact was used in debate and was also made use of outside the House by the Seamen's and Firemen's Association, and by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. It was not so much a question of crew space for seamen as a question of the measurement of ships. Mr. Gerald Balfour referred the matter to a Departmental Committee in February, 1905, and he-wished to ask whether that Committee had yet reported. It was most desirable that Members should have that report before them before the Bill was considered by the Grand Committee. This was a matter of great importance, not only to shipping interests, but especially to dock interests. It was

  1097
  only on Monday that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board passed a Docks Bill through a Committee of the House of Lords entitling them to spend £4,500,000 on the extension of docks at Liverpool. That money was to be spent chiefly for the berthing of the new large Cunard steamers. Those steamers were of immense size a ad the accommodation they required was very great, but it was contended by the Mersey harbour authorities that under the measurements at present existing and under the system by which dues are levied at the docks on the net registered tonnage those great ships would probably pay only at the rate of 33 per cent. of their gross tonnage. A Committee which had inquired into that tonnage recommended that each ship should pay on not less than 50 per cent, of the gross tonnage. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade was not averse to that subject coming before the Grand Committee and to some Amendment being inserted in the Bill by which a more equitable arrangement should be made for the reckoning of the tonnage. Mr. Byles, Sir William White, and some of the best naval authorities held that the payment of dock charges should be made for services rendered and not on the earning power of the vessel. In the 1854 Act those rates were supposed to be paid on the earning capacity of the ship. As ships were now constructed that was very unfair to the dock authorities and the great majority of ships paid on 64 per cent. But some ships like the new Cunarders paid on between 30 and 40 per cent, although their real carrying capacity amounted to over 50 per cent. It was contended by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that any alteration in the measurement of ships for dock dues, if charged on the gross tonnage and not on the net tonnage, would interfere with crew space, but that was not borne out by the expert evidence given before the Departmental Committee. The crew space at the present time was greatly in excess of that laid down by the Merchant Shipping Act. The President of the Board of Trade ought to bring in a new clause extending the amount of space allotted for seamen to at least double the present amount of 72 feet. He believed that no ship at Liverpool gave
  1098
  less than 141 feet. It ought not to be left to the caprice and convenience of shipowners, but should be laid down by Parliament. If the shipowner gave extra space to the crew it was at the expense of the dock authority, and, therefore, it was highly important that the exact amount should be stated.
  MR. L. HASLAMsaid that it would save the time of the House if he read the following Question which he recently addressed to the President of the Board of Trade and the Answer—
  "'To ask the president of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps, by legislation or otherwise, so that merchant seamen shall have the right to claim that a portion of their wages, while they are away on voyage, shall be paid to persons dependent upon them for support, to banks, or trade unions, or similar institutions, as they may appoint.'
  "MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A seaman can already (under Section 141 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894) allot half of his wages to a near relative or to a savings bank. I will consider whether it is desirable to extend the provision of this section to trades unions, or similar institutions as the seaman may appoint."
  The reason for his rising and putting this Question was that he represented a large seaport town, and he had received a petition, signed by 123 seamen, saying that they frequently were unable to get an allotment of their wages which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the law allowed them to obtain. He had a letter from the chaplain of the Seamen's Institute of Newport, saying that he had been to consult the shipping officers in order to be able to make the matter quite plain. These were the facts. The Act said—
  "A seaman may require that a stipulation be inserted in his agreement for allotment of his wages."
  The seaman went to a shipping office. He was told what wages were offered, and that he might have half a month's advanced, and if he wished to make an allotment he was allowed to do so. Many shipping offices, however, refused, and said he could not claim to have any allotment. If that were so it was a very serious grievance. The ship - masters knew that they could find other men

  1099
  and told the sailor he was not wanted, and some foreigner, or unmarried man, or thriftless fellow, was taken on instead. What was required was an additional clause granting the request for an allotment which any sailor might make. The chaplain went on to give a concrete case of a woman of twenty years of age, married to a Norwegian. He sailed in a ship, and before doing so got half a month's wages in advance or two pounds. He tried to get more but could not. Some weeks afterwards, the husband not having returned, the wife went to the shipping office and asked for an allotment, which was refused. A letter was written to the owners in Glasgow asking them to pay the wife part of her husband's wages. The reply was a refusal, and the wife had to go to the relieving officer of her parish. It was just possible that an ordinary seaman might be confused by the intricacies of legal phraseology; he might not be able to comprehend the meaning of an Act of Parliament. He had himself read the Act of Parliament and had had considerable difficulty in knowing whether a seaman could compel a shipowner to make an allotment of his wages. Everybody knew the great temptation which confronted a sailor when he came on shore with a large sum of money—wages for perhaps a voyage of one or two years. Every possible opportunity should be given to the sailor to have some portion of the money placed in a savings bank or other secured deposit so that he might not have a large amount of money paid him on his arrival at home. The law should be so amended that it would be an offence if a form was not offered to seamen to fill in, enabling him to make an allotment of his wages not exceeding one-half of the amount. That was to say, whenever a sailor asked for a berth it should be compulsory on the part of the shipowner to allow the sailor to do what he wished with regard to the security and disposal of his wages while at sea. If that were done benefit to our seamen would be very much ensured. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would bring in some Amendment of the Bill in Committee in that direction.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that as he was Chairman, or a member, or otherwise interested in the in-
  1100
  quiries of the several Committees whose recommendations were embodied in this Bill, he should like to say a few words about the measure. The hon. Member for Cardiff was very anxious lest we, as a nation, should make any suggestion of self-defence against unfair foreign competition in discussing the provisions of this Bill, and seemed to think we should not be justified in doing so. He entirely disagreed with the hon. Member. This Bill made very decidedly against unfair foreign competition, and he was exceedingly glad that the President of the Board of Trade was bringing it in. The right hon. Gentleman's object from that particular point of view was an excellent one. Personally, he did not see a very great deal of difference in protecting ourselves against cheap dumping by unseaworthy foreign ships and protecting ourselves against cheap dumping by a system of free imports. But, however that might be, he had every hope that as the President of the Board of Trade had undertaken to father this Bill through the House, they might yet see him a convert to defending our goods and our trade against unfair foreign competition. British trade ought to have equal opportunities, as far as possible, with foreign trade. That was the object of Tariff Reform. British ships ought to have equal opportunities with foreign ships. That was the object of the Bill under discussion; and he sincerely trusted that the direction of this policy would be followed a great deal further, not merely for our ships, but for our trade. One of the main objects of this Bill was to say that the Board of Trade regulations would be enforced against foreign ships equally with British ships. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee on Steamship Subsidies, and it was most desirable. Clause 1 of this Bill applied our load-line to foreign ships. It provided that where foreign ships were, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, unseaworthy owing to defective equipment, etc., we should be able to bring them to book. That was a very useful provision. There had been cases where it had been difficult to deal with foreign ships so as to put them on an equality with British ships. Take, for instance, the case of a foreign ship coming from

  1101
  Spain loaded with iron ore to this country. If the master of that ship chose, he could load, at the Spanish port, his ship down to a level that would submerge the British load-line by the amount of bunker coal and other necessaries which would be spent on the voyage, yet so that on arrival in this country the British load-line would not be submerged.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: A British ship might do the same now; but under this Bill neither a British nor a foreign ship would be able to do so in future.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that what he was going on to say was that he thought the foreign ship had had an advantage, because it was not so much under the direct control of the Board of Trade as the British ship.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Under this Act it will be.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he hoped so, and he was not making this criticism to condemn the Bill, but only to show that a watch must be kept to prevent foreign ships from evading indispensable British regulations applied to competing British ships. He was very anxious that, as far as possible, any regulations as to load-line should strike equally at foreign and British ships. It was important that the House should be reminded that foreign ideas in regard to many matters were different from ours, and that foreigners were apt to think that we interfered unduly with their ships in making what they considered vexatious requirements. His point was that, so far as we could, we should keep to the basis of safety. He should like to know whether any effort had been made, was being made, or was likely to be made to obtain an international load-line. He thought such a course was very desirable. He knew it was not often very easy, because foreign countries were not always disposed to take action with us in regard to maritime affairs. But if an international agreement could be come to, it would be advantageous to all the seafaring nations of the world, and it would be a great triumph to this country or whatever country
  1102
  carried out such a scheme. He thought it might be done if we paid some attention to the views of foreign nations. There were signs at the present time that some foreign nations were disposed to think over the proposal with some favour. In Germany there had been an endeavour to establish a load-line. There was a syndicate in that country called the Seeberufsgenossenschaft, which was a kind of mixed trade union and marine insurance company, which had the power to make regulations somewhat similar to our Board of Trade regulations and which submitted them to the German Government for their approval. He thought that the existence of a body of that kind did show that foreign countries were awakening to the necessities of the case, and that their governments would be more ready than hitherto to negotiate for international regulations for a load-line. He understood from Clause 16 that the British regulations for passenger or emigrant ships were not to be applied to foreign passenger or emigrant ships merely calling at one British port. Those ships must be plying between British ports. That, he thought, was quite wise. It would be very undesirable on our part to impose on foreign ships, which were not plying between our ports, specific regulations of that character. He knew that we were subjected ourselves in foreign ports to exceedingly tiresome regulations, but he did not think we ought to imitate foreign nations in that respect unless it were for the purpose of getting them to comply with our regulations here. He had been told that if a British ship went into a port of Italy, and if while in that port it was painted with the British ship-owner's own paint and by his own men, the Italian Government taxed him for the painting of that ship as if it were done with Italian paint. He believed also that in Italian ports—certainly up till recently—the British shipowner was taxed for the electric light which he himself manufactured on his ship and for the use of his ship while in that port. These were merely vexatious regulations, and our regulations, he hoped, would always be child's play to such devices as those. He imagined that Clause 20, and indeed the whole of Parts 3 and

  1103
  4 of the Bill were contributions of the Board of Trade to the solution of the problem of the decline of British seamen. It was a very difficult problem and he wished he was of opinion that it was easier to get British seamen to man our ships than was the fact. He did not think it was easy to get British seamen, and he wished that the naval life could be made more attractive to them. Rather than go to training ships, boys were attracted by the higher wages or the more interesting employment which they could get on land. It was exceedingly difficult to get many British seamen on our ships, and he took it that Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill constituted the remedy of the Government for that evil, although he could not say it was an heroic remedy. He could not pretend to criticise it, because it was very difficult to say that anything could be done, but he thought one ought always to be on the look-out to see what was feasible, and if any better solution of the problem than this presented itself he hoped the Government would not be slow to avail themselves of it. Sub-section 4 of Clause 20 said that the provisions were not to apply to lascars. He would like to see incorporated into that subsection the words "or other Asiatic or African crews." He would show why. There were certain cases in which ships' articles were signed for a considerable time. Suppose a ship went to the Far East and the articles expired at the end of three years, and suppose at the end of three years the ship was still out in the Far East and likely to remain there, trading from port to port. Suppose the seamen who went out with that ship said they did not wish to continue in her and were paid off. There were no means of getting any other seamen except Chinese or natives of Africa. Therefore he thought it was necessary that such provision should be made in that section that it should apply just as much to those classes as to the natives of India. Of course that was an Amendment which should come before the Standing Committee on Trade, but he pointed it out now so that it could be fully considered in time. He saw by Clause 33 that the qualification for the rating of an able seaman was reduced. At first he
  1104
  was a little anxious lest they might be playing a little too lightly with qualifications of that description, but he was told now that the work which was required to make an able seaman was not so arduous or difficult or complicated as it was fifty years ago and that it was quite possible for a man to be thoroughly up to his work after two years at sea. He did not think, therefore, that that was an injudicious provision. He wanted to say a word or two on Clause 40, because it was in that clause that the President of the Board of Trade proposed to appoint committees of experts, for the purpose of advising him, when considering the making or alteration of any rules, regulations or scales. That was a very useful clause, and the only remark he wanted to pass was that he should like to see that policy of Advisory Committees extended as far as possible. He was sure it was a very wise plan to bring expert knowledge and opinion directly concerned in any particular trade more familiarly before the Board of Trade than had sometimes been done. The Board of Trade had perhaps been too much apt to rely on its own initiative, and he thought the appointment of an Advisory Committee of this nature would result in making the Board of Trade more efficient. He would like to see this policy very widely extended. On one of the Committees on which he served he recollected that a recommendation was made that it would be advisable to have a small permanent Advisory Committee to watch the development of foreign competition, and that that Committee should consist of officials of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the Post Office, and the Colonial Office, together with representatives of shipping and commerce. He did not think anything had ever been done with regard to appointing a Committee of that kind for permanently watching foreign competition in its various aspects, but if this policy could be extended in that way also, he should certainly welcome it. With regard to the few remarks that fell from the hon. Member for West Bristol in his maiden speech, referring to the question of alien pilotage, he was in absolute accord with the hon. Gentleman, and if the President of the

  1105
  Board of Trade found that legislation of that sort would not interfere with foreign treaties he would like that alteration to be made in the Committee.
  MR. CHARLES WILSONdesired to support the hon. Member for West Bristol in asking the President of the Board of Trade to exclude foreigners from piloting British vessels. He had the honour of representing a shipping constituency, and in the recess a strong deputation waited upon him for the purpose of asking him to support any legislation that was brought in on this subject. He believed that British pilots were not allowed to pilot their ships in foreign waters, and although he was a free trader he believed it was for the benefit of the mercantile marine that piloting in our waters should be done by British sailors, or naturalised British subjects. He had nothing further to say on this subject, because he thought the President of the Board of Trade, having heard so much, would do something in that direction. He hoped he would, at any rate. Before sitting down he wished to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the great Bill he had brought in.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think we can all join in the chorus of congratulation which has fallen upon this Bill. No one can find fault with the Bill for what it contains, and if any fault is to be found it must be with regard to what it omits. Many of the observations made upon the First Reading of this measure, and some of those which have been made to-day, have been very curious and significant. The Bill is accepted by everyone, so far as its main provisions are concerned, with regard to the application of the load-line to foriegn ships. With regard to the provision that is made for the better feeding of the men, and the application of a more liberal scale of provisions, I am very glad to know that the President of the Board of Trade is in accord with the majority of the shipowners. No doubt that is a very great step in advance; but a still greater step, in my opinion, is the provision made as to the education of ships' cooks. I wish that something more had been done towards the training of boys for the mercantile marine. I do
  1106
  not know whether others have seen, as I have, the arrangements made for the training of boys for the mercantile marine both in France and in Germany. They are totally distinct and different systems, but both result in the supply of first-class seamen. There, is one provision which is more doubtful than the others I have referred to, which I support, shall I say, with some misgiving. It is a provision which gives us something to think of. I mean the exclusion of foreigners from our mercantile marine. I am not a free importer, but I am a free trader, and I am glad to find, that my interpretation of free trade is consistent with a Bill of this character. Let us see what the Bill really does. We have in the first place this proposal with regard to the load-line of which we all approve, but is the motive for that provision solely the preservation of life? If it is, we can all approve of it. But we know that it is not. We know that that is one motive, and a very great motive, but we also know from one hon. Member who said that he represented the largest shipping port in this country, the Barry Docks, and who spoke with refreshing candour, the true raison d'etre of this arrangement as far as he is concerned. The hon. Member said the existing system gave foreign ships an advantage which enabled them to work at a profit, whereas our ships under our rules could only work at a loss. I have no quarrel with that proposition, but its acceptance seems to carry us very far. If that proposition is accepted it carries us much further than the simple doctrine of the application of the load-line to foreign ships. If it is true and just that we should give a fair opportunity to our workers, whether they work on land or sea, by depriving them of unfair competition, then I think we have travelled a long way on a very interesting road. The hon. Members for Sunderland and for Glamorganshire were very logical on this matter. The hon. Member for Sunderland made a very candid remark. The hon. Member said—
  "If you are going to do this why do you not also insist that the wages paid on foreign ships should be the same as those paid on British ships?"

  1107
  That is a little beyond my proposition at present. That is a very strong step to take. But I note it as an indication of the motive for this provision. My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, speaking on a kindred matter, suggested that it would be reasonable, when we are making arrangements for the guaranteeing of persons working in this country against accidents and extending that arrangement to accidents to persons employed at sea, that we should insist that.the provision should be extended to persons coming into our ports on foreign ships in competition with us as well as on our own ships. I see nothing in that which is inconsistent with the doctrine we have adopted with regard to the load-line. If that proposal is adopted solely on the ground of the preservation of life, I think we should have a good deal more evidence upon that point; and we should be shown conclusively that there is a great loss of life on ships coming into British ports and not conforming with our regulations. But I should like to know whether the motive, which the hon. Member for Glamorganshire says is his motive, enters into this question at all. Then, again, with regard to the question of language, we have derived a great amount of knowledge upon that subject from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He said we ought to exclude lascars who could not speak English, that he did not object to the employment of lascars in competition with English seamen on equal terms. But that is not my argument at all. We are now dealing with the question of whether we are to disqualify men because they cannot speak our language at all. Is that the reason why we were told the other day in this House that there were 40,000 seamen coming on to our ships between Antwerp and Cherbourg? Is that the gravamen of the charge that we have to meet? I think there is evidence with regard to the load-line, but I think there is no such body of evidence with regard to the language question. That there are cases I know, of my own knowledge and from other sources, but the cases are very few. There are five hundred causes of.accidents at sea; there is the cause of bad seamanship, of bad discipline and of insobriety. Some of these causes you
  1108
  eliminate by taking foreign seamen, Finns, and Russians, who do not talk our language, but who have the qualifications of seamenship and sobriety. You must set off one of these disqualifications against the others. I am certain this question of the language is not the real test. If you are risking the lives of men on our ships by allowing foreigners to come abroad who cannot talk our language why do you not exclude lascars—although I am told that the majority of lascars do talk our language, they certainly do not all do so. Are you going to exclude those too? Is it going to be contended that the P. & O. Company's ships are more unsafe than any other ships because they have lascar crews? The hon. Member for Middlesbrough says you are going to exclude these men, not because they do not talk our language, but because they are in competition with British seamen. I did not quite agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff when he said that British seamen were very patient with foreign seamen and with non-trade union seamen. If we were in the palace of truth I should say that the British seaman does not care to work with men who are foreigners and who do not belong to his union. I do not think that the hon. Member for Cardiff was in the least justified by the actual experiences of life in what he said. That being so, what is the ground on which we are going to exclude foreigners? Is it really because they cannot talk our language, or is it because there is this growing feeling which is in many cases very strong, and which will take us to great extremes, but which in the end will give us in the British mercantile marine some real proportion of British sailors? I believe there is a strong feeling growing up in this country that it is desirable that we should have a much larger number of British seamen than we have in the mercantile marine, and I do not believe that these provisions with regard to the cubic space and with regard to the food are going to give us this restoration of the British mercantile marine. I think we have had a good lead in this matter, and I hope it will be followed. I believe we are only at the beginning. I was reading the other day a passage written by a very keen observer in the East,

  1109
  who said when he saw work done in the East by men working for long hours, work done with great capacity and skill, he could not help feeling that when such work came into direct competition with work done by Western people, the Eastern labour would drive out British labour as the brown rat in this country drove out the black rat. The Lord Chancellor, speaking on the same subject the other day, spoke of the competition of non-regulated foreign labour. He said—
  "If there was any attempt made to introduce it into this country all these sophistries would be swept away instantly, and in no part of Europe would cheap Chinese labour or cheap labour of any kind be allowed to compete with white labour."
  And what is true of Chinese labour is true of all cheap labour. When I have that statement on so high an authority as that of the Lord Chancellor, I think there is something in this Bill. I think it is reasonable that we should take some steps to protect our workers from unfair competition. I am not a purist in these matters, and I do not think that because this Bill takes a new departure we should be so fastidious as to object to it. It is, after all, but the muttering of the storm, an indication of the way men's minds are moving. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield and the hon. Member for Thanet have both put down instructions which I hope will commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They refer to the question of pilotage. There are two points of view from which that question may be regarded. The question is a national one. It may be looked at from the point of view of national safety. That is a very important point indeed, but if the representative of the Admiralty were in his place I would ask him whether the Admiralty supported this provision. I say that they do not. It is not a point they press. Yet we find that every section of this House has come to one opinion on this question. They say we are at present exposed to an unfair competition. Go where you will, up and down the Channel, and you will see pilot flags flying from foreign pilot vessels and you will see foreign captains taking charge of their ships when coming up the Medway and the Thames. I say it is un-
  1110
  just and unfair that foreign pilots and foreign ships masters should be allowed to come into our ports in this way and that we should receive no reciprocity at all in this matter. The State demands certain very high qualifications from our own pilots. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is therefore a very necessary one, and I hope he will not abandon it. The opposition to it will not be of a serious character, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is a sentiment of gratitude felt towards him by the people whom he has benefited. I do not oppose this Bill, and merely rise for the purpose of pointing out a few points of importance in regard to it. I wish to give my full support to the measure.
  MR. CAIRNScraved the indulgence of the House as a new Member. He congratulated the Government most heartily upon the improved conditions which were likely to eventuate from the standard food scale adopted in the Bill. He trusted that there would not only be plenty of food of good quality, but competent cooks to serve it. There were other provisions in the Bill which worked in the direction of improving the sailor's condition; but he believed the House would confess that, important as these provisions were, the extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act to seamen was the most beneficial thing that had been done for them during the last twenty years. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would not accept the invitation proffered to him to go into the question of tonnage measurement at the present time. That was a most intricate and far-reaching question. There were two sides to be heard on that matter, and it would require a very long and thorough investigation. It was intended to apply our load-line and our standard of life-saving appliances to foreign ships trading on the high seas which eventually arrived at British ports. That was not an entirely new departure. It had been argued that this measure was intended to avert unfair foreign competition. He had noticed that in this Parliament every measure brought before the House was most carefully scanned in certain quarters

  1111
  to see if there was the least grain of protection in it. In practice the effect of applying our load-line standard to foreign ships would be that such ships with deeper immersion, which previously were able to come to British ports, would gravitate to those ports where there were no such restrictions. The result would be that these foreign ships, carrying larger cargoes, would serve foreign nations and foreign commerce at a cheaper price than British ships would be able to serve British commerce. Those who thought that there would be protection would thus see that the contrary would be the case, because the cost of carriage by British ships would be more than that by the foreigners. There might be a little difficulty in the application of the Act, because a large number of vessels, when they left their loading port, did not know what their destination would be and called at specified ports for orders. Other difficulties might arise if foreign nations did not level up to our practices. He thought there was ground for hopefulness that foreign nations would gradually approximate to our standard, because recently by the Board of Trade regulations we had more nearly approximated to theirs. We had thus gone far on the way to prove that they had been right and we wrong. That fact, along with the legislation proposed by this Bill, made an ultimate international standard more easily attainable. The bringing of this Bill forward would probably lead to international conferences upon this subject, which might end in a state of things extremely satisfactory to all the nations concerned. He believed that the Government had been wise in fixing the date when the Bill should come into operation at so remote a time as 1908. That would give ample opportunity for conferences and it would enable the various interests to come together and so make a common standard more likely. He would like to call the attention of the President of the Board of.Trade to a defect in the present law, which whilst limiting the liability of vessels launched the same as in the care of registered vessels, yet made a condition that registration must take place within three months from launching. In cases of large passenger ships this time limit was
  1112
  found to be too short. The intention of the Act was that they should be covered. He hoped that a clause would be introduced into this Bill to rectify this defect. He noticed that the Board of Trade had power to prevent any vessel from proceeding to a foreign port in a defective condition. Sometimes foreigners purchased British ships in a British port, or perhaps a foreign ship lying in a British port, and they frequently wanted to take them abroad to effect the repairs. He felt that under this Bill such a liberty could not be allowed. He had known cases of vessels so proceeding to ports in Spain and Norway, where they had very cheap and expeditious methods of effecting such repairs. He thought this Bill was a great advance in the right direction, and perhaps he might be allowed, as a ship-owner himself and as a Member of this House, to compliment the right hon. Gentleman on having brought in a Bill, comprehensive so far as it went, and well calculated to attain the objects which it professed. There was no doubt that in some matters of detail it might be improved. Upon the point of foreign pilots might he say a word with regard to national safety? He had not heard much of foreign pilots until he entered this House, and although he had thirty years' experience of shipping he had had no contact with them. He understood that they traded principally between the Continent and this country, they were familiar with the whole route, and what was of great importance, they knew their own ships as no pilot could know them. From the point of view of national safety he wished to point out that the foreign captain did not leave the ship although the British pilot came on board; consequently the foreign captain would still get that intimate knowledge of British waters and ports which it was thought advisable that he should not have. If it was desired to prevent these pilot-captains from having any knowledge which impinged upon the question of national safety they must be left at the river mouth.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he was afraid he should have to trouble the House at some considerable length in regard to this Bill. He very much regretted that hon. Members on both

  1113
  sides of the House failed to avail themselves of the opportunity of reading the various Blue-books that had been published with regard to the reports of different Committees which have inquired into the shipping question. [An HON. MEMBER: Life is too short.] At least hon. Members, before taking part in the debate on this question, should take the trouble to read up the minutes of evidence that had been given before these different Committees. At any rate, if hon. Members did not read those Blue-books they should be very careful with regard to any statements they might make in reference to lascars and other important questions affecting shipping. Several hon. Members had charged him with endeavouring to drive the lascars out of British ships. He had never attempted to do anything of the kind. He raised no objection whatever to the employment of lascars on British ships, but he did think that the lascar, when he was employed on our vessels, should not be brought in competition with our own men for the sole purpose of driving our own men out of the vessel. He was surprised at some hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side, who had talked so much about Chinese Labour, and yet seemed to be in love with lascar labour, although the lascars were working under conditions which were worse than those under which Chinamen were working in the Transvaal. On the question of feeding alone—he maintained that the food that was given on many of our British ships to lascars was much worse than that given to the Chinamen in the compounds in the Transvaal. Again, on the question of pay, the Chinaman had a long way the advantage of the lascar on board the British ships. Those who employed lascars said they did not employ them on the ground of cheapness. He denied that entirely. The one reason for the employment of lascars was cheapness. Were hon. Members aware that lascars received in the way of wages as low a sum as 16s. per month for firemen, whilst the highest wages paid to a lascar fireman did not exceed 26s. a month? If they were going to consider those employed on British ships, and if they were going to consider lascars as British
  1114
  subjects, why not consider the conditions under which they worked as well as the conditions under which British seamen work? The lascar ought to have some consideration even at the hands of the House of Commons. He knew—and he thought he could speak with some authority on this question—that there was great dissatisfaction among the lascars themselves as to the manner in which they were treated. Some hon. Members had said that the lascar was more suitable for the tropical climates than the white man. If that were so, why not confine the employment of lascars to tropical climates? Why bring them into cold climates when they were not suited to that kind of work? His attitude in regard to lascars was this. When lascars were first employed on British ships their labour was confined to certain degrees of latitude, thirty-eight degrees North and thirty-eight degrees South. He thought some provision should be made under which lascars should not be employed on British vessels going into the high latitudes with the exception, of course, of the lascars employed on the mail boats trading to and from ports in the United Kingdom and ports in India. The lascar question, as far as it affects the Britisher, was in itself more serious than the way in which it affected the foreigner. He did not want to do anything to deprive the lascar of employment. As long as the ship-owner could get lascars whom he could feed at 5d. a day and pay 20s. a month wages, he would not employ Britishers who would cost 1s. or 1s. 2d. a day for food and £4 10s. a month for wages. The shipowners who believed in cheap labour would give the preference to the lascar instead of the Britisher under these circumstances. If the lascar was confined to the coast of India or to certain latitudes 38° N. and 38° S. he should raise no objection to his employment at all. All he asked was that the lascar should not be brought into competition with the Britisher in this country, thus depriving British seamen of the chance of employment. It was not only the lascars they had to consider; they had also to consider the case of the Chinaman. There were a large number of Chinamen employed on British ships to-day.

  1115
  It was said that all of them came from Hong-Kong, and they were described as natives of Hong-Kong. As a matter of fact, they were not natives of Hong-Kong, but that was entered into the articles of agreement as a matter of business. With regard to this measure itself, he had no hesitation in describing it as a shipowners' Bill and nothing else. The whole of its provisions, with one or two exceptions, were entirely in favour of the shipowner. On the introduction of the Bill he said that there were certain principles which he thought were very good, and which he thought would go a long way to improve the condition of the seamen. But now that he had got the Bill, and had gone carefully into every one of the clauses, he found that as far as the Bill applied to seamen in its present form it was an absolute failure. Unless the right honourable Gentleman would carry out his intention of throwing the Bill upon the mercy of the Committee he had no hopes of its success; but if he did that he had some hope that they might get a Bill that would really do some good for sailors and firemen. Let the House take the first part of the Bill with regard to the application of the British load-line and other regulations to foreign ships. He would just like to say, with reference to that part of the Bill, that they were confining the operations of the measure to ports in the United Kingdom. And why? Foreign ships trading to our ports in India came in competition with our British ships in foreign ports, and there was just as much danger for the foreign ship to be in an Indian port overladen as there would be in a port in the United Kingdom. The same principle applied to ports in our colonies. He understood that the Board of Trade said they could not apply this to our colonies because they had their own Merchant Shipping Acts. He did not agree with the President of the Board of Trade in that contention, because the Merchant Shipping Acts of Australia and New Zealand dealt only with vessels that were owned and registered in New Zealand and Australia, and not with our own ships that were registered in the United Kingdom. The same applied with regard to India.
  1116
  There was the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, which did not deal with vessels; that were registered and owned in this country, but applied only to vessels that were registered and owned in India. So that he saw no reason—at least he would like to have some very good reason given—why this Bill, in applying the regulations to foreign ships, should not apply to all our British colonies and British possessions abroad. He thought the Government would do well to take that into their careful consideration and give the Bill a much wider application than was proposed now. Shipowners were well able to stand up for themselves, but he did support that part of the Bill on grounds of safety and not on grounds of protection. Some hon. Members on the Opposition side had endeavoured to make capital out of the Bill by saying that the Government were drifting towards protection by inserting certain clauses in a measure of this kind. He did not agree with them. He thought reasonable and fairminded men would say that the Government were justified in endeavouring to protect even foreigners in our ports, or at least the lives of the men employed. They were not seeking to impose on foreign vessels regulations that did not apply to our ships. They were only asking that the foreigner should be subject once he was in our country and in our ports to the same supervision as any British subject. With regard to the portion o the Bill which dealt with the question of the seaman, the first part had reference to the question of seamen and their food. In Clause 2 of Section 20 there was a proposal which, when they got into Committee, he should certainly have something more to say about, and he would endeavour to move an Amendment to it, because in a way it robbed the seaman of his right to compensation where the owner of the ship had failed to supply the proper quantity of food. He maintained that if a shipowner engaged a man under an agreement to supply him with a certain quantity of food, and he failed to supply that food in accordance with agreement or Act of Parliament, the seaman was entitled to compensation if he could prove that the shipowner had not

  1117
  complied with his contract. The third part of the same section provided—
  "His Majesty may by Order in Council vary or add to the scale of provision set out in the First Schedule to this Act."
  What was the good of inserting in an Act of Parliament a food scale, and then allowing the Board of Trade or anyone else to alter it, without bringing the matter before the House of Commons, by Order in Council? They would whittle that scale away. It was possible that they might add to it, but he was not at all alarmed that they would. But he had very great fear about taking away from it. That portion of the Bill did not recommend itself to him; and in Committee he should endeavour to have that clause removed. Then again, he was dissatisfied with the clause dealing with the inspection of provisions. That was Clause 21 and the sub-sections. What happened to-day with reference to the inspection of food? A ship was bound on a voyage, say, for two years and the food must be inspected under Act of Parliament. There was no provision made in this Bill as to the quantity of food that should be inspected before the voyage commenced, so that a shipowner could put three months' stores on board and have them inspected, and then after the ship had been away three months on the voyage he could take in inferior stores that would not be inspected, because the ship was on the voyage. He wanted to ask his right hon. friend if he thought that that was a sufficient safeguard of the interests of the seamen. If a shipowner engaged a crew for, say, twelve months, there ought to be twelve months' stores taken on board, and the whole of those stores should be inspected before the vessel sailed. As a matter of fact, at the present time a good many ships escaped their inspection because they started out on a voyage supposed to be for the Black Sea. Under the present law there was no inspection there, and when they got to the Black Sea they got a charter for India, and went through the Canal and the stores were not inspected at all. The result was that the men had to take inferior provisions during the whole of the voyage. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions would be to make this Bill at least a
  1118
  reasonable one, giving not only protection to the shipowner, but also some degree of protection to the seamen on board ship. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would take that matter into his serious consideration when they got into Committee, and that he would be ready to accept Amendments which would give some safeguard with regard to the interest of the men who were employed on the ship. His opinion was that the agreements now in existence were too long. The idea of signing men on steamers nowadays for three years! It was no advantage to a seaman to sign on for a three years' engagement. It did not mean that because he signed on for three years he would be kept on. As a matter of fact, he could be discharged at the end of a month if the vessel returned to the United Kingdom. It would be a great advantage if shipowners would cut down the period of agreements to six months or twelve months, because it was seldom that vessels went away for more than twelve months. There were cases where vessels remained away three or four years from the United Kingdom, but they were not very numerous. An average voyage would not exceed eight or nine months. The House had heard a lot about the cook. Considerable amusement was caused last week when this Bill was introduced with regard to the cook who was no cook at all. In the first place he did not know why the right hon. Gentleman proposed that they should wait until 1908 for this cook. He would like his right hon. friend just to note that. Why should they wait until 1908! [Cries of "To take out his degree" and "To prove his efficiency."] He thought they might have him at an earlier stage than that, and he would suggest that it should be 1907. But the remarkable point in regard to the clause was that the cook was only to be employed when vessels were leaving the British Islands. Surely, if it was a hardship for seamen to have to put up with ill-cooked food on vessels sailing from the United Kingdom, it must be equally a hardship in cases where British vessels engaged their crews, say, on the Continent, between the Elbe and Brest, and he would advise the right hon. Gentleman to extend that clause a bit. There was no reason why, wherever the crews

  1119
  were engaged, they should not have a good man for cook. But to qualify for the position of cook a man must be able to prove six months' service at sea in some capacity. He might have been a lower-deck sweeper with service for six months. Then, if he went to a school of cookery, he could ship as a full rate cook. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman seriously intended that to be so. They must have a little bit better qualification than that. Judging by the Bill, anyone could qualify for cook, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in Committee would be ready to accept Amendments to ensure getting a cook that would give satisfaction. It was a very serious matter. The cook on board a ship was a very important man. Then he found that the Board of Trade were asking powers to dispense with this qualification altogether, if they thought fit. This was what the clause said—
  "If the requirements of this section are not complied with in the case of any ship, the master or owner of the ship shall, if those requirements have not been dispensed with under this section, and there is no sufficient reason for the failure to comply with the requirements, for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, but a prosecution under this section shall not be instituted otherwise than by, or with the consent of, the Board of Trade."
  Why should they trouble the Board of Trade to prosecute in a case where they had not had a competent cook on board ship? He thought the right hon. Gentleman might leave it to the men themselves to raise an action if they had not been served with proper food. In regard to the question of the repatriation of seamen, it was quite evident that the Board of Trade had not given full consideration to the many recommendations that had been made by Committees appointed by this House. One of the strongest points that they could urge upon the right hon. Gentleman was the question of the sick seamen. Under the present regulations of the Board of Trade—he did not admit it was in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act—if a seaman in consequence of sickness, malaria, fever, rheumatism, pneumonia, or any other disease was left in a hospital abroad, the wages that might be due to that seaman were used for the purpose of
  1120
  paying the hospital expenses, and of conveying him, when convalescent, to a port in the United Kingdom. He had a case brought to his notice last week where a seaman had been for nine or ten months on a ship, and had unfortunately been seized with fever in one of the ports of Java. He was put on shore and at the time he left the ship there was due to him £23 for wages. He afterwards shifted from one port to another, and when he arrived in the United Kingdom he was informed that, he was in debt to the Board of Trade to the extent of £3. This benevolent Department had seized the whole of this man's wages to defray the expense of his detention in the hospital and his conveyance home. Why should that be? If a man was shipwrecked he might have £100 due to him, and the expense of his conveyance home was thrown upon the shipowners. He maintained that a seaman who was shipwrecked in health was in a worse position than one who was shipwrecked by the loss of his ship, and yet the Board of Trade—as he thought, in defiance of the law—refused to pay his expenses. He had argued this point out with the Board of Trade for years, and had asked them to show him, if they could, under what Section of the Merchant Shipping Act they could take the wages of a sick seaman in order to pay for his hospital expenses and his conveyance to the United Kingdom. No man had been able to show him any section of the Merchant Shipping Act which justified that. He spoke with some degree of feeling on this point, because he was once a victim. He was laid up in the hospital at Constantinople with fever. He was a married man. He had £20 wages due to him, and he was told he would get that sum on arrival at Liverpool. However, when he got to Liverpool he was informed that he was £3 in debt to the Board of Trade, and he had no money to give his wife and no money to take him home, because all his wages had been taken to pay his expenses in the hospital and to reach Liverpool. This had been going on ever since 1854, and in his opinion, and in the opinion of a large number of legal gentlemen to whom he had submitted the section of the Merchant

  1121
  Shipping Act, the Board of Trade had no right to throw the cost of the conveyance home of sick seamen on their wages. The right hon. Gentleman was dealing with this question in this Bill, but he was not dealing with the particular point to which he had referred, and if there was any doubt of the law on that point, now was the time to have it cleared up. He trusted that when they get into Committee an Amendment would be accepted dealing with the point. Section 207 of the Merchant Shipping Act provided that whenever a seaman received any hurt or injury on board ship, the owner should be responsible for hospital expenses and his conveyance home. He wanted to go a step further and apply "injury or hurt" to "illness." He was sure that shipowners generally would vote with him for such an Amendment. He did not believe that they would object to pay the expense of the conveyance home of men whose constitutions had been shattered in consequence of being taken to sickly climates against their will. He had known cases where men had been taken to ports in America where yellow fever prevailed, to go to which was almost certain death. When these men objected, they were threatened with imprisonment. In the case of one ship, out of a crew of twenty-four men not six got out alive; and yet those who had gone into hospital and survived were put to the expense of getting home to the United Kingdom, and their wages, on which their wives were depending, were used in paying the expenses incurred while they were in hospital. He was quite sure that on all sides of the House he would get support in making that point clear. In regard to the qualifications for able seamen, there again the Board of Trade were at fault. He did not blame his right hon. friend; he blamed the permanent officials. He could see the hand of the permanent officials in almost every line of this Bill and of legislation of this kind. The Bill proposed to reduce the qualifications for able seamen from four to three years sea service. Well, he did not object to that, and he would tell the House why. They did not require the kind of sailors on steamers
  1122
  that was formerly required on sailing ships. Sailing ships were disappearing, and therefore they could with safety accept men with only three years' sea service to qualify them as A.B's. But why, when they come to an engagement, had they the word "may" instead of the word "shall? "He held that the superintendent, when engaging a man as an able seaman, should insist on that man's having had the necessary sea service; he had no right to complete an agreement unless that man could comply with the law. An hon. Gentleman talked about boy sailors. One would imagin that there was a great scarcity of able seamen in this country. As a matter of fact there were more seamen in the labour market than could obtain employment. His hon. friend shook his head, but he invited him to come with him for a week's round of British ports, and he would surprise him as to the great difficulty which the men had in obtaining employment as seamen. There were scores of British seamen in every port who would tell him that they had been eight weeks out of employment and could not obtain a ship. He had had some experience on that point. He did not confine his labours to the House of Commons. He was very often to be found at different shipping ports and at the places where British seamen were engaged, and he was able to observe the number of men who could not get employment. There was also the question of stokers and men engaged in the firemen's department. His right hon. friend had lost sight of one of the most important Committees appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the very important question of the manning of British ships. That Committee was appointed because a ship foundered in Brandon Bay and twenty-two valuable lives were lost in consequence of there not being a sufficient number of sailors on board to navigate the ship. In 1893 he moved for the appointment of the Committee, which was granted, and it sat under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Reed, one of the ablest men on shipping matters in this country. That Committee sat for two years and fully inquired into the manning of British ships, and drafted a manning

  1123
  scale for the deck department, and also for the stoke-hold. They recommended that where ships were undermanned, they were to be regarded as unseaworthy; and a Bill was passed through this House to make undermanned ships unseaworthy. But it was forgotten to pass a manning scale, and to say what under-manning really meant. The Committee, however, recommended many important reforms. One of them was that firemen or stokers on board ship should have a certain qualification; that no man should be entitled to be rated as a fireman unless he had six months of sea service as a trimmer. In the Royal Navy a fireman must be a man of good character, not under twenty-one years of age, nor above thirty-five, and able to prove two years' service, of which at least one year was as a fireman or trimmer. He wanted to know why we could not follow out the recommendation of the Manning Committee and give a qualification to fire-men. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were very strong reasons for this. Very often there was trouble on board ship with firemen. And why? A ship would sign on six men; but in all probability three out of the six were not firemen at all, and not competent to do firemen's work; and when the vessel reached the Red Sea or got out into the main ocean in bad weather three of these men were unable to work. The consequence was that the other three had to do the work of six men. If they refused they could be charged with refusing to obey the lawful commands of the master and officers of the ship and were liable to be sentenced to be imprisoned for twelve weeks with or without hard labour. Why should not the Board of Trade protect the fireman from having incompetent colleagues? Why, also, should they not protect the shipowner by making a similar provision? If the shipowner engaged a fireman who was not a fireman he wasted the coal, and in that way injured the shipowner as well as causing his fellow workmen to run a risk which they ought not to be called upon to do. An incompetent stoker or fireman could destroy a ton of coal in twenty-four hours without producing any steam, and he recommended
  1124
  that men who had been employed on shore as stokers should have at least one month's experience as trimmers at sea in order to give them an opportunity of getting over their sea-sickness and getting their sea legs. In that way we should secure competent stokers and firemen. He was sure that that proposal would have the support of all Members in this House who were connected with the Navy, because it was of primary importance that we should get men who were qualified to do their work as firemen or stokers. In regard to the Act of 1886, he thought that the Government were altering it in such a way as would be unfavourable to the seamen. When this Bill got into Committee he should have something to say on that point, because it appeared to him that the Bill deprived seamen of certain privileges which they had at the present time. He passed on to another subject and came to the question of Naval Courts. A Naval Court did not mean, as many supposed, a Court composed of naval officers. It could be composed of a Consul, who might be the agent for the shipowner, and two captains of merchant ships. During the war between Russia and Japan there was a ship carrying contraband of war at Port Arthur when the Japanese bombarded the place. The vessel was in the line of fire, and the crew had a lively time for ten hours, one man being struck by a shell. Eventually they got to a port in Japan, and there found that their ship was chartered to run for a Japanese company for six months. The crew objected, and asked to be allowed to conclude their agreements. The captain refused, and no satisfaction could be got from the British Consul. Some of the British Consuls abroad had a very high and mighty way of dealing with seamen. This Consul summoned a Naval Court which was composed of himself and two captains, who themselves had been running contraband of war. The crew was brought before the Court, which, in less than one hour, the men having no opportunity to obtain legal defence, decided that the crew should be dismissed and forfeit the whole of their wages. That was a Naval Court, and according to the Merchant Shipping Act its finding was conclusive. That was to say, the two old merchant captains who ran contraband of war and one Consul

  1125
  had a higher power than the highest Court in the land. He asked only for fair play in inviting the support of the House in clipping the wings of the Naval Courts. In regard to Advisory Committees, in his opinion they should be compulsory, and he thought it should be laid down that there should be equal representation of all parties upon them. They always liked to see the Board of Trade represented on these Committees, but they did not want too many representatives. They could get on all right with the shipowner on many points, and at all events they could agree to differ. In regard to the food scale, he understood that there was a suggestion that cocoa, tomatoes, and bacon should be omitted. Of course, the dietary of ships going certain voyages might have to be varied, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the matter, and see whether these articles could not be restored.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton Manor had persisted in describing this Bill as a protectionist measure, but it was nothing of the kind. Why should they suppose that to put a load-line upon a foreign ship was the same proposition as putting a tax on foreign goods? As to the protective character of this measure, the idea that the exclusion of foreign goods and the exclusion of foreign men from this country were parts of the same argument was really not tenable; in fact it was all the other way. Those very persons who wished to exclude foreign goods were always the same persons, in every other part of the world but this, who wished to have foreign workmen. Therefore, it was not reasonable to suggest that this was a protectionist measure. The second object of the Bill was, of course, one which had a different aspect, namely, to see that the great proportion of seamen who served on English ships were English. The right hon. Gentleman went a little too far in complaining of the decay of the number of British seamen serving in British ships, for, in point of fact, there were in the last thirty years 35,000 more than there were
  1126
  before. That number, of course, included those who served in the Navy. In endeavouring to secure a larger number of men of this country to man the ships they must remember how large was the number of ships which never came to England at all. His right hon. friend in his opening statement pointed out that half the trade in the world was carried in British ships. That was, he believed, the case; but he added that there were a certain number of those ships which never came into British ports at all, except at very long intervals. He was assured on very high authority that in point of fact one quarter of the whole was foreign trade carried in British ships which never came to this country at all. If that immense proportion of the tonnage of Great Britain never came to England at all, it was obviously very difficult to ensure that that proportion should be manned by Britishers, because he was assured on the same authority that British sailors would not remain on those ships; and he thought it would be hard to induce men to stay on ships which never came to England. He was assured by those who endeavoured to man our ships by British seamen that they found it very difficult to do so in the case of ships which never returned to this country. He entirely agreed that for reasons of strategy we should be well advised to adopt measures to secure a great proportion of Britishers in British ships. There were one or two smaller matters which had better be discussed in Committee; but he would ask his right hon. friend whether he considered it would be within the scope of this Bill to insert a provision by which some arrangements could be made for British seamen to vote by proxy at the general election. He knew that further provisions would have to be made in another Bill, but probably facilities might be given in this Bill also. It seemed to him to be a matter of some importance in which seamen took an interest. He believed that this could in no sense be described as a protective measure. The measure was in the best interests of the shipping industry, and he endorsed the opinion that in safeguarding the interests of the British shipowner

  1127
  they would be safeguarding the interests of the British seaman.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid shipowners in the country seemed to feel that they had not had sufficient opportunity to consider this Bill before the Second Reading. All he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade was that he would assure the House that they would have ample opportunity of considering the Bill before it went before a Committee. He held a letter in which shipowners pointed out a good man matters which they considered of very great importance, and in which he agreed with them. But he would not take up the time of the House by going carefully into these points, because there would be opportunity to consider them in Committee. There were one or two matters, however, he wished to mention. In regard to the diet scale, he could not see why the Board of Trade should alter that. As to the load-line, he was afraid there were many men, not only in this House but in the country, who had not a very kindly feeling towards shipowners, and he had frequently heard it said that this load-line had to be imposed because steamers were wilfully lost in order to recover insurance. He had not heard anything of that kind lately, but he should like to point out that the shipowners with regard to that load-line had suffered under a very great disqualification in competing with foreign ships; and what had happened? First, a load-line was imposed upon shipowners which was far beyond what was required for safety. [Cries of "No."] The load-line was altered within a very short time. Since then they had had considerable experience—he did not refer to shipowners only of this country, but of all countries. What was the fact to-day? For example, Germany in many of its ports had required a load-line, but they had found, so far as the load-line for English vessels was concerned, it was considerably more than what was absolutely required for safety. What were they doing to-day? They were levelling down the load-line to what the Germans had been doing for some time, and they must admit that unquestionably a mistake had been made in that respect, and that the British shipowners in comparison with the foreign
  1128
  shipowners have been suffering under a very great injustice and disqualification. That had been admitted on all hands. The Board of Trade were now regulating the load-line on the same lines as foreign nations. He mentioned this fact to show that, after all, there was generally something to be said on both sides, and that mistakes might be made in trying to do too much as well as too little. He hoped that when the Bill emerged from Committee it would give satisfaction both to British shipowners and to British sailors, and that no further attempt would be made for some years to interfere with trade, because continual interference with trade of this description must do a very large amount of harm not only to the owners, but also to the men.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The debate this afternoon has partaken very largely of the nature of a Committee discussion, and I think we ought to be very glad that that is the case. There has been no attack upon the principle of the Bill; it has been purely a criticism of details. Some of those criticisms, I think, had a good deal of force in them, and some, I must say, were not well grounded; but they are more or less Committee points. I do not think hon. Members will find that the Government will resist any reasonable Amendment which is submitted for the purpose of amending or strengthening the Bill in any way. Some of the criticisms are directed to saying that we have gone too far, others that we have not gone quite far enough. That proves that we have taken the middle course, which is generally thought to be the course of safety. I shall endeavour to answer most of the points, although I am afraid I cannot answer every one. The hon. Baronet who represents the shipowners—and, if I may, I wish to acknowledge the assistance which he gave before the Bill was introduced—wanted us to give ample time to shipowners to consider the details of the Bill before it went to the Standing Committee to which I propose that the Bill be sent. I am afraid that this is not in our hands. He need not apprehend any danger on that score. There are two Bills before that Committee, and I think it

  1129
  will take some time before they are cleared out of tie way; and so I think there will be ample time for the consideration of all details of the measure before that Committee begins its work. The only other point made by the hon. baronet to which I should like to refer, is that in which he objects to our having any power to alter the food scale. One hon. Gentleman is afraid that if we exercise some of our dispensing powers it will be rather to the detriment of the seamen; while another hon. Gentleman said it would impose additional burdens on the shipowners. Therefore, I think on the whole the Board of Trade may be trusted.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I did not object to alterations being made if made by a Committee representative of all Parties.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is why I have put an Advisory Committee in the Bill. I quite agree that those whose interests are primarily affected should be consulted before any alteration is introduced, not merely with regard to the food scale but with regard to the load-line and other matters. Now I come to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who regards this as a shipowners' Bill. It is the first Bill that has ever been characterised as a shipowners' Bill, and I am surprised he should so term it. A food scale and a certificated cook would be, I should have thought, in the interests of the sailors; but I am perfectly certain that if the hon. Gentleman says they are of no use to the.sailors, the shipowners will not object to their elimination from the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was rather keen on tomatoes: in fact, there was quite a pathos in his voice when he mentioned them. I can assure him that the food scale has been considered very carefully, and it is on the whole a better food scale than that in the Navy; and therefore I do not think we can enforce anything better at the present moment. It is not for the House of Commons to turn round on the private shipowners and say, "Although we will not vote money to improve the food scale of the Navy, we are going to compel you to improve your scale." The first example should certainly be set by the House of Commons
  1130
  itself. The other point raised by the hon. Gentleman is the question of distressed seamen. It struck me that he made out a very strong case for Amendment. The question raised as to trimmers and firemen and other matters are questions to be looked into, but they are all matters of detail which I do not think it advisable to go into at the present moment. As regards the Naval courts, I am not quite sure whether there would not be an appeal on a point of law in such a case as has been mentioned. At any rate, I will promise to look into it, and I certainly think there ought to be. But I do not understand the objections to the clause, which is entirely in the interests of the seamen. In the case of Panama or Sierra Leone, where prisons are exceedingly bad and where imprisonment may be fatal, I am sure the men would prefer to be sent home to a decent gaol. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool was perfectly right in regard to foreign trade. I am told it is absolutely impossible to get British sailors to remain on British ships that trade for years between one foreign port and another. You may get officers, and as a matter of fact you do get officers, but you cannot get sailors to do it; and the result is that the owners of these ships are driven, if they are to run their ships at all, to get foreign sailors in such circumstances. My hon. and gallant friend asked me a question with regard to the proportion of the international carrying trade of Great Britain which is conveyed between one port and another. There are no reliable statistics on the point, but I do not think he has guessed far wrong. It is something like one-third or one-half, but it is a matter of pure conjecture. Then he put a question with regard to voting by sailors. I am entirely in sympathy with the object, but I am very much afraid it does not come within the four corners of this Bill; it is a matter for the Home Office. He might however, introduce the matter by an Amendment, though I do not think it would come properly within this Bill. This Bill is to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, and there is nothing whatever in regard to elections in that Act. I should like to say a word or two in regard to what fell from the right hon.

  1131
  Gentleman the Member for Croydon. I understand, on the whole, that he rather approves of the Bill, though he passed some criticisms upon it. One of those criticisms was passed by several other hon. Members who took part in the discussion. It was in regard to alien pilots. I made a statement on the First Reading of the Bill with regard to alien pilots. I said it was very largely a matter of our Treaty obligations, and, before introducing the Bill, I submitted the matter to the law officers of the Crown. I am sorry to say I have not yet had their opinion on the subject, but from what I have heard I think it is extremely likely that we may be able to do something on that point. It would be wrong for me, however, to pledge myself on that subject until I receive their opinion; but I may say there is no objection in principle, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, to introduce some clause dealing with this matter. I put it entirely on the ground of national safety. If the right hon. Gentleman looks into the Report of the Select Committee on Pilotage he will find that the view, as regards national safety, was supported with ananimity by the Trinity House of London, and other witnesses.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The Admiralty.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know there is one witness from the Admiralty who did not take that view, but I think, on the whole, the evidence was that they considered it a matter of national safety, that there was a certain element of national danger in giving certificates to foreign pilots, and that is the view His Majesty's Government take with regard to the matter. I rather think the right hon. Gentleman exaggerated the number of such certificates; there are only eighty-five of these certificates in all. It is not a very big matter, but at the same time my personal view is that they should not be granted.
  MR. JOYCE: Are those certificates growing gradually? Eighty-five may become 285 if they are not stopped.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have not grown since I have been in the Board of Trade.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that a Return was made in March last? Has there not been one since that date?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I made inquiry into the matter about six weeks ago, and that was the figure given to meat the time. Whether that figure was made up to March last I cannot tell, but I do not think they have increased at all since March last. I am only putting this figure to show that from whatever point of view, it is not a very big question. It is a very small proportion of the total number of pilots. I hope that the House is now satisfied with regard to that point. As far as the Government is concerned there is no resistance in principle to the introduction of a clause doing away with these alien pilots. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has put some other points which I think are rather more controversial. He seems to suspect the Government of other motives in introducing this Bill. He acknowledged that the motive of humanity was probably all powerful, but he thought it was just possible the Government might have some other motives as well. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that after all the motive of humanity was the most powerful one. What the incidental effect of the Bill may be is quite another question. The hon. Member for Newcastle thinks this Bill will not have a protective effect, and I think he is a very competent judge. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the chief motive, in fact the dominant motive, which really influenced the Government in introducing this Bill was the motive of humanity and safety for sailors. It is exactly as if foreigners had been allowed by the law of the land to erect a factory in this country which should not be subject to the factory legislation applicable to other factories here. We are not dealing in this Bill with anything except what happens inside our own territorial waters. It simply means

  1133
  that until this Bill was introduced what was an offence against the law, and a criminal offence rendering the perpetrator liable to punishment by fine in the case of British subjects, was not an offence at all if committed by foreigners. That is exactly as if a foreigner had erected a factory in this country which was not subject to our factory regulations, which have been set up to protect the life and limb of Britishers. Supposing there was an instance of that sort, and the Government said "You must make the same regulations as are applicable to British subjects applicable to foreigners who build factories in this country." That is not protection; it is simply saying to the foreigner, "If you wish to come to our territories you must, of course, conform to our laws." That is the whole principle of free trade, which means that you deal with the foreigner exactly as you do with a Britisher. We have the same laws for both, and equal rights for both, within British territory, and that is the principle of free trade. The right hon. Gentleman opposite apparently does not understand the principles of his own creed, and really it seems to me that it is an example of the loose thinking that has occurred during this tariff reform agitation. If we were proposing to interfere on the high seas, that would of course be a different matter. The right hon. Gentleman really made a case against his own argument in the latter part of his speech, because he said "If you are going to interfere with the load line, why not interfere with wages and the question of accommodations?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said that that was what the right hon. Gentleman's supporters had put forward.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was no distinction in principle.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, I did say that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But there is a very essential difference. The principle of our Bill is the safety of human life, and such questions as accommodation and wages do not affect directly the
  1134
  safety of life like the question of the load line. That is a clear distinction of principle upon which we are proceeding, and the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman is founding his protection theory. The right hon. Gentleman says we are interfering with foreign sailors on British ships, and asks us why we were doing that. He does not, however, challenge the action of the Government, but he does challenge our motive. He is trying to probe into the bosoms of the promoters of this Bill in order to find out what is their motive in introducing it. We say again, that our motive is safety.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Does that apply to lascars?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am coming to that presently. The right hon. Gentleman asked us what evidence is there that this Bill will affect the safety of ships at all. Evidently he has not read the evidence upon this question. I quoted two or three cases when I introduced this Bill, and they were very strong cases indeed.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I stated that there were a great many other cases of this description which are not touched by this Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not see the point of the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. In his speech he asks, "What evidence is there?" He now says that there is abundant evidence that the safety of ships is affected by the fact that you have sailors on board who do not understand the language used by the master of the ship. That shows, I think, that His Majesty's Government are prompted, and rightly prompted, upon ample evidence, by the one consideration of the safety of the ship. That is the ground upon which we are interfering. We are not interfering in order to exclude foreigners, but to secure the safety of limb and life on British ships, and there is abundant ground and evidence to justify our doing so. The right hon. Gentleman says, "If you are going to interfere in this way, why not interfere with the lascars?" That case is very different, as anyone

  1135
  who knows anything about the employment of lascars could tell the right hon. Gentleman. In this case you have officers specially employed to interpret between the lascars and those in command of the ship and the officers. They have a perfect knowledge of the kind of language necessary to carry out our orders on board ship. I do not say that we impose such a test as asking the lascars to translate a Daily Telegraph article into English, or anything of that sort. But you must have some kind of a test. Here you have several officers on board a ship able to take their orders from the officers, and they are specially employed for that purpose, but if you take a foreign sailor you have nothing of that sort. He takes his orders direct from the officer, and in the cases which I quoted last week the foreigners did not understand our language at all. There was the case of a look-out man who did not understand a word of English, and the House will remember that the man who held the lifeboat cut the rope by mistake because he did not understand the order which was given, or lost his head, and did not know what to do under the circumstances, with the result that a number of lives were lost. This is purely a question of safety. I know there are cases in reference to foreign sailors, but I defy the right hon. Gentleman to produce a single case where a ship has been wrecked owing to the fact that the lascars did not understand the word of command. If he can produce evidence of that kind, then I say that he will have made out a case for reconsidering even the question of the lascars, but not until then. So much for the protectionist capital which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to make out of this Bill. The hon. Member for Aston Manor raised two or three points which, from his long experience upon Shipping Committees in this House, are entitled to every consideration. There is one of those criticisms which I thought was especially very sound as a suggestion, and that is that we should keep strictly on the ground of safety. I hope hon. Members will confine their criticism strictly to the question of safety. Another piece of advice which he gave was that we should not interfere
  1136
  vexatiously with foreign ships, and I say that we know the importance of that, for it would be very unwise if we imposed our special kind of appliances upon countries where they may have got something quite equal to our own. I know the risk of that. I remember at one time that the United States Government looked as if they were going to impose upon us their own special regulations, which would have compelled us practically to have adopted two sets of life-saving applicances on board our great liners. Those appliances would have been no use on this side because they would not comply with the regulations, whereas, on the other hand, our appliances did not conform to the regulations of the United States of America. I am glad that the United States of America took a sensible view, and I agree that it is important that we should interpret these regulations liberally when we come to deal with foreign countries which are doing their very best to save life upon more or less the same lines as those which we have been following for a good many years. The other point put to me was with regard to Advisory Committees. The hon. Member thought the Board of Trade was too apt to act upon its own initiative without consulting those interested. I am not quite so sure that that is a fair criticism, because the Board of Trade within the last ten or fifteen years has consulted those interested by appointing one or two Advisory Committees, one of which is sitting at the present moment with regard to the load line rules. There was an Advisory Committee, and the Board of Trade acted upon their advice, and I think that is the case more or less all round. Still I think the way in which these Advisory Committees are working justifies the Board of Trade in extending the experiment to other matters. When you come to deal with a subject like this it is very important that you should consult those who are interested. I think those we consulted represented a very important interest in the shipping and mercantile marine of this country, which ought to be consulted upon matters affecting the safety of the lives of the men employed on board ship. I think I have now dealt with most of the points which have been raised.
  LORD R. CECIL: There is still the question of some international agreement.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid that the result of our investigations are not very encouraging, although I think this Bill will help matters by-and-bye. I am inclined to think that other countries will feel it so inconvenient to see one rule established for one country and another rule for another country, that they will feel it desirable to have some kind of international agreement to prevent complications. I trust that one result of the Bill will be that foreign Powers will see the wisdom of coming to some sort of common understanding of this kind. I agree that the point raised by the hon. Member is an exceedingly important one. I come now to another point raised by the hon. Member for Durham with regard to the measurement of tonnage. That is a very important matter, and I am not sure that it could come within the four corners of this Bill. It is a very complicated subject. I have gone into it within the last few days especially, and I find that a Committee, presided over by Mr. Bonar Law, is sitting on it. It has done nothing since August, and I cannot say who is responsible for the delay in reporting. I have done my very best to try to induce the Committee to report at the earliest possible moment, and I think it is desirable to get an early Report on the subject. When the Report is received I will consider whether anything can be put into this Bill on the subject. It is rather more controversial than anything I have introduced in the Bill up to the present. I want to avoid these controversial matters in a Bill of this character. There is considerable conflict between two powerful interests when you come to deal with the question of tonnage, and I am not sure that it would conduce to the smooth passage of the Bill through the Committee to introduce the question of tonnage at all. However I will bear it in mind when the Report of the Committee arrives.
  MR. LAMBTON: Will not this Bill hang up the question?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It will hardly do that, for it does not deal with the question at all, but I think it is premature to try to deal with it until we
  1138
  get the Report of the Committee. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree in that. Another point put by him was with regard to the space for seamen. That is really a very important matter, and I was very glad to hear him say that as a rule the space allowed by law is considerably exceeded as a matter of fact. That is the case undoubtedly, but still there is considerable evidence that the accommodation accorded to sailors on British ships, especially sailing ships, has something to do with the reluctance of men to take to the sea as a profession. The witnesses who gave evidence on that matter were all agreed that the accommodation provided had a good deal to do with the fact that boys do not care very much to take to the sea, and that after the experiment of a voyage or two they get very sick of it. That is a matter which will be brought before the Committee, and I promise to consider any Amendments submitted to me on that subject. I think I have dealt with all the questions put to me. I do not recollect any other salient point which has been raised in the course of this discussion, with which I could deal at the present moment. I appeal to the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, and to refer it to the Committee on Trade. Since it is a Bill about which there is such general agreement, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not care to delay the matter by refusing permission to send it to the Committee on Trade.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has made is very reasonable, and certainly no opposition to it will come from this side of the House. I think this is a case in which the Bill may very properly be referred to the Committee on Trade. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on the manner in which the Bill has been received and treated. The Bill is in no sense a contentious or controversial measure. I am a little sorry that in the speech just delivered he did say a few words which were unnecessarily controversial as to what was said by my right hon. friend. I would like to point out to him that I

  1139
  think he has misunderstood what my right hon. friend really said. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade appears to think that my right hon. friend or others on this side of the House were imputing to the Government, and himself in particular, some hidden motives for the introduction of this Bill. I assure him that is not the case. We are perfectly content to accept his own statement as to the motives which have animated the Government and are quite ready to acknowledge that the main object of the Bill, at any rate, has been humanity and the safety of the lives of those who go to sea. That we admit, but then I think he went on to suggest that my right hon. friend wished to impute to them some protectionist motives, as he said, and to gain thereby support for his own protectionist policy. When did my right hon. friend advocate a protectionist policy? I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will, in the same way as I have just done, give all of us credit for being animated by the motives which we have admitted in his case. I do not think that the question of protection, otherwise than as I have indicated protection of life and the safety of ships, enters into this Bill at all. Although I say that is the object of the Government in introducing the Bill, I cannot help pointing out that there are many measures which we might take, which have the definite and sole object of saving life, or giving greater security as a main condition, which may incidentally have the effect, not of granting protection to life merely, but of securing fair competition, and that is what we have claimed to be distinctively the policy of the Party on this side of the House. It is perfectly clear that in this Bill you are removing—although that is not your object and I quite understand that you are almost sorry it should be the effect—a grievance which, I think, is a serious one both from shipowners and from sailors who have hitherto been subjected to the competition of foreigners who are not subject to the same laws and the same conditions our sailors and shipowners are subject to. There is only one other point to which I shall refer. It is rather curious, I
  1140
  think, that the right hon. Gentleman omitted to reply to what after all is a most serious question, which was referred to by my right hon. friend and others. It was to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman should further consider the provisions of the Bill for securing that a larger proportion of the seamen on British ships should be British sailors. I venture to regard these provisions as altogether inadequate to secure the object which, I believe, the Government have in view, and which certainly the majority of this House have in view. I remember that that is part of the general principle of the Bill. It is a question partly I think of the safety of the ship, but certainly it is a question of the security of the seamen, and on the larger national ground of national defence I think we all feel that it is a desirable thing in every possible way to encourage, and, if necessary, even to insist upon, a larger proportion of seamen of British origin on our ships. I understand the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman felt when he introduced a Bill with regard to this subject. He had been told that there was not a sufficient supply of seamen, and that to prescribe that a certain proportion—a much larger proportion than at present—of the crew should be British would be to cause a number of ships to be withdrawn inasmuch as their crews could not be found. Well, I do not know who gave him that information, but the information which has come to me does not confirm it. I doubt very much whether the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who speaks, with authority on behalf of the British seamen, will agree. We maintain that a large number of British seamen are out of employment, and that accordingly there will be no difficulty at all in making greater drafts upon them and finding them employment, not only in their own interests but in the interests of the country at large. The right hon. Gentleman says that in British ships trading between one foreign port and another there is a difficulty in retaining British seamen, as I understand it, because the British seaman wants from time to time to come home. Therefore, that foreign service is not popular. But we

  1141
  cannot judge as to that unless we have fall statistics in our possession. I should like to know how many British ships which do not confine themselves to foreign voyages have foreign seamen as members of their crews. At all events, to my mind, this is, I was going to say, the only unsatisfactory point in the Bill. It is a most serious point to which I attach the greatest possible importance. I do not know whether I would be competent to move myself in the matter, but I should be inclined to support any Motion made in order to secure a proper remedy for the evil which is confessed, and to provide that a fixed percentage should be established as the maximum to be allowed in the crew of a British ship to be supplied by foreign seamen. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not be as gracious to British shipowners as to foreign shipowners; but if he feels that any change in that respect would be prejudicial to foreign shipowners if brought forward too speedily, he might allow the arrangement to stand over for a year or two.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was a great failure when it was tried before.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Still, I understand it is the remedy put forward by those most concerned—by the representatives of the sailors. They have always insisted that that is the only remedy, short, indeed, of the entire prohibition of the employment of foreign seamen. This matter should have the consideration of the Government, otherwise we shall have to deal with it at a subsequent stage of the Bill.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked whether it was not possible to apply these rules as to the load line to any ships coming from India, the Crown Colonies, or the other Colonies. At any rate, we should apply them to the Crown Colonies under our own control; and we should ask India to join with us for the sake of humanity in imposing the load line rules on all ships sailing from her ports. He would go further and ask the self-governing Colonies to do the same
  1142
  thing. We had been told by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies that we had powers to veto legislation passed by the self-governing Colonies contrary to the wishes of this House in regard to labour; and surely we could exercise that veto in a much stronger manner when it concerned the safety, the comfort, and the lives of our sailors. Therefore, he appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to make this measure complete in order that it should apply not only to the United Kingdom but to India, the Crown Colonies, and the self-governing Colonies.
  MR. JENKINSsaid he was satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had given of this Bill. The primary object of the Bill was the safety of the lives of our sailors, and, after looking through all the clauses he entirely agreed that that was the aim of the right hon. Gentleman. It was satisfactory to find that foreign ships would have to comply with the same regulations in regard to the prevention of the shifting of cargo as British ships, which regulations were necessary for the safety of the ship and crew. The shifting boards throughout the bulkheads to prevent the shifting of the cargo were erected by the ship's carpenter, who was responsible for the whole construction of the vessel from keel to truck. The carpenter was excluded from the operation of the Act in so far as the Bill made no provision that he should be a qualified and certificated workman. It was absolutely necessary that greater care should be taken in the manning of the ship, in order to see that the men shipped were efficient and qualified to do their work. The right hon. Gentleman had taken care that under this Bill this should be secured in regard to certain classes of workers. He had decided that even the cooks should show that they were in some way efficient. If it was necessary that the chief officer, as well as the masters and others including the cook, should show that they were qualified, why was it not necessary that the same provision should be made in the case of a ship's carpenter? He wished to

  1143
  ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider the advisability of inserting Amendments calling upon these men to show that they were qualified for the positions which they desired to occupy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  DOGS BILL.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he did not propose to move the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper as he had received a sympathetic assurance from the Government with reference to his principal objections. He merely wished to offer a few remarks upon the measure. He objected to the Bill on various grounds, the principal one being that Clause 4 took away from the small farmers and crofters of the country the privilege which they had enjoyed for a very long time of keeping a sheep dog on the ground that it was essential to their trade. Under this clause that right was practically entirely set aside, and therefore those who represented agricultural constituencies were perfectly justified in opposing the Bill. He had an assurance that this question would be considered in Committee. In his judgment the matter was dealt with by the Bill in a most objectionable manner. Farmers and crofters could not and should not be asked to appear before a petty sessions court or sheriff substitute to get what was theirs by right. He cordially sympathised with the idea that the exemption which farmers had enjoyed for a long time past should not be abused, but he thought that, although
  1144
  safeguards might be introduced, the privilege should not altogether be taken away. The second part of the Bill was not quite so objectionable, and as he had obtained an assurance that the question about sheep dog licences would be considered an open one in Committee, he would not act upon his notice to move the rejection of the Bill. He complained that in Clause 2 the Board of Agriculture took power to compel certain dogs to wear collars, showing the name of their owners. If a rule of that kind was to be laid down, the House ought to enact that every dog should wear a collar. There should be no favouritism in this matter. He understood that that clause would not apply to sporting dogs; they were to be allowed to roam over the country without collars. It was not fair to the farmers that their dogs should have to go about with this badge and that other dogs should not. He would be quite content if the President of the Board of Agriculture laid down the principle that every dog should wear a collar with the name of the county and a number on it, by which the owner might be identified. The experience in the north was that sheep worrying was done not by the farmers' dogs, but by wandering dogs belonging to other people. The principal offenders were sporting dogs and pet dogs. These were the principal matters to which he took exception, and he trusted that the Government would, when the matter came before the Committee on Trade, give a sympathetic and attentive hearing to those who represented the small farmers in the country, and put this Bill on a fairer and more equitable basis.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had found fault with Clause 4 of this Bill, but the hon. Member had not paid sufficient attention to the gravity of this question or to the feeling in Scotland and other parts of the country with regard to it. The enormous number of exemptions granted, and the free and easy manner in which they were obtained, had resulted in a great amount of evil. When the President of the Board of Agriculture addressed the House on this question last year he showed that in the

  1145
  county of Montgomeryshire there were 1,747 licences issued and no less than 6,220 exemptions granted. In the county of Dumfries there were 4,471 licences issued and 1,200 exemptions granted. Such a state of affairs called for remedy. In the county of Inverness there were 2,743 licences issued and 17,772 exemptions granted. He thought the hon. Member in charge of this Bill was right in bringing something forward to deal with that serious state of affairs. The feeling in the country districts of Scotland was very strong upon this matter. The ravages committed among the flocks of sheep and the cruel destruction of valuable ewes by wandering collies getting among the sheep and massacring vast numbers of them was a matter that required some remedy, and he did not think it was too much to ask a man before he obtained an exemption to show that his collie was a bona fide sheep dog. The Bill, in his opinion, was one that was well worthy of the attention of agriculturalists in this country, and he hoped it would receive the assent of this House.
  MR. MARNHAMgave the Bill hearty support. Its necessity was shown not only in Scotland but in this country as well. Two or three weeks ago there was a case in Surrey—one of a series of cases—in which a farmer during one night lost no less than fifty ewes and lambs from dog-worrying. It was a very serious thing for a comparatively small farmer to have such a terrible loss inflicted and no means of recompense. Too often no trace of the dog was left and therefore no damages could be applied for. Of course, if they could detect the dog, and the owner was a man of substance, some satisfaction might be obtained; but if, as unfortunately was very often the case, the dog belonged to a poor man the sheep-owner had no means of recompense. If anything could be done to check this growing evil and to lessen the serious loss to which farmers were often put now, he did not think any dog-owner ought to mind a little inconvenience He hoped the Bill would receive the unanimous support of the House.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid it was apparent that the House was in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. He gathered that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland agreed that it was desirable that something ought to be done. It was quite clear that the objections were matters for Committee, and he could assure the hon. Member that his objections would be considered by the Board of Agriculture in the most sympathetic spirit. He agreed that the exemptions that had been allowed had been abused both in Scotland and in England, and that more stringent regulations in this respect were required. The Board of Agriculture had power to delegate the making of regulations to local authorities, and he thought that that power would be largely exercised. Might he appeal to the House to give the Bill a Second Reading at once, as all were agreed on the merits, and it was hardly necessary to go into details now? The Bill would be sent to the Standing Committee, where all objections would be considered. There was not the slightest desire on the part of the Board of Agriculture to treat the Bill as an inspired document. Quite the contrary. Suggestions for improvements would be considered with fullest sympathy. The object of the Government was to get a good Bill, and to protect the country from the great curse of sheep-worrying.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid an idea had been expressed that the great danger from which the Bill was supposed to protect sheep-owners was one arising from dogs which lived in a state of luxury and occasionally went out on the rampage. In his experience, however, the sheep-worrying dogs generally hunted in couples, and they were not dogs kept in luxury, but professional mutton-killers. The man-eating tiger was an analogy. He agreed with the suggestion that it would be wrong to discriminate between the dog of one person and that of another, and he could not see why it should not be to the public advantage to have some distinctive collar so that the owner could be identified if need be. He hoped the Bill would diminish the large

  1147
  number of casual dogs kept often for mischievous purposes, besides diminishing the damage done to farmers by the distraction of their sheep.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he was not going to speak upon the merits of this Bill. Last year he was associated with the then President of the Board of Agriculture In trying to pass it through this House. He merely rose to ask the hon. Baronet if he would reconsider his decision to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. If the hon. Baronet inquired he would find that there was a good deal of feeling about the Bill in various quarters of the House.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the main purpose of the Bill was to make owners of dogs responsible for damage done to flocks, but it left untouched the very important question, which ought to be dealt with by Parliament, as to the responsibility of owners for injuries done by their dogs to men. He hoped the Government would consider whether they could not amend the Bill in Committee, so that the owner of a dog which injured a man should be responsible for the injury.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member can bring "man" within the term "live stock."
  LORD R. CECILsaid the Bill was also "otherwise to amend the law relating to dogs." It was on that part of the title that he ventured respectfully to submit that he was entitled to raise the point he had. The condition of the law on the subject at present was an absurdity. Whereas a man was responsible for anything that his human servant did, even if it were done in spite of the direct instructions given to that servant, that did not apply to a dog unless it could be shown that the dog was vicious, in the knowledge of its owner. Yet a dog's bite might destroy the power of a bread-winner for weeks and months. It was sometimes put in a crude but incorrect way that every dog was entitled to one bite. That was an absurd position, and he asked the
  1148
  Government to consider the advisability of amending the law.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he did not know any statute that had ever made a definition of "cattle," and it had always been a moot point whether the term included sheep. He should certainly not think it would include ponies, and he would therefore suggest that the words "to any cattle" should be left out in Clause 1, so that it would be quite clear that damage done to ponies by dogs would permit of a remedy. Section 2 seemed to introduce an entirely new principle into English law by which the person against whom damages were claimed would have to prove that he was not the person who ought to pay those damages.
  Questoin put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR H. AUBREY-FLETCHERsaid that this Bill was a most important measure connected with agriculture, and was to carry into effect the recommendations of a Departmental Committee. The House ought certainly to have some explanation from the hon. Baronet. A considerable sum of money would have to be provided by the Treasury for the payment of the chief analyst, who was not to engage in private practice while holding the office.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  THE SUGAR CONVENTION.
  MR. SCOTTin rising to move, "That in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to withdraw from the Sugar Convention," said there had been many reasons given for the result of the general election, and those who sat on the Liberal side of the House had been taken to task for the many promises which they made during the election campaign. He thought the House would agree that there was not a single Member who sat on that side of the House, who did not promise and pledge himself that when returned to this House he would do his best to alter the legislation of the late Government. He ventured to think that of all the follies associated with the late administration, nothing was quite so silly as the Brussels Sugar Convention, to which he proposed to draw attention. Since he had given notice of this Motion he had read the speeches delivered in this House in the debates upon that question, and to those who held the views he held on this matter it was very gratifying to find that the right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Front Government Bench had been the strongest in their denunciation of the Brussels Sugar Convention. All he was anxious about was that there should be consistency of policy, and that now a Liberal Government was in office they would not find right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench advocating views different from those they expressed when sitting on the opposite side of the House. It was interesting to find, when this question first came before the House in November, 1902, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham described the Convention, in the most flattering terms, as a free-trade measure. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman did not then speak as a disciple of Cobden, and a great advocate of free-trade principles. The right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London, when the question came up on the second occasion, told the House that the result of the Sugar Convention would be to lower prices, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  1150
  for West Birmingham at the same time prophesied that we should see no advance in the price of sugar. When the prophecy was made, they in Lancashire invested largely in sugar, with the result that many of them made sufficient out of the increased price of sugar to pay the increased expenditure they were called upon to pay as the result of his influence on the policy of the Government. He had looked through the speeches delivered in favour of the measure, and found, when they dismissed all this talk of Empire and came down to facts, that the Sugar Convention was to benefit two classes of individuals and two classes alone. In the first place, it was to benefit the West Indies. The competition to which the West Indies had had to submit had had one very good result. In the last twenty years it had brought down the cost of the production of sugar to one half, and he ventured to think that with a sound system of finance and proper machinery the West Indies could produce sugar to-day more cheaply than it could be produced anywhere else in the world. It was singular, in view of the recent agitation, to realise, if they could assume—and the assumption was a great one—that hon. Members opposite had been returned by a majority and had put their fiscal policy into operation, that the West Indies would have been absolutely excluded from preferential benefits, whilst since the Convention they have had to submit to the serious competition of Germany, Austria and France in the market of the United, States, "the natural market of the West Indies," and from which Bounty-fed sugar is excluded. The refiner, who was the other person who was to benefit, was in a position totally different from that of the producer in the West Indies. The refiner wanted his raw sugar as cheap as he could get it, but wished to get as big a price as possible for the refined article, whilst the producer in the West Indies wanted the highest price for the raw material. The refiners in this country were nothing like so badly off as people had been led to believe. Up to date the refiners had made more money than any other class in this country, with the exception, perhaps, of the brewers. Where they had considered and kept to the requirements of the consumers they had

  1151
  made a great success of sugar refining. But where men refined sugar with antiquated machinery, and turned out a product which the retailer did not want, and which therefore had to be sold at a reduced figure, they were not likely to be prosperous. Even with the Sugar Convention one of the biggest sugar refiners in this country had just gone into liquidation. The foreign refiners and producers in their desire to secure the English market had entered into a policy of such senseless competition that they had brought the price of sugar in England down to 6s. a cwt. Supposing that insane policy had been continued, and we had had sugar brought into this country for nothing, would that or would it not have been a benefit to this country? There were nine producing countries and one consuming country entered the Sugar Convention. We were the largest consumers of sugar in the world. We consumed four times as much as any European nation, and yet we, occupying the position of consumers and buyers, entered into a Convention with those whose interest it was to get the best possible price they could for their produce, and thus stopped the insane competition that existed among them. The interests of the buyer and the seller were totally different. If those responsible for the Sugar Convention had ever attended an Irish horse fair and tried to buy a horse or to sell a horse they would have realised there was all the difference in the world between the buyer and the seller. We entered into this Convention. What was the result? No sooner did the Brussels Convention become law than the price of sugar went down in all producing countries and up in England. The consumption of sugar increased on the continent 54 per cent., while for the first time in England it decreased 3 per cent. The increased consumption on the continent was largely responsible for the increased cost in this country. It was said to have been due to the dry season, and all sorts of figures were brought foward to indicate that nothing connected with the Brussels Convention was responsible for it. It was nothing of the sort. Without the Brussels Convention there would possibly have been a rise of 9d. or 1s. a cwt. The great advance that took
  1152
  place would never have taken place at all but for the impetus given to Germany, Austria, and France, when the consumption in France went up nearly 100 per cent. There could only be one result of such a state of things. Figures had been given to him that day by some interested society showing that sugar to-day was at the average price at which it had stood for the last ten years. Yet it was said to be a record crop. Did anybody ever hear of a record crop that did not bring down prices? Here was this society, speaking in the interest of this absurd Convention declaring that while the production of sugar was greater than it had ever been in the history of that commodity the price only came down to the average price of the last ten years. He said unhesitatingly—and he did not speak without knowledge—that if to-day there had been no Brussels Convention the price of sugar, instead of being 8s. 4½d. per cwt. would be about 5s. 6d. or 5s. 9d. He did not want to give the House exaggerated figures, but a great authority had stated that in sugar-using industries 50,000 persons had been working half time through the action of this Convention, whilst 12,000 had been added to the number of the unemployed. He would give the House one incident to show how serious was the effect of this Convention on the trade and on the manufactures of this country. Let the House take a busy man who saw some fifty or sixty travellers in the course of a morning. He probably wanted to see thirty or forty, because he had orders for them, and twenty or thirty he desired to dismiss as easily, nicely, and as courteously as he could, but he did not wish to see their samples. Among those travellers there had been in times past travellers from Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and other foreign countries, who had not found an opening to any extent. Directly this Convention came into operation they came and said—
  "Now we can show you something. It is not a question of artistic taste. We can show you a cheaper article than you can buy from, your own people"
  They could point out that their sweets were made from bounty-fed sugar, which the people of this country were not allowed to use. Having

  1153
  interested the buyer and obtained an opening and having been given the opportunity of having their goods shown in the stores, what was the result? In one shop alone, where practically no trade was done in foreign confectionery, a trade had grown up in these few years to such an extent that a large percentage of the trade done in that shop was done in those goods. When he took out those statistics before the election he was able to point out that what was being sold over the one counter was responsible for four British workmen being thrown out of employment. He was not experienced in the manufacturing confectionery trade, but he gave those figures to a large manufacturing confectioner. He pointed out the amount of trade that was now done and the demand made for the class of goods, and that gentleman said—
  "Mr. Scott, you are not right. There are six men thrown out of work, if that is the quantity being sold at that store."
  In spite of such things as that the country were told that the people responsible for such legislation as this Convention were always considering the interest of the workers. A prominent supporter of the other side, speaking to those interested in the West Indies, pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been responsible for raising the price of sugar from £6 to £16 a ton. He wondered if the right hon. Gentleman, when he fulfilled his great desire to address the working men of this country on this subject, would make that the text of his address. Nothing in all the legislation of the past could equal the Sugar Convention for the interference with trade and the disaster it had brought about. He would not detain the House at greater length. He had seen since he had been in the House the folly of long speeches such as they heard on Friday last, when an important Bill had not time to be sent to Committee because of the long speeches of its supporters, and he could promise the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that if he got an opportunity of bringing in a Bill to shorten speeches, no Government Whip would prevent many Members on the Ministerial Benches from following him into the lobby. The Government on this question held, he
  1154
  hoped, the same opinions that they held when in Opposition. He wanted the people of other countries to realise that a new Government had come into office — a Government which was not to be influenced by colonists, nor favoured industries who made no efforts to improve and restore their industries, but relied on Government assistance rather than their own energies, but a strong Government had been returned whose interest was that of the great mass of the consumers of' this country. He begged to move.
  MR. IDRISsaid he wished to second this Resolution, because he thought the House ought to let it be known to all those who were interested at home and abroad that they were opposed to the policy of the Convention and that they intended to terminate it at the earliest opportunity. An American statesman of long experience recently told him that it was an indisputable fact that protection was was always a selfish scheme for the benefit of a few people who intended to make something out of it at the cost of the many and the right hon. the Prime Minister said on February 14th, 1905—
  "The Convention is a microcosm; it is an express image of the policies of Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain."
  The Sugar Convention was a clear illustration of the objects, the methods, and the results of protection. It was a picture of protection, of preference, and of retaliation—of protection of the planters in the West Indies, and of the sugar refiners in this country; of preference, not to the foreigners who helped to give us cheap sugar, but only to those who would agree to make sugar dearer for the people of this country; and of retaliation in its most effectual form, amounting to absolute prohibition of the importation of sugar into this country from foreign countries that would not obey the dictates of a Commission consisting mainly of foreigners sitting in Brussels, and those foreigners consisting of producers who imposed their will on the consumers of this country. The object of the Convention was to make sugar dear. It was idle to deny that that was the object. It could not be of any possible use to the West Indian planters if it did not effect that

  1155
  object. The complaint of the planters was that sugar was so cheap that they could not produce it profitably at the price. The complaints were mainly those of absentee landlords and planters who could not manage to make their industry pay, and who thought that on that account they had a right to be relieved at the cost of the State, although they knew that there were plenty of poorer people in this country who had a better claim to public relief. But this state of mind was far too common amongst the landowners at home as well as abroad. Their claim was listened to; they were subsidised largely, and in July, 1902, the hon. Member for West Birmingham stated, in granting them a farther £250,000, that it was—
  "to tide over the interval which must elapse before the Convention signed at Brussels comes into force."
  And in a Government despatch to the British delegates at Brussels it was stated—
  "That their (the Government's) main reason for desiring to terminate a system which has tended for the time to cheapen the price of sugar to consumers in the United Kingdom, has been their conviction of its injurious effects on their sugar-producing Colonies in the West Indies."
  The right hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on June 26th, 1903—
  "If it were not for the case of the West Indies, there is no conceivable reason why we should not allow the foreigner to tax himself, for the benefit of the consumer in this country,"
  and on August 6th, 1903, he said—
  "It was true, and the Government did not deny it, that the effect of a foreign bounty must be to benefit the consumers in this country."
  The effect of arise in the price of sugar was fully pointed out a hundred times in this House, and to the Members of this House, by constituents outside. It was clearly shown that not more than one-twentieth to one-thirtieth of the sugar consumed in this country could come from the West Indies, and that for every £20 extra paid by the people of this country for sugar not more than £1 could possibly find its way into the pockets of the West Indian planters. This was exactly what had happened. As to what the hon. Member for West Birmingham expected the rise in price to be as a result of the Convention, they
  1156
  might learn from a speech made by him in the House of Commons on July 1st, 1902, when he said that the disadvantage of the foreign bounty system to the West Indian planter was "at least £5 a ton." It followed that in order to overcome this disadvantage the price of sugar would have to be raised "at least £5 a ton," and this effect of the Convention was for a time more than realised. Sir Alfred Jones claimed that the hon. Member for West Birmingham had been instrumental in raising the price of sugar from £6 to £16 a ton, and this was substantially true at the time the statement was made. During the last two years the people of this country had paid at the very least £10,000,000 more for sugar as a result of the Convention, and as last year only one-twenty-fifth of the sugar consumed in this country came from the West Indies it followed that at least £9,500,000 out of the £10,000,000 went into the pockets of the European producers. It seemed clear, therefore, that the authors of this Convention were the friends of every country but their own. They had impoverished our land, and increased unemployment. He could vouch for the fact that in the industry with which he was connected thousands have been thrown out of work and some were now walking about starving, partly no doubt as a result of the sugar tax, but still largely as a result of the Convention. The authors of this Convention had depleted the scanty board of the very poor of our land for the enrichment of the foreigner. They had heard a good deal lately in this House of the posters used in the recent election, but leaflets were issued containing far more distinct perversions of fact than could be conveyed by means of any pictorial poster. He had one issued by the Conservative Publication Department headed "The Sugar Convention" and in large print, "The Hollowness of the Radical Agitation," "Sugar is cheaper than before the Convention." The Convention was signed on March 5th, 1902, and it was ratified on August 6th, 1903. When it was signed the price of 88 per cent. beet sugar, free on board at Hamburg, was 6s. 4½d. per cwt., and the price of the same sugar at the same place at the time of the ratification by Parliament was 8s. 6d. per

  1157
  cwt. And although, the price had gone considerably higher and been lowered again, this increased price of about 2s. per cwt. was maintained now. This increased price of 2s. per cwt. meant a continued and present loss of £3,000,000 a year to the people of this country as a result of the Convention. The price of sugar was steadily going down before the Convention, and it is fully believed by the best judges that if the Convention had not been signed, the price of raw sugar would have gone down below 6s., and would have remained about that figure.
  "The Unionist Government entered into the Brussels Sugar Convention in 1902. In 1903 and 1904 the price of sugar rose owing to the shortage in supply caused by drought."
  The drought was so slight that the amount of shortage caused by it was counterbalanced by the larger crop of cane sugar. In France, where this drought was said to have occurred, the price of sugar was lowered as a consequence of the Convention, whilst at the same time the price of sugar in this country was increased in consequence of the Convention. The shortage was caused mainly by the increased consumption in France, as a result of cheaper sugar in that country. The retail prices per lb. of sugar previous to the Convention were:—England, 1½d.; Germany, 3⅝d.; France, 4¾d.; Belgium, 3¾d.; and on March 1st this year, after making allowance for the sugar tax in England, the prices were:—England, 1¾ Germany, 2½d.; France, 3d.; and Belgium, 2½d. These figures showed that while the retail price of sugar in England was now ¼d. per lb. higher, the price had fallen in Germany 1⅛d.; in France, 1¾d.; and in Belgium, 1¼d. This increased consumption in France, amounting to no less than 54 per cent., had enabled speculators in France to corner sugar in a way which otherwise they would not have been able to do. There had been in Paris sugar kings, sugar queens, and sugar suicides. The Conservative pamphlet said—
  "The Radical Party at once fastened upon the rise in price, conpled it with the Sugar Convention (with which it had no connection), and started an agitation against the Government on the ground that its action had given the country dear sugar."
  1158
  It was dear sugar that the planters wanted, it was dear sugar that the Government wanted to give them, it was dear sugar that the Convention succeeded in causing. In trying to understand why an apparently sane Government committed this folly they were driven to one or two conclusions. Either they were so stupid as to be incapable of appreciating the fact that as only a small fraction of the sugar consumed in this country could come from the West Indies, only a small fraction of the increased amount we should pay for it in this country could possibly go into the pockets of the West Indian planters, or they were so selfish and reckless as to be utterly regardless of how much our people put in the pockets of foreigners, if only a small fraction of the amount found its way into the pockets of their friends. He had read in ancient literature that whom the gods wished to destroy they first made mad. The madness of the authors of this Convention was evident; their political destruction was equally clear. It was the duty of those who opposed the policy of the late Government to declare to everybody concerned that they did not intend to continue this madness.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to withdraw from the Sugar Convention."—(Mr. Alfred Scott.)
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he could lay claim to a certain knowledge of this subject. He had been in the majority of the sugar-producing countries of the world, and had been personally connected more especially with the sugar industry in the West Indies. He had listened with the greatest attention, and he admitted with some disappointment, to the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Resolution, because he anticipated, having regard to the present state of the sugar market, that the House would hear some new development in the argument, but the hon. Members had only given a rechauffé of the old arguments which had done duty on many a previous occasion. The only variation which had been introduced was that both hon. Members insisted with the utmost vehemence that it was to the wicked

  1159
  Sugar Convention that the rise in price during last year was due. He would only put this question to the hon. Members—if the Sugar Convention caused the rise in the price what was it that caused the fall? What had occurred in the interim to suspend the operation of the Convention? [An HON. MEMBER: A record production.] Did hon. Members seriously mean to contend that were it not for the Convention the price of sugar, instead of being 8s. 6d., would be 1s? That was a reductio ad absurdum, but it was the logical conclusion of the hon. Member's argument. If he were to argue the question on purely Party lines no course would be more simple. He might have come armed with a whole ream of pamphlets, and he might have quoted from Hansard previous speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what the course of the sugar market would be. Hansard was full of prophecies, but when they came to be considered in the light of events, it would be found that those prophecies had not been borne out. Hon. Members prophesied that there would be a permanently increased cost to consumers in this country. He did not blame them. They were full of the spirit of prophecy and no doubt their prophecies would have gotten them a certain amount of political gain. He did not say that that was the object of their prophesies. That was a purely fortuitous circumstance, but still that unearned increment would have accrued if the general Providence which ordered the affairs of all men had not decreed that there should be a bounteous harvest of beet on the continent, and if the particular Providence which directed the affairs of this House and nation had not decreed that the general election should be postponed until December. He did not want to raise unhappy memories in the minds of hon. Members opposite, but he did want to say that he viewed with a certain amount of astonishment the position of a large number of Members on the other side of the House. He did so because they were never tired of declaring how much reverence they attached to the doctrines of Mr. Cobden. They never seemed to be out of the influence of that great man. Ever since his death Mr. Cobden had exercised a sort of mental fascina-
  1160
  tion over them. [An HON. MEMBER: And so he will.] Yes. but when this question of sugar came up hon. Members stopped their ears and would not listen to the voice of the charmer. He had always understood that Mr. Cobden advocated the exchange of commodities at their natural prices. He was confirmed in that view when he came to look at what Mr. Cboden had to say on the subject. On the subject of natural price Mr. Codben said—
  "We do not seek Free Trade primarily for the purpose of purchasing at a cheaper money rate; we require the natural price of the world's market. Whether it becomes dearer with a Free Trade or whether it becomes cheaper matters not to us, provided the people of this country have it at its natural price."
  And yet hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were followers of Mr. Cobden, were quarrelling with those who desired to get a system of procuring commodities at their natural prices, because they said it involved loss and ruin to consumers in general, and in particular to the confectionery and jam industries. He was somewhat of a doubting Thomas in this matter. He was confirmed in his doubt when he referred to the list of dividends paid by various confectionery and jam companies during the past few years. He observed that one company in particular—he admitted that it was exceptional—was paying as the average of the last three years the substantial dividend of over 20 per cent. That was quite satisfactory as things went, but he was told that while that was all very well in the home trade the foreign trade was being ruined and ground to powder by foreign competition. That was discounted when they came to look at the Chamber of Commerce Journal for November this year. He found that during
  "the eleven months ended November, 1903, 1904 and 1905, the quantity and value of the exports of confectionery, jams and preserved fruits was higher last year than in any of its predecessors."
  The exports were in 1903, 294,886 cwt.; in 1904, 289,841 cwt.; and in 1905, 315,478 cwt. The values were in 1903, £743,718; in 1904, £750,870; and in 1905, £824,221. The same journal said—
  "Moreover, what is more satisfactory still, there was no doubt that there was even greater improvement in the home trade."

  1161
  In the face of these facts he must say that the remarks as to loss and ruin seemed to be somewhat inaccurate. The hon. Member for Flint had referred to the tremendous increase in the consumption of sugar on the continent as if it were some great wrong inflicted on the industries of this country. He would point out that the hon. Member's figures though correct did not represent consumption. They represented warehousing as well as consumption. When foreign merchants realised that the Convention was coming into effect on 1st September, 1903, they started and sold out until they had nearly cleared their warehouses. It was not for some time afterwards that they commenced to buy in again. In the case of France alone that mistaken proportion was something like 185,000 tons, and if the figures for the whole of the continent were taken it came to about 300,000 tons. After all, this cry of loss and ruin was only the ordinary cry which was always raised in these circum stances. He never knew a 'short' interest yet which did not cry out when the market went up against it. If, as a matter of fact, the sugar industries of this country were suffering from foreign competition, that competition must be either fair or unfair. If it was fair and inflicted injury on British trades it would be the most absolute protection to interfere with the Convention. How such a policy could commend itself to the party which boasted of being the free trade party was a thing that passed his comprehension. If the foreign competition was unfair, by all means protect the home manufacturer. That, however, should not be done by taxing the legitimate producers of the raw material, but by taxing those who produced the foreign manufactured article under unfair conditions of competition. He would now say a word as to what the Convention had done. He confessed quite frankly that he did not think that what had been done by the Sugar Convention could not have been done equally well and just as effectively by countervailing duties.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMPSONsaid that as a matter of fact the Convention was a concession to free trade prejudices. It was a free trade device, and if there was
  1162
  anything wrong with the machinery of the device all he could say was that he should have infinitely preferred the device of countervailing duties. But the Convention had broadened and was continuing to broaden the area of sugar-production, and in doing that it was providing the best guarantee against such fluctuations as had occurred in the past. It was impossible for the Convention to prevent fluctuations altogether. There would always be fluctuations according as the crop was lean or fat. If a device of this sort broadened the sources from which supplies were drawn it minimised the risk of the failure of the crop in all of them simultaneously. Beet supplies were drawn from a comparatively limited area, and the House could imagine what would be the result of a disastrous drought in that area. There was a drought which caused a deficiency of 19 per cent., or over a 1,000,000 tons. He believed that the effect on the market of that drought would have been greatly increased if, in the absence of any such instrument as the Convention, they had been rendered still more dependent for sugar than they were at the present moment on the beet supplies of the continent. Cane supplies were drawn from almost every tropical country in the world, and the risk of a simultaneous drought affecting those supplies was a risk hardly worth taking into their calculations. It ought to be a source of satisfaction and pleasure to hon. Gentlemen opposite that cane sugar was ousting beet sugar from the markets of the world in the way it had done during the past few years. Hon. Members would remember that for a long series of years there was a gradual building up of the beet sugar industry, until the production of beet sugar far outstripped the production of cane sugar, but there was now an approximation to equality in the production of continental beet and cane. In the three years from 1899–1900 to 1901–1902, the average quantity of continental beet produced was 6,076,813 tons, and the cane produced averaged 3,511,213 tons; in the years 1902–1903 to 1905–1906, continental beet amounted to 5,862,946, and cane 4,800,000; and for 1906–1907 the estimated amount of continental beet was 5,650,000, and of cane 5,500,000. He thought these figures proved conclusively that a change was taking place in the

  1163
  world's supply of cane and beet sugar. He believed that change would continue, and that there would be a sugar supply which would be more independent than it was at the present moment of the fluctuations due to weather causes. He did not say that the present price was the natural price. He did not know any factory in France which could produce beet sugar on a large commercial scale under 9s., and few in Germany could produce much under 8s. 6d. to 8s. 9d. In many the present price did not meet the cost of production. That was borne out by a petition which was presented at the beginning of this month to the Reichstag. The petitioners said—
  "The situation of the German export trade is rendered more serious than ever by the growing competition of cane sugar, the fall in market prices to a point actually below the cost of production places it in a situation of great peril."
  It should be remembered that the beet sugar industry had had every advantage which science could expend on its development, and at the present moment the last ounce was got out of the beet. The same was not true in regard to cane sugar. Cane sugar had not yet come into its own, and yet it was produced in some parts of the world at prices with which beet sugar could not compete for a moment. It was produced in Peru at something like £6. That was due to the fact that there was irrigation there. Java was often held up as an example for cane growers. The production there was in the neighbourhood of £7. They had cheap labour there—coolies who lived in compounds, and who, he had no doubt, got beaten when they deserved it. They were often told that the West Indies were behindhand and were not benefiting by the present Convention. On the contrary, he maintained that the West Indies had derived genuine benefit from the removal of the continual uncertainty which formerly existed. Now there was security for the investment of capital, and the cost of production was being lowered by leaps and bounds. Time and capital were, however, required for this purpose. When land had gone out of cultivation, at least an interval of three years and a great expenditure were necessary before a crop could be obtained. There was a great deal of talk about antiquated machinery. Machinery was the smallest part of the matter. It could be provided
  1164
  in a year or six months if the conditions were secure and capital could be attracted. He felt that many hon. Gentlemen opposite who had, perhaps, made up their minds on this matter, had done so without apprehending the true state of things. The continuance of the Convention, or some such device, meant a continuance of security, and that meant cheap sugar to the consumer, less violent fluctuation and a fair profit to the producer. He would add a plea for justice to the West Indies. Hon. Members opposite might say that this was special pleading. That might be so, but think of the circumstances! In the West Indies they were dealing with three distinct classes of people—the white population, the coolies, and the negroes. In regard to the white population, he submitted that this country was bound, if not by legal, by the highest moral obligations to realise that it owed them a large amount of consideration and a certain amount of justice in view of their passionate and intense loyalty, and the extent to which that loyalty had been tried. For two successive periods the people of this country had been taxing the West Indies in order to get cheap sugar here, by allowing bounties, and by failing to continue the differential duty on sugar produced by slave labour. The West Indian producers bore that without complaining, it was true, but always in the hope that the old country would do something to help them. In the meantime these West Indian sugar planters could not have gone on without the assistance of America. But with the abolition of the bounties that support from America ceased. Consideration was also due to the coolie population on much the same grounds. These coolies had been imported to further the sugar industry, and if that industry which was, for many, the sole means of their livelihood were taken away, large numbers of them would have to be repatriated. Then there was the third class, the negro population. It must be remembered that they were not an indigenous population. They were brought to the West Indies with the connivance and by the authority of the British Government, under the abominable and horrible system of slavery. When the people of this

  1165
  country abolished that system, they could not rid themselves of the obligation laid upon them to continue to do something for the negroes. He appealed to hon. Members opposite and to the Government to entreat the hon. Member for Ashton not to push his Motion forward at the present moment, and not to place a definite bar against the prosperity and the future hopes of the West Indian Islands.
  MR. PAULsaid he was sure that if this debate required any justification, besides its intrinsic importance, it was to be found in the speech of the hon. Member for North West Lanarkshire. It was a pleasure to listen to such a speech and an honour to argue with a Gentleman animated by the fervour of conviction. The hon. Member had assumed that, because there were other factors which affected price besides taxes, therefore, taxes did not affect price at all. He asked the wife of a working man in his constituency whether the price of sugar had gone up since the autumn of 1903—the date at which the Convention came into force; and she asked him if he took her for a fool. She might have asked him, indeed, a much more disagreeable question. The hon. Member had quoted Mr. Cobden as saying that everything ought to be sold at its natural price. Mr. Cobden was so much of an internationalist that he desired the prosperity of all other countries equally with his own; but he would ask the hon. Member whether Mr. Cobden had ever suggested such a Convention as that under discussion, or countervailing duties which the hon. Gentleman said he would prefer. Mr. Cobden's opinions should be taken as a whole, and not one or two isolated sayings. It was very difficult to make any man who was not either a student of economic science or a practical man of business understand why free trade gave us an advantage over protectionist countries in neutral markets; but there was one glaring example which anybody with eyes in his head could see, and that was the effect on this country of the bounties given by foreign countries on the exports of their sugar. About 1890 a Sugar Convention Bill was introduced by an Austrian nobleman who repre-
  1166
  sented the Board of Trade—the late Baron de Worms. That Bill was defeated by Lord Farrer, of whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London had once said he did not think much as an economic authority. It was possible that the reputation of Lord Farrer would survive that obiter dictum. At that time he was a Member of neither House of Parliament, but, as Sir Thomas Farrer, by letters addressed to the working classes through the Liberal Press he made it impossible for the Government to go on with that Bill. The policy of the Bill was revived a very few years ago. The Tariff Reform League or Gentlemen who held the same opinions, were determined, if he might borrow a phrase from their somewhat limited vocabulary, that they would not any longer "take it lying down"—they would not allow the brutal foreigner to perpetrate the dastardly outrage of flooding our markets with cheap sugar. They concocted this precious Convention. The result had been to turn many a man out of work, as the hon. Member for Ashton had stated, and to send up the price of sugar. It had been, no doubt, a great advantage to the countries which gave bounties. The people of Germany and Austria were getting a little restive. They did not like being taxed for our benefit, and His Majesty's late advisers, true Imperialists, the friends of every country but their own, got France and Germany out of a very awkward strait at the expense of the people of this country. They talked lightly in this House about the price of sugar; they did not feel it. What did the Tariff Reform League care about the price of sugar? The price of champagne or motor cars affected them more. This was a mean and a cruel Convention, because it pressed hardest on the industrial classes of the community and with real and crushing severity on the poorest of the poor, and he hoped that some authoritative spokesman of the Government would announce that as soon as possible this Convention would be denounced—a Convention which put us in a humiliating position at the mercy of envious foreigners, which laid a burden on that part of the community which could afford it least, and which made this country, which in most other

  1167
  respects was the envy of surrounding nations, the contempt and the laughing stock of the world.
  MR. R. DUNCANsaid he must say something on one part of this subject to which he had given much attention—that was the question of our Imperial position and our responsibilities for the weaker part of our fellow-citizens in the West Indian colonies. We would not be worthy of our position if we did not try to defend them when they had been suffering from a system which was not fair trade. He did not envy the feelings of any man whose spirit did not rise to the support of those fellow-citizens who had toiled in vain for many long years hoping for the support of the mother country.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid that in moving the Amendment which stood in his name he did not disagree, but rather agreed, with the views of the mover and seconder of the Resolution. He did not in any way withdraw from the position he took up last year when he seconded an Amendment to the Address in regard to this question; but he did not think that this was an appropriate moment to pass the particularly drastic Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Ashton. The view he held last year had been strengthened by everything which had taken place since with regard to the Sugar Convention. The desire of the promoters of the movement which resulted in the Sugar Convention was to help the sugar refiners and the cane sugar growers in the West Indies. The result had been merely to give large facilities to the producers and capitalists in a group of foreign countries at the expense of the consumers of this country. There was a peculiar irony in the fact that those hon. Gentlemen who for the last two years had been proclaiming loudly from protectionist platforms that certain countries were damaging us in the markets of the world should by their Convention have given the greatest possible help to that group of foreign countries. Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, and Holland had all largely benefited by the Convention, increasing their consumption by 50 per cent. Germany was the greatest
  1168
  gainer with an increased consumption of 400,000 tons at a lower price than ourselves, whose consumption had been decreased by 300,000 tons, while we paid something like £5,000,000 more for our decreased consumption. Here was an opportunity for the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to use his retaliation plan and get a quid pro quo; but our consumers had lost all down the line. The effect in the West Indies had been to increase the export of cane sugar to this country to a comparatively small extent, while their trade with the United States had had to face competition from other countries formerly debarred from sending sugar to the United States. If we had now a protectionist majority, a scheme of preference and protection would be unfolded; but a singular feature in one article of the Convention was that a colony coming under it was not to enjoy any preference from this country, so that the one country debarred from such a scheme would be the West Indies. He moved the Amendment because the time was inopportune for passing such a Resolution. It could have no effect, because this country was chained to this "blessed" Convention until September, 1908, and a year's notice would be necessary. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted or the Resolution withdrawn. Our representative would then attend the next meeting of the Convention Powers untrammelled by a Resolution that could have no effect. He begged to move.
  MR. WHITLEYseconded the Amendment. However strongly they might feel that the Convention was an evil thing for this country, they were all able to see that a decision on the question of its denouncement could not be come to for eighteen months.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'inasmuch as the Brussels Convention is binding on the contracting Powers for a period of five years, and that any notice on behalf of a contracting State to withdraw is subject to twelve months' notice, to be given in September 1907, it is inexpedient for this House to announce any decision at this moment.'—(Sir John Dickson-Poynder.)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  EARL PERCY: After the admirable speech delivered from this side of the House by the hon. Member for North West Lanarkshire—a speech which, I think, emphasises the great advantage which any Member has who speaks from knowledge at first hand and not from mere theories—I should not have risen were it not for the extraordinary attitude adopted by the Government. We have been discussing a substantive Motion for an hour and a half and no Member of the Government has risen to give any guidance to the House as to the view we should take of it. I can only infer that they intend either to advise the House to accept the policy embodied in the Amendment just moved, or to advise the hon. Member who moved the original Resolution to withdraw it. To neither of these courses can we offer any strong objection. But the Government will be placed in the same humiliating and absurd position which they have occupied in regard to Chinese labour. Their endeavour to reconcile their present policy with election pledges and platform speeches reminds me of nothing so much as a host attempting an air of hilarity while aware that his guests are suffering from an acute attack of indigestion. A few months ago the Home Secretary declared that as soon as the Government came into office this insane Convention would be denounced; but the other day the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in answer to a Question put by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, said that no decision taken before September, 1907, could be effective and the matter had not yet been considered. The truth is, that the agitation against the Sugar Convention having served its immediate purpose, the Government are becoming conscious of the fact that the case against the Convention is a very thin one. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] The arguments against the Convention have been practically reduced to two. There is, first, the argument that by adhering to this Convention we have tied our hands and made it possible for a majority of foreign representatives to decide British policy in
  1170
  regard to an article of general consumption. From the point of view of mere abstract theory I admit that is a plausible argument, though in so far as it is a valid argument against the Brussels Sugar Convention it is equally valid against the Berlin Act and the Brussels Act, by which we bound ourselves not to impose import duties in excess of a specified limit on goods coming into British colonies. But what we have to consider is not a question of theory, but of practice. Has the fact that we have made ourselves a party to this Convention led to any practical inconvenience, or is it likely to cause any serious embarrassment in the future? I have heard nothing in this debate to justify an affirmative answer to either of those questions. We have always the right of appeal, a right which we have successfully exercised hitherto, in cases where the decisions of the Commission seemed to us to be based on insufficient grounds—and in the last resort we always have it in our power to denounce the Convention. With regard to the confectionery trade, the two principal States, practically the only two of importance, which export confectionery to this market are Switzerland and the United States. The latter use for confectionery nothing but by-products of sugar which are not affected by the provisions of the Convention, and Switzerland, while it imports sugar which has already paid duty, never grants a refund of that duty on exports. Therefore there is no reason why the confectionery makers in this country should be injured. [An HON. MEMBER on the Ministerial benches: They are.] If they can prove injury the Commission has declared its readiness to take up the matter. But even if the Commission declined to do so we still have it in our power to take independent action, and as long as the late Government remained in office the Convention could not have caused them any embarrassment, whatever embarrassment it may occasion to a Government which has pledged itself, most unwisely, against the policy of retaliation or prohibition under any conceivable circumstances. I will not deal with the argument that the Convention is an invasion of the principles of free trade, which has been denied by the Prime Minister himself in a speech in this

  1171
  House on June 15, 1899.† The second and real argument against the Convention, such as it is, is not an economical argument at all, but a social argument drawn from expediency alone, the argument that the Convention tends to raise the price of an article of almost universal consumption among the great masses of the working classes. Even supposing that the Convention has been responsible for the rise in price, it by no means follows that if we denounced the Convention we would necessarily secure the restoration of bounties and a reduction in price. If the working classes are paying too much in respect of their sugar the proper course is, not to denounce the Convention, but to reduce the sugar duty. And what is the obstacle to doing so?—the fact that the Government has not only pledged itself to a large additional expenditure on every kind of project, but have also debarred themselves from any comprehensive scheme for broadening the basis of taxation. They have pledged themselves to maintain, in all its unbending rigidity, a fiscal system which prevents them from raising any substantial amount of indirect taxation except from the one or two articles which are practically necessaries of life. I do not wish to deny for one moment that the Convention may, to a certain extent, have been responsible for some of the increase in price that has occurred in the past. But I do say that the effect of the Convention in raising prices has been, and could only have been, infinitesimal. That is proved by the fact that the lowest price was touched after the Convention came into operation, and that, at the present moment, the price is at least 1s. below the average price of the ten years before the Convention was signed. I agree that you can prove almost anything by figures, but it is no more absurd to attribute the present fall exclusively to the Convention, than it is to attribute the rise in price to the same cause. The truth is that there have been many causes which led to the rise. The chief one was the shortage which occurred on the Continent, which amounted to considerably over a million tons on the normal output. It was also due partly to the
  † See (4) Debates, lxxii., 1307 et seq.
  1172
  increased consumption on the Continent consequent on the abolition of the bounties, which must lead to increased supply, and an eventual cheapening of price, and partly to the diminution of the area of beet cultivation, which showed how precarious was the basis on which such cultivation had rested. I will not allude to the causes of the subsequent fall more than to say that it was due partly to the passing away of the effects of the temporary shortage, partly to the release of invisible stocks, but also, to a very substantial extent, to the great increase in the growth and importation of cane sugar from the British West Indies. Precisely the same effect as regards cane cultivation is following on the present Sugar Convention that followed upon the imposition of retaliatory duties in India. But, assuming that the argument of the hon. Member is true that the Convention is responsible for the entire increase in the price of sugar in this country, is that a conclusive argument against the Convention? I think not. Pushed to its logical conclusion, that argument means that the interests of the consumer are the only interests we have to consider and that, provided the consumer gets his sugar cheap, it does not matter what loss or ruin is inflicted either on the manufacturers at home or on the sugar producers in our Colonies. Is that a possible position for those to take up who support the Excise duties on cotton imports into India? No one pretends that we enforce the Excise duties on Lancashire goods going into India in the interests of the Indian consumer. We enforce them in the interests of the Lancashire employee. We support a policy of protection here because it happens to benefit the British consumer, and a policy of free trade in India, although it hurts the Indian consumer, because it benefits our producer. But it is unnecessary to argue the case as between the consumer and the producer. The consumer himself gains by the Convention, for a cheapness dependent on the bounty system is artificial and uncertain and must have been temporary. If my interpretation of the policy of the Government is correct, whilst I will vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, I consider that the position

  1173
  of the Government will be an unsatisfactory and an undignified one. If their intentions are to be held indefinitely in suspense, the effect will probably be to paralyse the enterprise of the sugar planters in our own Colonies and gravely to abridge our power of influencing the decisions at Brussels. I am afraid that such a course is likely to make foreign countries think that whatever other departments are efficient in this country, neither the Board of Trade nor the foreign Office have a thinking department at all. I hope we shall not have to wait very many months before the Government has arrived at some settled convictions on so important a branch of our fiscal policy.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The speech to which we have just listened is one we are accustomed to from those Benches. Gentlemen on those Benches, having got their country into difficulties in all parts of the world, and having left us to extricate them, in a way which is consistent with the obligations they have entered into, make those difficulties greater by taunts and jeers and by endeavouring to induce us to take a course which they in their own hearts know to be absolutely wrong. The noble Lord who has just spoken said he regarded the appeal for the withdrawal of the Resolution as a sensible course, and at the same time he said it was an undignified course.
  LORD PERCY: I said it was undignified in view of your past pledges.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not part of our past pledges to break a treaty, and that is the question at the present moment. I wish the noble Lord had read the Resolution before he made his speech. It is a Resolution calling on us to denounce a treaty from which we cannot withdraw for some time. If he wants to argue the merits of the Sugar Convention, that is a totally different proposition which is not before the House. A member of the late Government is the last man in this House who should have the coolness, the audacity, to taunt us about efficiency and thinking matters out. The noble Lord said we had not considered what we were going to do. We never said we had not considered the
  1174
  merits of the Convention. The only thing my right hon. friend said he had not considered was the question of withdrawal. Why? Because that is a question you need not consider till next year. A member of a Government that took action without ever considering taunts us because we have not considered eighteen months in advance a thing which we need not consider till next year. The proposition before the House is perfectly clear. Is it desirable at the present moment to announce a decision which we could not possibly carry out until next September twelve months? In the meantime our delegates would be embarrassed at Brussels when dealing with very important questions. I say it is the duty of those who landed us in this mess to assist us to make the best of the circumstances until we can consider what has to be done. With regard to the merits of the question, the noble Lord's figures were absolutely wrong. The noble Lord seemed to think that this Convention had steadied prices. He really could not have studied the volume of prices during the last two or three years since the Convention and compared it with previous prices. As a matter of fact, it was very steady before the Convention. ["Oh!"] I will give him a few figures. Take the year before the Convention. The figures are 6s. 5d. in January, then it remained at 6s. and then came down to 5s. 9d. in July. There is not much fluctuation there.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is monthly.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is not accustomed to have his figures minutely examined. He considers it a ludicrous precaution. In the following year the prices ranged somewhere around 7s. and 8s.—a fluctuation of 1s. or 2s. What was the fluctuation immediately after the Convention? It was a fluctuation which ran up from 8s. until in January you landed in 16s. Now, that is what I call a fluctuation; it is the highest figure we have had for ten years. Yet the noble Lord says the fluctuations since the Convention have been infinitesimal. I do not think any one who pays 8s. per cwt. more for sugar would regard that as "infinitesimal"

  1175
  It is just doubling the price in the course of a few months. Who was it spoke about prophecies? The prophecies were, "No more fluctuations." We were to have a fixed—a scientific tariff. What has happened? In 1901 the crop of the world was over 10,000,000. Our price went down to 5s. 9d. The fluctuations then undoubtedly depended on the crop. We have had fluctuations in crops since, and it is true that when we have shortage the price goes up to 16s. Yet when we have a good crop of 11,000,700 our price is 8s. 6d. We do not get the benefit of good harvests. We do not get the benefit of natural price. We are excluding all the produce of a country like Russia—something like 1,000,000 tons a year. And yet these gentlemen who have got us into this pickle want to taunt us into the position of going to this Convention in May by first of all announcing that the Convention should be denounced. That is their notion of diplomacy. That comes from the noble Lord who used to represent the Foreign Office. The other prophecy was that the Convention was going to restore the West Indies—to transform a wilderness into a paradise. What has happened there? The noble Lord quoted figures to show that we were now paying bigger sums to the West Indies. Of course we are. If you enter into a convention to run up prices you naturally pay bigger prices to somebody. That is the policy of retaliation and fiscal reform, which has been so much belauded. In 1901–2, the year before the Convention, we got 62,000 tons from the West Indies, for which we paid £736,000. Last year we were to get a bigger production from the West Indies, for this Convention was in the interests of the West Indies, and to increase their cane production. Well, now, what has happened? We have had two years of a Sugar Convention which was to regenerate the West Indies. The export to this country has gone down from 62,000 tons to 55,000 tons. But here come the figures of the noble Lord. The figures of the cost have gone up from £736,000 to nearly £900,000. We are paying more by nearly £200,000 for 7,000 tons less. This is the great policy which was to regenerate the West Indies and give cheap, certain sugar without fluctuations. I heard the noble Lord ask for the total figures of production.
  1176
  Those are very interesting. We heard a good deal about cane and beet sugar, and we have been told of one result in a very able speech, if I may say so, by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire. We were told that one result of the Convention would be that beet sugar would go down and cane production would go up. But they did not tell us that cane production was going up steadily before the Convention, and there has not been the slightest change in the ratio and increase since. One reason why the cane production had gone down previously was the devastating war in Cuba. But since then Cuba has been gradually developing. The same thing applies to the Philippines, and Java also has been increasing its supply. But take the British West Indies. In the year before the Convention the total production of cane sugar in all our possessions in the West Indies was 253,000 tons. In 1905–6, it went down to 228,000 tons. That is the result of the Sugar Convention on the West Indies. Cane sugar has increased throughout the world except in the West Indies. Exactly; this Government, which wants to protect the British consumer and the Colonies, brings in its first great scheme of fiscal reform, which benefits every foreigner in Europe, benefits every colonial possession except our own, and actually reduces the production of our Colonies by 20,000 tons. What a great scheme of fiscal reform that is. Now let us see about beet sugar. We heard that beet had gone down. Beet has not gone down. It is true that for a year or two it went down. In 1903, which was the year of the Convention, the beet production of the world was 5,500,000, roughly speaking. Last year it was 6,800,000. Now, that is not going down, at least according, to the usual methods of computation. That is going up by 1,300,000. But the worst of it is that while cane production is growing in every colony except ours, and beet production is growing enormously, we are not getting the full advantage of it. Why is that? We are told that the Convention did not interfere. What did interfere? [An HON. MEMBER: The war.] Well, that has done a lot of mischief I know, but it did not interfere in this particular instance. The Convention must have

  1177
  had the effect of arresting the decline in the price of sugar which had been going on steadily. Let any one examine the figures. In the last few years sugar was steadily going down. That was the tendency. It might be 9s., and the next year 10s., but the following year it would drop to 6s. That is not the case at the present moment. You run up to 16s.; you go down, it is true, to 8s. 9d.; but you do not go down to the old figures of 5s. 9d. and 6s., which you reached before the Convention. I would not have gone into these questions had it not been for the challenege put to me by the noble Lord. But the point before the House is a different one. The question is whether it is desirable at the present moment to announce our intentions with regard to the Convention—intentions which one cannot possibly carry out for two years and a half. It would undoubtedly embarrass our representatives at the Conference, and I would appeal to my hon. friends who moved and seconded the Motion to be content with having called attention to the subject. I think it is a very good thing to call attention to the subject. I do not deprecate it for the moment. My hon. friends can see from the mere uneasiness which it has created on the other side that they do not want to be reminded of these prophecies of prosperity in the West Indies, of "no more fluctuations," and of a decrease in the price of sugar. But I would ask my hon. friend not to embarrass our delegates who must go to the conference in May by forcing any premature announcement when no effect can possibly be given to it until September next year.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the President of the Board of Trade has made a mistake, as he often does, in exaggerating his case, and using superlatives where they are quite unnecessary and often inaccurate. He has a way of getting a temporary success in what we may call the dialectics of Parliament by putting the case of his opponents with the greatest possible unfairness by exaggerating anything that his opponents have said, and then answering the artificial case that he has set up for the purpose. After all, I looked upon this Motion as
  1178
  one very properly put down on behalf of those who during the election had seriously held and had frequently represented that the Convention was a most injurious agreement for the British people, and also that it was an example of what might be expected from fiscal reform. Yes, that is very good; and at all events it is a conceivable argument, and one to which those who differ are bound to oppose a serious answer. But will any one say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a serious answer—that it either put the case seriously or the answer seriously? What the right hon. Gentleman did was to go into the most essentially controversial and polemical statement of the case and then to introduce a certain number of figures than which nothing more unfair has ever been put before the House of Commons. Let me say that I have been attacked and sneered at for saying openly—for I do state most things that I believe pretty candidly—that figures alone are very dangerous arguments. That is true, and I am perfectly ready to admit that, while I recognise the grotesque unfairness of the figures, which the right hon. Gentleman has produced, it is perfectly open for other people to say that the figures which I have produced in regard to this or other matters have also been selected for the purpose. I hope it has not been the case either with the right hon. Gentleman or with myself.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where are my figures unfair?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Wait a minute and I will show you. I claim for myself what I yield to the right hon Gentleman—that by mistake, quite as much as by deliberate purpose, figures may be chosen which are unfair for the purposes of comparison. One thing at all events is clear — that when you pretend, as the right hon. Gentleman does, to draw important conclusions from figures, you must not take a short period. And when he tells us of the fluctuations since the Convention, month by month, I say it is an absurd and grotesque comparison; and the proof of it is that if I were to take for my purpose, as the right hon. Gentleman has done for

  1179
  his, the fluctuations in one year alone I could show that in 1889 those fluctuations had been something between 12s 6d. and 27s. 6d. That is before the Convention, and since the Convention there has been nothing like it. Again the right hon. Gentleman chose to give the House a comparison between the price of sugar in a year of drought and the price in subsequent years, and even in years of plenty. That is not a fair comparison. If you are to compare any individual trade or the whole trade of the country you must take long periods. It is the safest thing to do, or at least you must compare a year of plenty with a year of plenty, and a year of famine with a year of famine.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is what I did.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what the right hon. Gentleman did not do.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg your pardon. I did actually give two years of plenty. I gave one year when the production was 10,000,000 and the price 5s. 9d., and I gave last year, when the production was 11,000,000 and the price 8s. 9d.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman; and I do not think that he will find many statisticians engaged in this subject who would confirm his views of the figures. But I ask the House to go back to the Resolution of the hon. Member who introduced this Motion. I hope that the decision will not be affected by purely Party considerations, but I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman who was so anxious in his reply to attack his predecessor and actually had the pretension to state that we had left the country in a mess—in a tremendous complication of difficulties, and in a great mess from which the President of the Board of Trade alone can extricate it, will appear to most of us to have advanced a contention which was absolutely ridiculous. I can understand hon. Members opposite differing from our domestic policy. They may think that in this respect we have
  1180
  been wrong and that they can improve upon it. We wish them the greatest possible success, but what they say now with regard to our relations with other countries is absolutely inconsistent with their earlier declarations. From the beginning they declared that they were not prepared to alter the foreign part of our policy in anyway. It is too monstrous now in the course of a debate to bring up as though it were a contestable subject a question decided by their own confession. They were in no difficulty with regard to the Sugar Convention. Do hon. Members think that the Convention is as bad as the right hon. Gentleman pretends? I do not believe it. If they do, they are absolutely inconsistent, for if it is as bad as they pretend, what objection can they have to the Resolution of the hon. Member? The Resolution is not likely to have much effect either way, but honest expressions of opinion from the Benches opposite have always been found to be indiscreet by the Government. They are perfectly willing to support these too indiscreet and too candid expressions of opinion as long as they have no responsibility, but now that they are in office those expressions of opinion are extremely inconvenient. They are trying to ride two horses at once, but the attempt will not satisfy their extreme friends below the gangway, and at the same time hinder them from the effects of committing themselves to the indiscreet promises they have made. They please nobody, for they take the worst course of giving a sense of insecurity to everyone who is interested in the maintenance of this Convention, whether it be the workpeople employed in the Colonies or in this country, or the people who have to find the capital in order that this industry may be carried on. Do you consider that it is not a good thing to maintain the position of insecurity in these matters? If you desire to restore the bounty, why do you not say so plainly? A state of things like the present cannot but be mischievous in a grave degree, but it would still be better than a perpetual threat on the one hand and a refusal to declare your policy on the other hand. After all, I thought that we were to have a serious discussion on the merits of the Convention, and not a purely Party attack from the

  1181
  right hon. Gentleman. What is the complaint of the Convention? Would not the House think from the statements made, uncorrected by the President of the Board of Trade, to a certain extent supported by him by his selection of particular figures, that the country had almost been ruined, and that a tax of an enormous amount had been put on the poor? We all know those ridiculous exaggerations which were current during the election, according to which this country had paid £10,000,000 a year for the benefit of somebody else. To all that kind of grotesque and ignorant exaggeration I give the flattest possible contradiction. There has been no such loss on the part of this country, and there has been no benefit to other countries in consequence of the Convention. Anyone would think who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton that we had lost money, and that it had inured to the profit of some other country. Nothing can be further from the truth. ["Oh!"] In the first place, they have not lost at all, not one penny, by the Convention, and, in my opinion, we have greatly gained. We have not lost, because the price of sugar has not been raised. The average price of sugar taken over a period of years has been no higher after than before the Convention. I say we have gained, because we have secured an additional supply. We have brought into the market an additional production of cane sugar, and consequently we have done what everybody knows will tend to equalise the price in future, and will render such fluctuations as have been experienced in the past less frequent and less serious. That foreign countries have to some extent reduced the duties upon sugar, and thereby led to greater consumption in those countries is made a matter of derision by hon. Members opposite, as though they thought we had a right to complain because other countries now consume more sugar. It is continually made a matter of criticism against foreign countries that, owing to their extravagant financial policy, the consumption of sugar in those countries is very much less than in ours. Their consumption of sugar is now approaching more nearly to ours, and a very good thing it is for
  1182
  those countries, and no harm to us. It is no part of our policy to keep down the consumption of the necessaries of life in foreign countries, and it cannot be considered as a loss to us that their prosperity enables them to consume more of those articles than before. I maintain that the Convention has amply justified itself. We never made any of those extravagant statements attributed to us by the imagination of the President of the Board of Trade. What we said I maintain, and I am perfectly ready to say again; I am not ready to accept the descriptions of my speeches or of my colleagues' by the right hon. Gentleman, who never quotes us exactly or correctly represents the true spirit of our speeches, and thereby does us a great injustice. After all, while I maintain most strenuously that this Convention has been no disadvantage to the people of this country, it is not merely with regard to questions of pecuniary or immediate, or temporary advantage that I ever advocated it or continue to support it. Mr. Gladstone, who was never afraid of the conclusions to which his arguments might lead, made it perfectly clear in discussions that have taken place with reference to foreign bounties that in no circumstances could he regard bounties as beneficial or just, even though they brought some advantages to consumers in this country. Do the new free-traders differ from what Mr. Gladstone and, indeed, Mr. Cobden laid down in regard to bounties? If they do not, then let us look not to the immediate advantages of consumers in this country, but to the question of justice, which affect not merely the consumer but the producer of sugar. My interest in this question has been greatly exaggerated. I mean, that more credit has been given to me than I deserve. But my peculiar interest in the matter was derived from the fact that I was Colonial Secretary at the time the discussions on the sugar bounties arose; and as my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Duchy once said in regard to his post as Indian Secretary, the Colonial Secretary is required to pay particular attention to the interests of the Colonies, and not to forget, at the same time, that he is a British Minister, who has the interests of his own country at heart also. Take the case of the

  1183
  Colonies. The President of the Board of Trade is not connected, of course, with the Colonial Department. But I would undertake to say that the Under-Secretary to the Colonies, if he studied the question, would find that for the last year or two the condition of the West Indian Colonies has most materially improved. Their plight was one of the great difficulties with which I had to deal when I went to the Colonial Office. The present Foreign Secretary very kindly presided over a Commission which went out to inquire into their condition, and the Commission reported that unless the bounties were done away with the West Indies would become a constant charge upon the mother country. That state of things has disappeared—temporarily at all events—and, as I believe, entirely as the result of the Convention. Even if we were to accept the view that the Convention has increased the price of sugar—a result which I do not at all believe has followed—would it be anything more than common justice that we had given up illegitimate profits obtained from bounties in order to give fair play to our Colonies? Take the case of the refining industry. Here also there has been improvement. As you give this trade security you may rest assured that, so far from losing employment, there will be a great addition to the employment of the people of this country. The statement has been made that thousands of workmen have been thrown out of employment in the confectionery trades as the result of the Convention. While accepting the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who made that statement, I say there is no foundation whatever for it. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] All the statistics show that, on the contrary, those trades have, on the whole, greatly increased [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh"] both in amount and in value. But even if it were true that there has been this loss of trade, it would be the loss of a trade that must be artificial so long as it depends on the aid of bounties. As I understand, the Government have asked the movers of the Resolution to withdraw it, and no doubt they will be agreeable to that suggestion. Then the Government propose to support the Amendment. I do not think there is any objection to the Amendment, though there is great ob-
  1184
  jection to the speeches which were made upon it, speeches which will get the Government into more difficulties than the Amendment will get them out of. I cannot compliment the Government upon the position they have adopted of trying, once more unsuccessfully, to avoid responsibility, but I am quite prepared to join with them in supporting the hon. Member for Wiltshire if there is any division.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no desire on our part to avoid responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a somewhat singular course in the last sentences of his speech, for he has indicated what the Government desire the House to do. Perhaps if he had left that to me—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not know you took a different view from the President of the Board of Trade—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not take a different view in any respect. But the right hon. Gentleman has made a speech of his usual kind. Having created the impasse in which the country stands—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no impasse.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Having himself more conspicuously, and more really than any other Member of the late Government, been responsible for this policy, having carried it out, and fastened it round the neck of the country, he now comes and taunts us—who opposed that policy to the best of our power, and who have not changed one atom of the opinions we held—with not immediately annulling that policy.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then what does he taunt us with? Does he think that when, a year or two ago, this policy was introduced which we objected to entirely, we should have humbly acquiesced in it? If, on the other hand, we were then doing our

  1185
  duty in expressing the strong opinions we held, why should he throw them at our heads now, when, owing to his arrangements and the international obligations which he has placed upon us, we are unable to act so freely as we should like? That is what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is fair dealing, and also clever tactics. I do not believe it is either the one or the other. What would be gained by our making a public announcement at this moment of our intention ultimately, when the time comes, to denounce the treaty? What would be gained? ["Nothing."] This would be gained, which apparently hon. Members opposite think desirable—that our delegate at the Conference would be hampered and embarrassed at every step, and his power would be weakened in the efforts he makes, not, perhaps, to secure any great advantages for this country, but to see that the disadvantages put upon us are as small as possible. That goes for nothing if the right hon. Gentleman sees his way to a little Parliamentary advantage, a little Party capital—he needs all that he can get. It is not that of which we need be afraid. And when on one of these subjects after another, which are all of the same character—when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have committed the country in this direction and that direction, and to a policy to which we entirely object, and of which if we were free we should make short work, he asks us prematurely, from the blue sky, with no reason whatever for doing it, to make a public announcement of our policy.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not ask you.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, he thinks we ought to respond to the question. I entirely understand the action taken by my hon. friend and the strong feelings which we expressed, but I think he will see that however useful this debate will have been—and it will have been useful in calling the attention of the country to the position in which we stand—my hon. friend will appreciate the fact that nothing would be gained, in the interests of the country,
  1186
  and with a view to putting an end ultimately to those evils of which he complains, by the adoption of his Motion and therefore I trust that he will withdraw it.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. SCOTT: After the explanation given by the Prime Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. EMMOTTtook the Chair.
  Clause 1.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he wanted to know in what order these clauses were going to be taken. He noticed that the first three clauses were similar to what they had been for some years past, but the fourth clause amended Section 44 of the Army Act. There were various other Amendments, and he wished to know how they were going to take these various clauses, because they were not arranged in any consecutive order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We are taking the Bill as it is, and we are taking it clause by clause.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid that his difficulty was that they did not correspond with the sections of the Army Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is the Bill that we have to take, and we shall take it clause by clause.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid there were various sections referred to in the clauses

  1187
  of this Bill. The Army Act consisted of a large number of sections—some of which were not mentioned in this Bill—to which he thought it was very desirable that attention should be called. He thought it was necessary that they should have an opportunity of calling attention to certain matters dealt with in the Army Act. He wished to refer to a question raised in Section 15.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better confine his remarks to the point which is now before the Chair. I would remind him that the whole of the Army Act cannot be discussed in detail now, and from what I can gather of his point, I am not so sure that it can be raised at all upon this Bill. At any rate this is not the time.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that he explained the whole scope of the Bill yesterday.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked if he could raise the question of the prices paid in the schedule.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We have not come to that yet.
  MR. CLAUD HAYmoved to leave out of Clause 1 the words—
  "This Act may be cited as the Army (Annual) Act 1906."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had just stated that he explained the whole thing yesterday, but it was only a very short explanation, and this Bill contained some very great alterations in regard to such matters as punishments inflicted upon the soldiers.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is addressing himself to the question before the Committee, and he appears to be dealing with other clauses.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsubmitted that he was dealing with Clause 1. What he wished to state to the Committee was that by the alterations described in the memorandum they were altering the whole purpose of the Army (Annual) Act in the sense that soldiers were no
  1188
  longer to be treated as they were under the old Act.
  MR. CHAIRMAN: Those arguments certainly seem to me to come in at a later stage of this Bill. We are now dealing simply with Clause 1, which says "This Act may be cited as the Army (Annual) Act 1906."
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that was precisely what he objected to.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he desired to allude to the days on which the Army Act would expire. The Act contained the three following sub-sections—
  "(a) In the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, on the thirtieth day of April; and (b) Elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, also in the West Indies and America, on the thirty-first day of July; and (c) Elsewhere, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, on the thirty-first day of December."
  He wished to know what the object was of maintaining all those sub-sections in the Army Bill from time to time.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the Army Act was only in operation from year to year, and it was necessary to make provision for the expiration of the Act upon different days in the more distant parts of the Empire. This clause followed the usual precedent by which they were allowed a little longer time in those parts of the world.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked what was the object of following this ancient custom. He really could not understand the object of it.
  MR. HALDANEsaid this had always been the custom, and there must be an appreciable difference in the time in which the arrangements can be made in the United Kingdom and places like Malta and the other more distant parts

  1189
  of the King's dominions. Consequently, the days had always been different.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid they had been told that this information could be conveyed by telegraph, and therefore he did not see the object of the provision. Although he could not see the object of it, yet he felt sure that it was a worthy custom.
  MR. HALDANEsaid it was a good old Conservative custom, and he trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would not press his objection to it.
  MR. FORSTERsaid that under the Bill which they were now discussing it was proposed to abolish flogging in the Army, and he quite agreed with that proposal. He wished, however, to point out that whilst a soldier within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man could not be flogged after the thirtieth of April, 1906, a soldier elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, the West Indies, and America could be flogged up to the thirty-first day of July, 1906, and elsewhere, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, the day fixed was the thirty-first day of December, 1906. He thought that was an anomalous position, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the Committee what steps he was taking in order that the soldiers in all parts of the Empire might receive equal treatment.
  MR. HALDANEexplained that flogging could only take place under regulations, and instructions would be given by him that no flogging should take place in the interval between now and the time when this Bill would come into operation.
  MR. FORSTERsaid the House had expressed so strong a feeling in regard to the abolition of flogging in the Army that he thought the Committee would be quite ready to go to the expense of paying the cost of cablegrams to different parts of the Empire in order to prevent soldiers being flogged.
  In reply to Lord Turnour,
  MR. HALDANEsaid the Act only applied to the subjects of the King.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that when the Army (Annual) Bill was before the House last year the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool desired that under this measure the Isle of Wight should be treated as a Colony, in order that the provisions of this Bill should come into operation at the same time as they came into force in the distant part of the Empire. He wished to know what the hon. Member for Abercromby wished to be done now with regard to the Isle of Wight. Did he still desire to have it dealt with as a Colony?
  COLONEL LEGGE: Surely it does not take three months to communicate with Malta.
  MR. HALDANEsaid it had always been the custom to allow a longer time in those distant parts, and they had strictly followed precedents in the clause they were now discussing.
  MR. FORSTERsaid he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee but he did want to know particularly what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do in the matter. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] He wished to remind hon. Members opposite that during the last session of Parliament they sat up all night on this question, principally discussing flogging in the Army. The House then took a very strong line, and that line had been reflected in the proposals which the Secretary of State for War had now made. The House had come to the determination that flogging in the Army should be abolished, and it was no answer to the question that he had raised for the right hon. Gentleman to say that different parts of the Empire were situated at varying distances from the metropolis. He wanted to know what steps the Secretary of State for War intended to take in order to secure that His Majesty's soldiers in all parts of His Majesty's dominions, however remote they might be from this House, should receive equal treatment after the 30th day of April this year.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Member had apparently not read the clause.

  1191
  Clause 2, which, they were now discussing, provided that the Army Act should remain in force up to the 30th day of April, 1907, within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man; up to the 31st day of July, 1907, elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, the West Indies and America; and elsewhere up to the 31st day of December, 1907. This Act abolished flogging and as a matter of fact there would be no flogging in any of those places.
  MR. FORSTERsaid if the right hon. Gentleman would read the clause in his own Bill he would see that there was a period of time between the 30th day of April and the 31st day of July, 1906, during which flogging could take place in Malta, the West Indies, and America. Within the United Kingdom the Act would run from the 30th April this year and terminate on the 30th April next year. Elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, the West Indies and America, it would run from the 31st July 1906, to the 31st July 1907. The period he specially wished to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to was from the 30th April until the 31st day of July this year. From this it appeared to him that during one period in one portion of His Majesty's dominions there would be one law, and in another portion there would be another law as from the 30th day of April this year until the 31st day of July this year. What steps did the right hon. Gentleman intend to take in order to secure that between the 30th April this year and the 31st July this year the same protection would be meted out to soldiers elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, the West Indies and America, as was meted out within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The Secretary of State for War had not told them what steps he intended to take to secure that the regulations in those remote parts of the Empire would be altered to bring them into consonance with the regulations in this country.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he could assure the hon. Member that flogging would be stopped in all parts of the Empire.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he had handed in an Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment is not in order because it was handed in after I had put the Question "that the clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CLAUDE HAY,who was greeted with cries of "Order, order" from the Ministerial Benches, said that he rose to move his Amendment just before the Chairman rose to put the Question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move an Amendment now, because I have put the clause, and the House is now discussing the whole clause.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY,proposed to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," but the Chairman, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, refused to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
  Question again proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill"
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked if it would be in order to refer to the system of reduction of fines from the pay of soldiers. If there was no objection to the deduction of fines from the soldiers' pay how was it that so much was said about the immorality of deducting fines from the pay of coolies, and truck generally.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he did not think that question arose under this Bill.
  LORD BALCARRIESsaid that under the Punishment Clause of the Army Act fines were specially mentioned.
  COLONEL KENYON - SLANEYhope the Secretary of State for War would indicate whether he could raise this point or not, as he wished to know whether this was a proper time to raise it.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked if it was

  1193
  not in order to discuss any of the provisions of the Army Act contemplated by this particular Section.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, it would not be in order to do that. The point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can be met only by a new clause.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he handed in a notice of Amendment and rose to move it, although perhaps he did not meet the Chairman eye. The Amendment he handed in was to omit Sub-section 1 of Clause 2 which was a Motion identical with the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Bristol last year. He submitted that his Amendment was in order, and he rose to move it at the right time.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment would have been perfectly in order if it had been moved at the right time. This only shows the great inconvenience of handing in Amendments at the last moment.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that surely in common fairness, if he was unable to hear the words of the Chairman owing to the interruption of hon. Members opposite, if he handed in an Amendment at the Table in due time and gave proper notice—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I may state that the hon. Member actually spoke upon the clause itself before he handed in his Amendment. [OPPOSITION cries of "Name, name."]
  MR. CLAUDE HAYon a point of order, submitted that speaking to a clause did not prevent him having the right to move an Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have ruled on that point.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYthought that inasmuch as the whole Army Act was raised by this Bill they were entitled on this occasion to discuss any point that was contained in the Army Act. Surely it would be competent for him to raise a point connected with the punishment of soldiers.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I thought I had explained that to the right hon. Gentleman. The general scope of the Army Act does arise, but not the Army Act in detail. Otherwise we should have it before us clause by clause.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE,said that in the very last session of Parliament this same point was raised and it was then ruled that the Army Act could be discussed in detail.
  THE CHAIRMAN: By means of new clauses.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY,said he submitted with all humility and with great respect to the Chair—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have already given my ruling on that point. The hon. Member's Amendment was handed in after he himself had spoken upon the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if the Chairman would give his ruling upon the following point. He wished to know if an hon. Member spoke to a clause was he thereby excluded from moving any Amendment to that clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, that is the rule.
  LORD BALCARRESasked if the putting of a clause from the Chair prevented any hon. Member from moving an Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I commence by naming Clause 1 or Clause 2, as the case may be, and that is the time for any hon. Member to get up to move Amendments of which notice has not been handed in, but after I have put the clause from the Chair hon. Members cannot move Amendments to the words of the clause.
  MR CLAUDE HAYasked if hon. Members did not happen to hear what was put from the Chair, did that preclude them from moving Amendments of which they had previously given notice?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must try and make myself a little more clear to hon. Members.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he understood that this Bill was not necessary to stop flogging, because it could be done by regulations. If the right hon. Gentleman could stop flogging from now to the 31st July, why could he not continue to do so for the whole year, and what was the necessity for this clause?
  MR. HALDANEsaid this clause did not relate merely to flogging but to a variety of other things. It was withn the power of the Army Council to give directions that there should be no flogging in the Army. There was power under the Army Act to make regulations in regard to flogging, and they wished to take advantage of that power and say that there should, in future, be no power to flog any soldiers.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that this clause was really the whole body of the Act. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee how far the common soldier knew the provisions of the Army Act contained in the Bill now before the Committee. He wished to know what measures had been taken to make the recruit upon enlisting, and also the soldier, acquainted with the provisions of this Act, which amounted to some 200 or 300 pages and almost as many clauses. He wished to know what number of copies of this Act were available for the common soldier; and how far the Act was made understandable to him, and whether it was not a fact that the only copy available to the common soldier was that which was kept in the orderly room, which was the last place which the soldier desired to visit when in barracks? The whole thing was a farce and had been a farce for years. They all believed that in this Parliament they had opened up a new era. They wanted to discard Party politics and narrow divisions in this matter, and come to some common purpose and adopt some very humane interpretation of the conditions and regulations under which soldiers served their Sovereign. He appealed to the Committee to support
  1196
  the view he took, because it was a feeling which he had entertained for a good many years, but which, unfortunately, the Committee had always given the go-by to.
  MAJOR SEELYasked, if those were the views of the hon. Member, why he voted with the Government last year against the views which he had now expressed?
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he did not think he voted at all upon this question last session.
  MAJOR SEELY: Oh, yes, you did.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division if he was going to vote with him this year. A common soldier knew no more than the man in the moon what the provisions of the Army Act were. This subject had been the sport of Parties in this House for a long time, and he was anxious that it should be removed from the arena of Party politics altogether. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Had the Secretary of State for War taken any measure to make the situation clear to the private soldier in respect to the alterations which would be in force after the passing of this Bill into law? He submitted that they were bound to realise that this Army Act was no kindness to the Army itself, because it was an Act which a man when he enlisted accepted almost as a chain round his neck, not merely whilst he was in the Army but even after he had served the King, and after he had left the ranks of His Majesty's Forces to join the great industrial army. He wished the Secretary of State for War, who had made a close study of the armies of the whole world, to show that in regard to this question he had taken a new, broad, and progressive view in this Bill. He hoped he would be able to show that he had introduced Amendments which would make the Act more humane and up-to-date in every respect, thus making the future of the soldier happier and brighter. He would reserve his remarks on the subject dealt with in the Memorandum which preceded this Bill, viz.: the alterations in

  1197
  nomenclature in regard to those unfortunate young men in military prisons. A stage had now been reached in this new Parliament when this must not be regarded as a hardy annual for the discussion of minor points which had characterised upon one occasion the discussion until 9 o'clock the next morning. They expected from the present Government, which held itself up as sympathetic to all the aspirations of labour in the Government's service, some greater ideal in this matter than was comprised in merely saying ditto to what their predecessors at the War Office had done. On the question of courts-martial he had endeavoured to extract from his right hon. friend some information in regard to what appeared to be a gross scandal. He referred to the case of a private soldier who enjoyed an Irish name. He regretted that in regard to this Question the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to give him the usual routine Answers from the War Office, and he could not help saying that they were the Answers of the officials, and were not replies based upon the right hon. Gentleman's own examination of the subject. The case he raised was that of a man who was tried at 11 o'clock by a court-martial of which he received notice at 8 o'clock the same morning. Under the regulations every soldier was entitled to twenty-four hours' notice, but this Irishman was sentenced after only three hours notice to a long term of imprisonment. The main testimony upon which he was convicted was that he bore upon his left fore-arm certain marks, whereas as a matter of fact he bore no marks at all on his left because they were on his right arm. He had never been able to get from the War Minister what had happened to the officers who convicted that man upon evidence which the greatest simpleton would have been able to measure up, viz., that he had a mark on his left arm when it was actually on his right arm. This might be a matter for hilarity with hon. Members opposite but it was not for the unfortunate man who suffered this ignominy. This Act allowed the continuance and gross injustices of all the worst forms of Russian autocracy, and he for one was prepared to sit up all night until the Secretary of State gave definite declarations that he would
  1198
  organise courts-martial—upon such a basis that gross outrages of this kind could not be perpetrated on soldiers. [MINISTERIAL Interruptions.] It might be more convenient for hon. Members opposite to go home, but he was prepared to stay and insist upon a reply from the Government upon this important question. The present Government came into power to remove all the ills and injustices and to do away with all the iniquities which were alleged to have been perpetrated by the last Government. The next thing he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War was whether he could see his way in regard to courts-martial to assimilate the practice which had long prevailed with such admirable results in the Navy and adopt a similar system in regard to the Army. Why on earth did an officer in the Army if accused of some dereliction of duty, or some omission or commission, suffer loss of his position and be cast upon the world with a stain upon his character which he could never remove? Why in this respect could they not have the same practice with regard to the Army as was in force in regard to the Navy? There had been a sinister practice which allowed the authorities of the Army to tell a man he had better leave the Army without reason assigned. Such a man might have against him merely a whisper which was worse than the open word. If they got in the Navy a system of courts-martial which had worked so much to the benefit of the service, why should the sister service not have the same benefit? He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he could not include the suggestion he had made in the reforms of the Army which he had undertaken.
  MR. MORTONexpressed his regret that the Government had not brought on the discussion of such an important measure as this before 12 o'clock. This was a Bill which to some extent affected the liberties and the lives of some 300,000 of their fellow citizens. He did not forget that a great many reforms were wrung out of the Government at all-night sittings. He regretted that the Act referred to was not fully recited, because there was no other way of understanding it. They ought to fully

  1199
  understand on behalf of the working men whom they professed to represent whether under the Army Act with or without regulations flogging could take place. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide, divide."] He did not think there ought to be any attempt to prevent the discussion of such an important matter simply because hon. Members opposite had not read the Army Act and did not know anything about it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Would the right hon. Gentleman give him a distinct assurance that under the Army Act as it now existed no flogging could take place.
  COLONEL KENYON - SLANEYthought he was fairly entitled without moving any specific Amendment to ask for information on matters directly connected with the treatment of those individuals who were subject to military law. He wished to ask whether he was entitled to avail himself of this opportunity, because this might be the only opportunity he would have of raising the question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will put his Question I will rule upon it.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to continue to maintain in force the practice of punishment which consisted in deducting fines from the pay of the private soldier.
  MR. HALDENEsaid there was nothing in this Bill which touched that question,
  COLONEL KENYON SLANEY: But do you propose to alter that practice?
  MR. HALDANE: No, we do not.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was willing to assimilate the practice in the Army to that of the Navy in regard to courts-martial dealing with surrenders by military officers. Last session he remembered that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean made a long speech upon this very subject and he pressed for an answer from Mr. Brodrick, but he did not get much satis-
  1200
  faction beyond the statement that the military authorities would consider whether they could assimilate the practice.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that in the Army the theory was that the governing power could dismiss any officer from the service, on proper cause shown. Secondly, there had always been the practice of holding courts of inquiry. That had often proved a merciful practice, because then they were placed in a position to estimate whether it should be followed up by a court-martial, and courts of inquiry were instituted in order to inform the mind of the commanding authority as to whether a soldier should be dismissed, or dealt with in one form or another, or committed to a court-martial. It was, not always in the interests of the soldier that there should be a court-martial. He thought the courts of inquiry when properly conducted were a very useful institution, and he should not like to say that every one against whom a charge was made should be necessarily court-martialled.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid this question was raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to the surrenders in South Africa. It was thought by many hon. Members of the House that a court-martial upon any officer who surrendered would be preferable to a court of inquiry, and he confessed that he did not think Mr. Brodrick gave them much elucidation of that subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Nor of any other subject.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he should be glad to know whether the Secretary of State for War thought a continuance of the present system would be sufficient, or whether he was of opinion that a reconsideration of the question would be a good thing for the soldier. He thought the court of inquiry was a merciful thing in many cases.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to propose an Amendment to Section 4 of the Army Act. He gathered from the practice which had

  1201
  obtained in previous years that the right course seemed to be to bring up a new clause for insertion in the Army Act which it was proposed to renew. He took it that the proper place to do it would be by way of addition to that section.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No Amendment can be moved to this clause.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was under the impression that if they passed Sub-section 2 as it stood, they would not be precluded from proposing a new clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be precluded from moving any new clause which is in order.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid Clause 2 enacted that from certain dates the Army Act should take effect. In the other section it would be found that they were merely trifling with the Act, by calling imprisonment detention and suchlike trivialities.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise now, but upon a subsequent clause. We are now discussing only Clause 2.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the whole of the Army Act was re-enacted by this particular section, with the exception of those trifling matters referred to in other parts of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the Army Act is being re-enacted by this section, but the alterations are dealt with in later clauses of this Bill.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the answer given by the Secretary of State for War was most unsatisfactory; in fact it was no answer at all. He stated that in the Army there were courts of inquiry which were more lenient than courts-martial. If courts-martial were worked so well in the Navy, why should the same practice not be adopted in regard to the Army? In the Navy courts-martial prevailed where they did not prevail in the Army, and they ought not to be content until the Army had the same measure of courts-martial as obtained in the Navy.
  1202
  Then there was that section of the forces in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman in the speech he delivered, when the Army Estimates were presented to the House, adumbrated certain great intentions—he referred, of course, to the Militia. The law which was established by this Bill made a Militiaman and Volunteer not subject to all the penalties and disabilities which a soldier would be subjected to if this measure was passed, unless in his unit he was commanded by an officer of the regular forces. Surely the Secretary of State for War desired to put all those who served in the armed forces of the Crown under one system of discipline.
  MR. JOHN WILSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite he would not lengthen his remarks, but having studied this subject very closely, and being aware of its importance, he urged the Secretary of State for War to give some information as to his intention upon this Question.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid it struck him, as a new Member of this House, that when such a serious subject was under consideration a more suitable opportunity ought to have been given for discussing it. With every wish to treat this Question seriously, it did seem to him very unfair that such a large subject should be brought on now. To see the levity with which this Question was treated by hon. Members on the Ministerial side, one would really think that this Bill, upon which the whole existence of the Army depended, was a matter to be treated as something of no importance. It was not consistent with, the dignity of the House to treat this Question in such a way.
  MR. JOYCEsaid if the hon. Member had been in the House for the last five years he would have known, all about the dignity of the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member for Barkston Ash be good enough to apply himself to the Question before the Committee?
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he was sorry if he had wandered from the scope of the debate. The point he wished to make was the way in which the House had treated this great subject and the levity which the hon. Members on the Ministerial side had displayed in regard to it. The question raised by the hon. Member for Hoxton about the way in which this Act was brought before the notice of the soldiers was very important, because the present system was an absolute farce. The provisions of the Act were not properly brought before the notice of the members of His Majesty's forces. As a rule, when a person joined a force, a long list of the punishments were read over to him in an almost inaudible voice, and all he heard were certain phrases such as "punishable by death," and other phrases of a similar character. That was an absolute farce, and it was not the way soldiers should be treated. It seemed to him that they did not do their duty by the forces of the Crown. Their object should be to make the Army more popular. It was only upon occasions like this that questions of discipline could be discussed, and they ought to be gone into more fully.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not discussing the Question before the Chair, and I may add that he has hardly said one single word that is relevant.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he would not discuss the matter further, and thanked the House for the kindness they had shown in listening to him.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that this Act, which was sought to be re-enacted by this section, bristled from one end to the other with pains and penalties. It seemed to him that the Army was recruited with pains and penalties and they were trying to keep it together with pains and penalties, and the only thing the private soldier heard when these things were read over to him was a series of pains and penalties ranging from death down to various small punishments. That was not the way to make an efficient Army. If they wished to have a strong Army they must recruit the men from the right sort of people, and the Army regulations would have to be such that persons joining would have some prospects of earning a decent living.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That has nothing whatever to do with the Question before the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 28).

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brooke, Stopford

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Agnew, George William

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Caldwell, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barnard, E. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Beale, W. P.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Findlay, Alexander

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Cherry, R. R.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clough, W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ginnell, L.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Bertram, Julius

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Billson, Alfred

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Boland, John

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Gulland, John W.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Brace, William

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Halpin, J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Brigg, John

  Duckworth, James

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Duffy, William J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rowlands, J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Samuel, H. L. (Cleveland)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montague, E. S.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashtonunder Lyne)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Money, J. J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hope, W Bateman (Somerset, N

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe))

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Toulmin, George

  Lambert, George

  O'Mara, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  O'Shee, James John

  Ure, Alexander

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Paul, Herbert

  Verney, F. W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Pollard, Dr.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Levy, Maurice

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Radford, G. H

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Reddy, M.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

  Rees, J. D.

  Whitley, J. H (Halifax)

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Arthur, William

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Richardson, A.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  M'Killop, W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Winfrey, R.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  George Whiteley und Mr.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Robinson, S.

  J. A. Pease.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Seddon, J.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Starkey, John R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds

  Summerbell, T.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Jowett, F. W.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Liddell, Henry

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Watson Rutherford and

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  O'Grady, J.

  Mr. Claude Hay.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Question put and agreed to

  Clause 3:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  LORD TURNOURsaid he wished to raise the question of the breakfast which was given to the soldier.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be much more convenient to raise that subject when the schedule is reached.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAYsaid he desired to move an Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I put the Question and I gave the hon. Member for Hoxton his chance. I may say that the hon. Member's Amendment is not in order because it would not make sense of the clause.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid his Amendment was in the actual wording of an Amendment accepted by the Chairman last session.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This Amendment as not the same at all.
  Clause 4:—
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he wished to ask one or two questions about this new policy of detention. This was a proposal to prevent soldiers convicted of purely military offences from being subjected to the stigma attaching to imprisonment. It was, however, quite a new punishment, and they ought to know exactly what the punishment consisted of. He had had many men under him at various times and he was sorry to say that he had had in his battalion men who had been to prison, and he had seen the bad effects which a long period of imprisonment in a civil prison had had upon the men in the Army. He wished to know if it would not be possible in the case of men detained for purely military offences to have them taught some trade or some method of shooting practice with military rifles whilst being detained. Instead of doing what was done in the old days, namely, subjecting the soldier to the ordinary treatment which was meted out to civilian prisoners, they ought under the new system to try and make the period of detention one which would tend towards the improvement of the soldier. He would like the Secretary of State for War to tell them exactly what detention meant, for he felt sure that the Committee, and in particular all old soldiers, would be very glad to hear his explanation. As regarded imprisonment, he drew a clear line between punishment for military offences and punishment for offences of a disgraceful character. If
  1208
  a soldier was found guilty of an offence of a disgraceful character, the sooner he was turned out of the force the better. Therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to draw a very straight and clear line between these two classes of offences, and between the punishment to be meted out to them.
  THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL)had meantime taken the Chair temporarily.
  MR. HALDANEhaving risen to reply,
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is no question before the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. FORSTERasked, if under the Chairman's ruling it was impossible to move an Amendment before the clause had been put, when was it in order to move an Amendment?
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was quite in order for the right hon. Member who spoke last to have concluded by moving an Amendment, but he did not do so; therefore, there was no Question before the Committee, and as the Secretary of State for War got up to reply, I had to put a Question in order that he might make his reply, Consequently, the Question I put was "that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. FORSTERasked if it was essential in their discussions that any hon. Member who rose to speak first should move an Amendment, and on his failing to move an Amendment, did that prevent other hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they might sit, from moving Amendments?
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Failure on the part of an hon. Member who speaks first to move an Amendment would not preclude any other hon. Member from moving an Amendment. In this instance, however, no one rose to move any Amendment, and as the

  1209
  Secretary of State for War was commencing his reply and there was no Question before the House, I put the Question that the clause stand part.
  MR. FORSTERsaid he did not wish to take up time unnecessarily, but the point he was raising was one of importance. His hon. friend put a specific Question to the right hon. Gentleman who got up at once to reply. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman got up, hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side naturally refrained from rising in order to move Amendments. If the mere fact that a Minister on the front Ministerial Bench rose immediately after a Question had been addressed to him was to prevent anyone from moving an Amendment, it seemed to him that it would be impossible for anyone to get a proper opportunity of proposing Amendments.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When I rose I stated distinctly that there was no Question before the Committee. That then was the time for hon. Members to have notified any Amendment they desired to move. As no one rose to do so, and as there was no Question before the Committee I had no other course but to put the clause.
  MR. FORSTER,on a point of order, was proceeding to further discuss the matter—
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think this point has now been thoroughly discussed, and I call upon the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. FORSTER,amid cries of "Order, order," said he desired to know how it was possible that an Amendment could be moved until the Question had been put from the Chair.
  THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: As I have said, an Amendment might have been moved when I rose and called "Order, order." There was then no Question before the Committee, and that was the time for anyone to have got up and moved an Amendment. No one got up, and therefore I had to put a Question before the Committee, and the
  1210
  only Question I could put was "that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether, if an hon. Member handed in at the Table a notice of an Amendment and rose to move it and the Chairman called upon someone else, was he ipso facto precluded from moving it? That was the effect of the ruling which the Chairman had given.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have nothing to do with any previous rulings Before I put the Question I made inquiry if any Amendments to this clause had been handed in, and as no notices of Amendments had been given I put the Question.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was in agreement with all that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellington had said. The change made in the clause was little more than a change in name. When they sentenced the soldier to imprisonment, whilst he was undergoing that imprisonment he would wear uniform and not prison clothes, and for hard labour he would have drill and other military exercises. It was now proposed to substitute for imprisonment the term "detention in barracks," and the prisoner would be subjected to military exercises and drill which would tend to assist his career as a soldier. With regard to the question of whether it would be possible to teach such soldiers whilst undergoing imprisonment civilian trades, that was a subject which was worthy of attention, but in order to do it they would have to make provision for it of a special character.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that he had awaited the statement of the Secretary of State for War before suggesting that any Amendment should be moved. Had his explanation been unsatisfactory he imagined that it would have been within his power to move an Amendment accordingly. He wished to ask, however, for a little further information on the question as to the place where the soldiers undergoing detention were to be confined. The memorandum said that the soldiers undergoing detention would be confined

  1211
  in detention barracks. What were detention barracks and where were they? Was this to be a new class of military prison under a more euphemistic name, or did it mean that the existing barracks or some portion of them would be called ordinary barracks and the other detention barracks? He thought it was necessary that there should be some further definition of what this detention was to be, so that it would not be reduced to a complete farce.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was opposed to this clause being passed as part of the Bill, because he considered it nothing more nor less than a piece of rank hypocrisy. Hon. Members had protested against this kind of thing for years.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not discussing the clause.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that this clause did not abolish death as the punishment, because it occurred a good many times in the Act. Subsection 3 of Clause 4 provided that instead of the words "death or penal servitude or of imprisonment" there should be substituted the words "death, penal servitude or imprisonment, or other detention." Therefore, the words "or other detention" were to be added at the end. If the Government were serious in proposing any real amelioration of the soldier's lot there would be something reasonable to discuss, but to come here with a section like this, simply juggling with phrases, and asking the Committee seriously to pass a section which consisted of altering one word from another in order to take away the stigma attaching to imprisonment for military offences, was simply the kind of hypocrisy which had been the leading note of the Government proposals this session. It was the same kind of thing as the alleged extravagances in the Army Estimates which the Government said they were going to put an end to. Instead of doing this the Government came down with a piffling clause like this which simply altered phrases, and then claimed that they
  1212
  had made the lot of the soldier better. The effect of these proposals was that the Government were going to deal with these offences exactly in the same way as before, but they were going to call the punishment by a nicer name. Anything more utterly hypocritical, hollow, and stupid he had never had the opportunity of witnessing. He had seen many stupid things done in Parliament
  MR. JOYCE: In the shipping line?
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that in reply to that unmannerly interruption he might say that he was not in the shipping line. It was because these suggestions did not make any alteration whatever in the soldier's lot, but simply juggled with words and phrases, that he objected to them, and he should vote against this clause if he went into the lobby alone.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he had intimated in an earlier part of the proceedings that he should have something to say upon military prisons. He had addressed Questions to the Secretary for War as to the number of military prisoners detained in civil prisons, and the reply he gave indicated the number of soldiers who for various offences underwent punishment in the local and convict prisons. What he wished to know in regard to this clause was what arrangement the Secretary of State for War proposed to make to prevent a certain number of these men who were sent to local prisons being sent to those places of incarceration. At the present moment there were a number of men sentenced for petty offences—and they were mostly young men and practically boys—who had placed upon them that which no civilian ever had, namely, a taint which not only ran all through their military career but followed them right through their civil life after leaving the Army. That was a scandal and a reproach upon the Army, and a matter which ought to be dealt with immediately by the Secretary of State for War. Three or four years ago, during the war in South Africa, ship loads of soldiers who had

  1213
  been sentenced for minor offences were sent to South Africa, and the Prison Commissioners suddenly received an order for these men to be imprisoned, and it was an absolute fact that soldiers were put into cells which from the point of view of health had been condemned as unfit for even murderers. It was a perfect disgrace that the arrangements in the Army permitted of such a state of things. He invited the Secretary of State for War to consider very seriously the point that soldiers who might get into petty street rows or commit other small offences should not be handed over to the police, but should be brought more and more under the control of the military authorities, in order that they might be treated more upon the lines that "boys will be boys," and not be submitted to a state of things which meant that for ever after they would have a stain upon their character. This memorandum asked the Committee to believe that some very great change had been made in the system of military punishments, because they were now going to be allowed to wear uniforms instead of that worn by prisoners in the common prisons. There was nothing to show that what was contained in this portentous memorandum made any real stride in advance in dealing with the punishment of young men who, for some small offence or other, were committed to military prisons. What would these youngsters know of the Army Act?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We not are dealing with the memorandum at the present time, but with Clause 4.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsubmitted that the memorandum explained Clause 4. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order!"] Clause 4 provided that there should be a certain change of the condition under which prisoners were committed to military prisons where they had to undergo punishments. He incurred some great unpopularity some three or four years ago for making hon. Members opposite miss their trains because he insisted upon getting a hearing for military prisoners confined in military gaols. Not long after that time he noticed that upon one day 712 men were liberated
  1214
  from civil prisons where they had been detained for various military offences. He appealed most earnestly—and everybody sitting on the Opposition benches he was sure would endorse his appeal—to the Secretary of State for War, not merely in this matter to make a difference in nomenclature relating to the term of imprisonment, but to go a step further forward and to see that young men who wore the King's uniform and committed minor civil or even great military offences were dealt with more leniently, and were never put into civil prisons if it could possibly be prevented. Civil prisons were only open to military offenders if they committed some felony from a civil point of view. They were not, however, common felons, but men who in their youth might have committed offences against this Bill, the provisions of which were absolutely unknown to them and who were consequently subjected to terms of imprisonment which would never be undergone by a man if he had not joined the Army, although he might have committed far greater offences than those committed by the soldier.
  CAPTAIN BARINGsaid that the subjects dealt with by courts-martial had been altered so as to include this new sentence of detention. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman wished to go on with the system of having courts-martial sitting for three months.
  LORD TURNOURsaid he agreed with what the hon. Member for Chorley had said. He wished to know if provision had been made in the present Estimates for these detention barracks, and he should also like to know whether they would be separated from the rest of the barracks. Would they be a sort of compound or would they be connected with the rest of the barracks. He did not think the name was a good one, and he should really like some precise explanation of what detention barracks were.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid if the Secretary of State for War would compare the proposed Amendments in Section 4 with the present clauses of the Army Act he would see some curious

  1215
  inconsistencies which he was sure he would be desirous of remedying while the Bill was in Committee. There was, for instance, the scale of punishments in Section 44 of the Army Act. Each punishment in the scale was greater than the one which followed it, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to do away with the ignominies of "imprisonment" by replacing the word "detention" he would not accomplish it in this way, because "detention" would be a severer punishment than "discharge with ignominy" which followed it. If "detention" was intended to be less severe than "imprisonment," why did the right hon. Gentleman defeat his own object by adding the proviso that—
  "For the purposes of commutation and revision of punishment detention shall not be deemed to be a less punishment than imprisonment if the term of detention is longer than the term of imprisonment."
  Surely Section 21 required amendment to enable this punishment of detention to be properly worked in with the rest of the Army Act. It was impossible to introduce a new word into one of the sections of the Army Act and not into the other sections. The Amendments as proposed in this Bill were absolute nonsense if they were considered in reference to Proviso 10. He noticed that in Subsection 4 the word "accused" was substituted for the word "prisoner," but why was this alteration not carried out right through the Army Act? In the interests of the Army and the officers who had to administer the Act let the right hon. Gentleman see that all these Amendments should be made to apply to the whole of the Act, because as they stood at the present time they made absolute nonsense. He wished to know whether detention barracks had been provided for in the Estimates.
  MR. JOYCEsaid he had been an impatient listener to a good deal of what had been said. He had heard this Bill described in various terms, but he would like to speak of it from a Labour point of view. He wished to know whether officers and men were placed on the same footing when they committed the same offences. He did not think they were. If the present War Minister would stand up and say that every man in the Army
  1216
  was treated equally before the law then he should be quite satisfied. He did not care much about the Army Annual Bill, but when he heard that there was one law for the private soldier and another for the officer he thought it was quite time that this state of things should be changed. He stood up to voice the opinions of working men who demanded that this law should be changed. He would like to ask the present War Secretary what had been done in regard to the men who quite recently tarred and feathered a brother officer. Were they prisoners, and would they be subjected to the same punishment as a private soldier? If the right hon. Gentleman said they would, then let him have his Bill, but if not it was quite time the law should be changed, and he was prepared to sit all through the night to see that justice was done and that officers and men were placed in the same position.
  MR. HALDANEsaid there was no offence committed by a private soldier which was not equally an offence if committed by an officer. There was no difference in the offence or in the liability to imprisonment. He thought the hon. Member opposite would find that he had been quoting from an old Army Act; the difficulties he had referred to did not exist in the amended form of the Act. With regard to detention barracks, there was no magic about it. It was left to the administrators of the Act to say that certain parts should be used as detention barracks.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid it was obvious that this matter had not been fully thought out. If they wore going to locate a special part of the barracks for detention they would have practically to start a new system of military prisons. He suggested as a protest, not against the system, but against their inability to move amendments, that they ought to have a new clause added to the Bill dealing with this question.
  LORD CASTLEREAGHsaid he did not see the object of attempting to delude the soldier by telling him that detention was better than imprisonment. He should like to know what relation "detention" bore to "confinement to barracks."
  LORD TURNOURsaid he hoped before the sense of the House was taken that the Secretary of State for War would tell them why the term "detention barracks" had been invented.
  Clause 5:
  LORD BALCARRESmoved that the first 4 lines of Clause 5 be omitted. He said that this would give the Secretary of State for War an opportunity of explaining in fuller detail the object and necessity of the clause.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the proposal would make absolute nonsense of the clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it will make sense, and an Amendment which will not make sense of the clause is not in order.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid his object was not to move an Amendment but to get an explanation from the Secretary of State for War as to the necessity of this clause. He moved the omission of sub-section 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To omit Sub-section 1."—(Lord Balcarres.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. HALDANEsaid there was great need for this clause. There were a considerable number of persons who enlisted in the Yeomanry and other branches of the regular forces, and many of them had enlisted for service in the colonies. There had been cases of desertion from the Regular Army in order to get the higher pay in colonial regiments during war. The possibilities of enlisting in Colonial Forces were greater to-day than they were years ago. If the noble Lord would read Section 13 of the Army Act he would see the necessity of this clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD TURNOURmoved that for the words "Yeomanry" the words "Imperial Yeomanry" should be substituted. The word "Yeomanry" was no longer used in the official papers. The doings of the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa were fresh in all their memories, and they were proud of the Imperial Yeomanry. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the words "Imperial Yeomanry" to be substituted for the word "Yeomanry."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 10, after the word 'The' to insert the word 'Imperial.'"—(Viscount Turnour.)—
  Question put, "That the,word 'Imperial' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 22; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 29.)

  AYES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Starkey, John R.

  Baring, Hn. Guy (Winchester)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S.Edm'ds)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Viscount Turnour and

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Viscount Castlereagh.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E

  Liddell, Henry

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beale, W. P.

  Bertram, Julius

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham

  Billson, Alfred

  Agnew, George William

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Boland, John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Brace, William

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Brigg, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Radford, G. H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jowett, F W.

  Reddy, M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rees, J. D.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ronton, Major Leslie

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

  Cherry, R. R.

  Lambert, George

  Richardson, A.

  Clough, W.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex Harwich

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Maurice

  Robinson, S.

  Craig, H. J. (Tynemouth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cullinan, J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Rowlands, J.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co

  Lupton, Arnold

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scott, AH (Ashton under Lyne)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Seddon, J.

  Duckworth, James

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Arthur, William

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sheehy, David

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Killop, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon, John Edward

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hn. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Marnham, F. J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Meagher, Michael

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Summerbell, T.

  Ginnell, L.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb.John

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Greenwood, G. (Pererborough

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, Theodore C. Radcliffe)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Toulmin, George

  Gulland, John W.

  Murphy, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw

  Verney, F. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southamt'n

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Dowd, John

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hedges, A Paget

  O'Grady, J.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S

  O'Malley, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  George Whiteley and Mr.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N)

  Paul, Herbert

  J. A. Pease.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  MR. HALDANEsaid he had a great appreciation of the desire of the noble Lord to commemorate the services of the Yeomanry, but much as he appreciated their services he did not see his way to setting up a monument to them in an Act of Parliament. This clause was in accordance with precedent, and it would not be
  1220
  altered by adding a word which had no legal effect.
  LORD CASTLEREAGHthought they should receive some assurance that the word "Imperial" had been omitted through an oversight.
  Mr. WHITLEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought the name should be the Imperial Yeomanry, and the right hon. Gentleman was only opposing it because it came from the Opposition side of the House.
  MR. HALDANEclaimed, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 30.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Agnew, George William

  Gulland, John W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Halpin, J.

  Murphy, John

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Beale, W. P.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nuttall, Harry

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Bertram, Julius

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Grady, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Brace, William

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Malley, William

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O'Shee, James John

  Brigg, John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Brooke, Stopford

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Radford, G. H.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cairns, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Cherry, R. R.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Claugh, W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rees, J. D.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Lambert, George

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Richardson, A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cullinan, J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Robinson, S.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, J.

  Duckworth, James

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Arthur, William

  Seddon, J.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Killop, W.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Everett, R. Lacy

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Meagher, Michael

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ginnell, L.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Montagu, E. S.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Walters, John Tudor

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Summerbell, T.

  Ward, W Dudley (Southampton

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Winfrey, R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Toulmin, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  George Whiteley and Mr.

  Ure, Alexander

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  J. A. Pease.

  Verney, F. W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig,Captain James (Down,E.)

  Liddell, Henry

  Ashley, W. W.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Starkey, John R.

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hervey,F. W. F. (Bury S Edm'ds

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Watson Rutherford and

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Viscount Turnour.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committed divided:—Ayes,180; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 31.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duffy, William J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Agnew, George William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lambert, George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Beale, W. P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Levy, Maurice

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lough, Thomas

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bertram, Julius

  Ginnell, L.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Billson, Alfred

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Black, Arthur W (Bedfordshire

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Boland, John

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Arthur, William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Brace, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Killop, W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Halpin, J.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Brigg, John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Marnham, F. J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Meagher, Michael

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montagu, E. S.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Cherry, R. R.

  Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Clough, W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Murphy, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Craig,Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

  Cullinan, J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Devlin,CharlesRamsay (Galway

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Nuttall, Harry

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Duckworth, James

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  O'Dowd, John

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  O'Grady, J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Toulmin, George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Verney, P. W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton underLyne)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Paul, Herbert

  Seddon, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Sheehy, David

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Reddy, M.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon.John

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Winfrey, R.

  Rees, J. D.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  George Whiteley and Mr.

  Richardson, A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  J. A. Pease.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Summerbell, T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P

  Ashley, W. W.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Turnour, Viscount

  Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hervey,F. W. F. (Bury S Edm'ds

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lane-Pox, G. R.

  Watson Rutherford and

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Mr. Claude Hay.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Liddell, Henry

  Clause 6:
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 26, to leave out the word 'prescribed.'"—(Mr. Hides Beach).
  Question proposed, "That the word 'prescribed' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HALDANEsaid there must be some obscurity as to what this meant. The purpose of this clause was to get rid of inaccuracies by prescribing the general officer to whom complaint should be made.
  Mr. SEDDONrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  CAPT. CRAIGthought it would be a great error to alter this proposal to the prescribed officer. Hitherto they had referred the matter to the commanding officer.
  Mr. SEDDONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question, as it appeared to him that the Committee was prepared to come to a decision without that Motion.
  Question put, "That the word 'prescribed' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 21. (Division List No. 32.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Beale, W. P.

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Agnew, George William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Bennett, E. N.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Paul, Herbert

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, Col Ivor (S'thampton)

  Bertram, Julius

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Billson, Alfred

  Hope, W Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Black, Arthur W (Bedfordshire)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Radford, G. H.

  Boland, John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Brace, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Reddy, M.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rees, J. D.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jowett, P. W.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Brooke, Stopford

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Richardson, A.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Robinson, S.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cherry, R. R.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Rowlands, J.

  Clough, W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Coats,Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  Lough, Thomas

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Seddon, J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Cullinan, J.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Arthur, William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Duckworth, James

  M'Killop, W.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Meagher, Michael

  Summerbell, T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mooney, J. J.

  Toulmin, George

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Morrell, Philip

  Ure, Alexander

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Verney, F. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Murphy, John

  Walters, John Tudor

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ward, W Dudley (Southampton

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholson,Charles N (Doncast'r

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gulland, John W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Halpin, J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Dowd, John

  Winfrey, R

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Grady, J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  TELLERS FOE THE AYES.—Mr.

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Malley, William

  George Whiteley and Mr.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Shee, James John

  J. A. Pease.

  Henry, Charles S

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig,Captain James (Down, E.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Starkey, John R.

  Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Turnour, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hervey,F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Liddell, Henry

  Hunt and Mr. Ashley.

  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid this Clause seemed to him to be very involved, and it was legislating in the wrong direction. He hoped they would have some little explanation from the Secretary of State for War as to what the clause was for.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that this clause was to prevent a man who was reduced to a lower grade from forfeiting his pension.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 8, 9, and 10 agreed to.
  New Clauses:
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved that in Clause 4 of the Army Act relating to courts martial, the word "shameful" should be left out, and the words "without due cause" inserted.
  MR. HALDANEwas surprised that this matter had been pressed. It might seem simple, but he would remind the hon. Member that the penalty was death, and this was a very great change to propose, because it would apply the death penalty to anything which might be done stupidly.
  Amendment negatived.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he thought the time had arrived when the rules for summary punishment, which sanctioned a soldier for certain offences on active service being kept in irons and attached to a fixed object in such manner that he
  must remain in a fixed position, should be amended, and he sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take this matter into his earnest consideration with a view to putting an end to this form of punishment. He begged to move.
  New Clause (Summary punishment).
  MR. HALDANEsaid this was a punishment which belonged to a period that had long since passed. It only applied to the case of a soldier on active service, where there was no prison at hand. The rule required reconsideration, and he would undertake to look into the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HUNTmoved a new clause dealing with the abolition of fines. The country did not pay their soldiers very much, and he objected to these deductions from the soldiers' pay He begged to move.
  New clause (Abolition of fines)—(Mr. Hunt)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. HALDANEsaid these deductions were not of the ordinary kind, but were only made in case of conviction by a court martial, where a fine was imposed instead of imprisonment, and that was a more merciful form of sentence.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 33.)

  AYES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Grady, J.

  Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS Edm'ds

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Seddon, J.

  Hunt and Lord Dalrymple.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Starkey, John R.

  Liddell, Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Malley, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Shee, James John

  Agnew, George William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Paul, Herbert

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pollard, Dr.

  Beale, W. P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E).

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Bellairs, Lieutenant Carlyon

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N.

  Reddy, M.

  Bertram, Julius

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Billson, Alfred

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Boland, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richardson, A.

  Brace, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robinson, S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rose, Charles Day

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rowlands, J.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under Lyne

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Levy, Maurice

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Cherry, R. R.

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Clough, W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Corbett C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

  M'Arthur, William

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  M'Killop, W.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay (Galway

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Summerbell, T.

  Duckworth, James

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Duffy, William J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Toulmin, George

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Montagu, E. S.

  Ure, Alexander

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mooney, J. J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Murphy, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ginnell, L.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Winfrey, R.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Halpin, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Woro'r)

  O'Dowd, John

  George Whiteley and Mr.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  J. A. Pease.

  On the Schedule,
  LORD CASTLEREAGHmoved to omit from the schedule the words "maximum price."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord has handed in two Amendments which apparently hang together. The second of these is to insert the words "a reasonable price," but it is not in order because Clause 3 states that the prices must be specified.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he should divide the House against this schedule unless they had some assurance that a revision of it would take place. The schedule specified 1½d. for a soldier's breakfast and 4d. a night for lodgings, and this last item was less than was charged at an ordinary "doss-house" in London. He thought they were justified, at the beginning of the career of a new Parliament, in asking that what had been held to be good enough in the past should now be amended. Improvements were going on in all directions in the lot of the workers, and he thought the soldier was entitled to share in those benefits.
  MR. HALDANEthought the hon. Member was under some misapprehension AS to what this schedule really meant. The schedule did not mean to specify all that the soldier had. What was stated in the schedule was something with which the soldier had to be furnished when he was billeted, but it was the invariable practice to add something out of his pay.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he should join his hon. friend if he divided against this Bill. If the prices in the schedule were maximum prices, what indeed must be the minimum? In the interests of the common soldier something should be done in this matter, and one of the most sensible things to do would be to make some little provision for giving him better food and not call
  1234
  upon him to spend the greater part of his scanty pay in trying to get the necessaries of life.
  MR. ASHLEYasked if it was fair to expect a soldier to commence a long day's work after a breakfast that cost 1½d.
  MR. SEDDONsaid that the soldier was not receiving the attention which might be expected from a Liberal Government. He wished to inform the Secretary of State for War that if he wanted the Army recruited from the best men he would have to offer them more liberal treatment than 1½d. for a breakfast. He did not see why men who were called upon to defend their country should supplement their morning meal out of their scanty earnings. If the Secretary of State for War desired the best men from the industrial classes to enter the ranks of the Army he would have to be more liberal to them in regard to their meals.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that this was a very old-fashioned schedule, and it had remained unamended because it had been the practice for years to discuss this question at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. The 1½d. allowed for breakfast was part of a schedule which was settled in the year 1763, but if they divided against the schedule they ought to divide against it as a whole. If they desired to discuss this schedule in all its bearings they had better make up their minds to sit for another two or three hours. The whole thing was a farce.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that in one case the prices in the schedule were abnormally high, and in another they were abnormally low. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was going to take this matter into rather more serious consideration than his remarks indicated. Although it might be quite true that very few complaints reached the War Office, he had good reason to believe that there

  1235
  were many sources of complaints to which attention ought to be given.
  MR. HALDANEsaid this was an old schedule, and he agreed that some of the prices were too high and some too low; he was quite prepared to re-consider the question of the prices charged in the schedule. As regarded the hardship upon the soldier, he was assured that no hardship existed, because the soldier was always very welcome on the march, and did not, on the whole, have a bad time. He would see if he could make it appear in some better form next year.
  CAPTAIN BARINGsaid the answer of the Secretary of State for War was not so kind and sympathetic as they would have liked it to be.
  MR. BRACEsaid the soldiers had to provide something out of their pay, and the reason why complaints had not reached the War Office was because under the terms upon which they enlisted this was one of the arrangements provided for.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had shown some reluctance; but now that he had agreed to reconsider the whole matter he would withdraw his proposal in the hope that the next time it came before the House what he had complained of would have disappeared.
  MR. FENWICKsaid that hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament would remember that they asked again and again that the Government should consider this question, and they did not even get a sympathetic reply to their appeals. He was glad that the Secretary of State for War had promised to have this matter carefully looked into, and he hoped he would be able to do something to alleviate the lot of the soldier.
  COLONEL HERBERTsaid he had commanded a regiment, and during that time
  1236
  no man ever had anything but a good, substantial breakfast, and he never paid for it out of his own pocket. [An HON. MEMBER: How did he pay for it?] He paid for it out of the sums which had accumulated on the co-operative system in the canteen fund. [An HON. MEMBER: That is out of his own pocket.] It was not out of his own pocket, because it had never been in his pocket, and it was profit derived from trading of which the soldier got the benefit, but it was not part of his pay.
  LORD TURNOURsaid the Secretary for War had stated that a substantial meal was provided for the soldiers later in the day. But if the right hon. Gentleman thought a substantial meal at one or two o clock made up for an inadequate breakfast taken at six or seven o'clock in the morning, after which the soldier had to undertake hard work and fatigue, he was sorry to say that he could not agree with him.
  MR. MORTONdid not think the British soldier should have to depend on charity for his breakfast, it was a scandal and a shame that any such course should have to be adopted. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given his promise to reconsider this question, because he did not want to go into the Lobby with the odds and ends of the late Tory Government. A substantial breakfast could not be had for the sum of three halfpence.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  And, it being after One of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes after Five o'clock a.m.