Lords Sitting of 4 August 1899

EARL OF LANDAFF.
Petition of Arnold Harris Mathew Earl of Landaff claiminga right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CROMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]

    OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    NORTH-EASTERN AND HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAYS (JOINT DOCK) BILL [H.L.].
    FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.].
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H L.].
    WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    STOCKPORT DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESinformed the House, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
    BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.

    GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
    WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

    BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]

    MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    PAISLEY AND BARRHEAD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.].
    WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    WORKINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
    I.(1) Schools in receipt of Parliamentary grants;

    (2). Grants paid to school boards under Section 97, Elementary Education Act 1870;

    (3). School board accounts and list loans (1898–99).

    II. Report of the Committee of Council on Education (England and Wales), with Appendix (1898–99).
    III. Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated 4th August, 1899, modifying Articles 15 and 15* of the Evening Continuation Schools Code, 1899.

    EGYPT, No. 6 (1899).
    Papers relating to the contract for the Atbara Bridge.
    FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS FROM MACHINERY IN THE MANUFACTURE OF COTTON).
    Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by W. A. Blaumont, Esquire, and H. S. Richmond, Esquire, two of Her Majesty's Superintending Inspectors of Factories, on the prevention of accidents from machinery in the manufacture of cotton.
    RAILWAYS.
    General report to the Board of Trade on the capital, traffic, and expenditure of the railway companies of the United Kingdom, for the year 1898.

    STATISTICS.
    I. Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom in each of the last fifteen years, from 1884 to 1898. Forty-sixth Number.
    II. Statistical Abstract for the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom in each of the last fifteen years, from 1884 to 1898. Thirty-sixth Number.
    Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

    SUPERANNUATION.
    Treasury Minute, dated 29th July, 1899, granting a retired allowance to Mr. G. F. Long, formerly a second division clerk in the Office of Public Works, Dublin, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
    Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings and business under the Weights and Measures Acts.
    RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
    Report of the Board of Trade respecting the proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1899.
    BANKRUPTCY.
    Sixteenth general annual report by the Board of Trade.

    COMPANIES (WINDING-UP).
    Eighth general annual report by the Board of Trade, under Section 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.
    Laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PETITION.
    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
    Petition for the Amendment of; of the Urban District Council of Petersfield; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
    Second Report from the Select Committee, made; to be printed; and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 212.)
    IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
    COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
    Message from the Commons for copies of Reports, &c., of the Select Committees: Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
    AGED DESERVING POOR.
    Messages to the Commons for Reports, &c., of Select Committees.
    LINCOLNSHIRE CORONERS BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.

    SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1895 on the Tweed Fisheries Acts; and to present a Bill to repeal the Tweed Fisheries Acts, and to provide for the application of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts to the district of the River Tweed. I shall not detain the House very long in introducing this Bill,

    1425
    but I desire to say a few words of explanation in laying the Bill upon the Table of your Lordships' House, and in asking your Lordships to give it a First Reading. The object of now submitting the Bill is that its provisions may be considered during the months that are to come by those on the Tweed who will be affected by it, and who will be, in all probability, interested in what is proposed to be done. The Bill is founded entirely upon the leading recommendations of the long and exhaustive inquiry which was conducted by a Commission, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Stafford Howard, two or three years ago. The leading recommendation of the Commission, in which they were all unanimous, was that the special Acts which regulate salmon fisheries on the Tweed should be abolished, and that the Tweed should come under the general law which regulates salmon fisheries in Scotland. The Tweed is in a very peculiar position at the present time. The whole length of the river is a hundred miles, of which eighty are in Scotland. About seventeen form the boundary between England and Scotland, and the four miles above the mouth are wholly in England. The law which governs the fisheries in the Tweed are in a state of great confusion. There are two leading special TweedActs—the Act of 1857 and the Act of 1859; but, in addition, there are some Acts which apply to salmon fisheries throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and these are applicable to the Tweed. There are some Acts which apply only to Scotland, and some which apply only to England. At present, in the case of some of these Acts, the English Acts apply to the English part of the Tweed, and the Scotch Acts in whole, or in part, to the Scottish part of the Tweed. But the confusion does not even stop there, because some of the Acts apply in part to the Tweed; some clauses and sections apply to the Tweed, and some do not. In one case, at least, a Scottish Act applies to the Tweed, but the amending Act of this Scottish Act does not. I think your Lordships will see that the present state of the law is one of great difficulty and confusion, and it has not been successful, because there have been complaints from time to time during the last thirty years that the take of salmon in the Tweed has been diminishing. There was an inquiry by Mr. Walpole and a
    1426
    colleague in 1874, and they came to that conclusion. Mr. Stafford Howard's Commission came to the same conclusion. They said that the annual take of salmon varies very much, but the figures of recent years show that, while the good years seem to be up to their former average, the bad years have fallen below their average, and the witnesses were practically unanimous in declaring, as regards the upper waters of the river, that the fish had greatly decreased. I am afraid that matters are worse at the present time than they were three or four years ago. The reasons which were assigned, first by Mr. Walpole and his colleague, and then by Mr. Howard's Commission, were three: First, that there is not such good access to the upper waters, on account of the rapidity with which the drainage of land causes the floods to run off; secondly, that there is greater pollution than there used to be; and, thirdly, that the decrease is due, to some extent, to the prevalence of poaching, and the fact that the sympathies of the population are unfortunately with the poachers. I am afraid that the first of these causes is not likely to be remedied. The second, I would hope, will receive the attention of Parliament. I believe, speaking for myself personally, there is nothing more urgently required than a more efficient means of preventing the pollution of rivers, whether by sewage or by manufacturing refuse, but it is obviously not within the scope of this Bill to deal with that matter. With regard to the other cause, the prevalence of poaching, there is a good deal to be said, and it is clearly proved by the evidence before this Commission that there is a great deal of illegal fishing, both at the mouth of the river and in the upper waters. The Commission say that the lawlessness in fishing in the close season appears to have been getting worse, being openly carried on by day as well as night. A good number of cases of assault on bailiffs had occurred, and the throwing of stones has been mentioned. The police, though sufficient for ordinary purposes, because the people were in sympathy with the ordinary law, were not sufficient to protect the bailiffs, as the people were entirely out of sympathy with the special Tweed Acts. The opinion was expressed that, if the body of the people could be turned into sympathy with the law, the bailiffs would have no trouble, or,

    1427
    at any rate, less trouble, and these attacks would be put down. There is much more to be said to the same effect, but the facts are of such common notoriety (and the state of matters has been going rapidly from bad to worse), that I do not dwell upon them at the present time, because I believe they are perfectly within the knowledge of all the noble Lords who are interested in salmon fisheries in this district, and probably many more besides. The end of it is, that the main recommendation of this Commission was to the effect that the special Tweed Acts should be abolished, and that the general law should be applied to the Tweed. In support of that opinion the Commissioners expressed their belief that if this was to be carried out the objection to some of the clauses, at any rate, of the Acts which have been referred to, would be met by their repeal. Section 45 of the Act of 1857, which forbids the use of nets in certain parts of the sea during the close season; Section 50, which forbids the possession of nets within five miles of the river by unauthorised persons, and especially Section 69, have given rise to a great deal of bad feeling, and I believe myself there is evidence for saying, a certain amount of injustice. The latter is known as the intent clause. It allows an attempt to take salmon illegally to be inferred under certain circumstances—not to be proved, but to be inferred. There is also that part of Section 82, which provides that persons accused before a court, if they do not appear, may be held as having confessed to being guilty, and be fined in their absence without proof being laid. These are only instances of some of the clauses of the Tweed Acts, which had led to the state of feeling which the Commission described. It is also the case that the repeal of the special Acts and the substitution of the general law will carry with it the abolition of the body called the Tweed Commission, and it will set up in its place a district board, subject in all respects to the general law. On account of the length of the river and the magnitude of the interests involved, we propose, by the Bill, that that board shall be rather more numerous in numbers than it would be under the general law. Apart from all these detailed changes, the broad advantage which I believe will be secured by the Bill will be that the feeling of fishermen, who believe that they are at
    1428
    present more unfairly dealt with than fishermen in other districts, will be removed by their being placed under the general law. I propose to allude to one other matter, and that is Section 8 of the Bill. Section 8 keeps the present annual close time of the Tweed. The present close time of the Tweed is, I understand, stereotyped by Act of Parliament, and cannot be altered. If the river is placed under the general law there would be power, under the procedure therein provided, upon the petition of persons interested, to have the particular dates altered, always provided that the maximum number of 168 days was retained. In addition to that, there would be power to alter the weekly close time, which at present is only thirty-six hours, or, at least, twelve hours shorter than what is usual under more recent Acts. There is one special provision also to which I should allude. At the present time, on the Tweed, it is not lawful to possess a "gaff" at any time of the year. Under the general law, as your Lordships know, that is not the case. We propose to maintain that prohibition. I was very much tempted to attempt to alter it, so far as the general law is concerned, and prevent the gaffing of kelts, which by law have to be returned into the river. It seems to me not only a wasteful and foolish, but a cruel practice, and I personally would be very glad to prohibit it if possible; but I do not wish to raise more objections to this particular Bill than are absolutely necessary. Therefore I avoid in it any attempt to amend the general law. I am far from thinking that this Bill will cure all the evils under which the river Tweed is suffering. I believe it will make a step if it is carried—a long step—towards a more satisfactory state of matters, and that it will make it more easy to introduce much-needed reforms. While I am not hopeful that the Bill will be accepted with unanimity, I have a great hope that a careful study of its provisions, and the full Memorandum which is attached to it, will clear away a great deal of opposition, and that in another session of Parliament we may hope to see it passed into law. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
    THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I congratulate my noble friend on having.

    1429
    introduced this Bill. I have not had the pleasure of seeing the Bill, and I can only gather what will be the effect of it from the observations of my noble friend. I am more glad to see the Bill brought in now, because, when I was holding the office in 1888 of Secretary for Scotland, I introduced a Bill for the same object. Owing, however, to opposition in the House of Commons, that Bill failed to receive the sanction of Parliament, and did not become law. I have always felt very strongly that the provisions of the Tweed Acts have been anomalous. A difficulty, however, arose in the matter, which probably my noble friend has been able to get over. Some of the rivers which fall into the Tweed are on the English side, and therefore, if they were included under the general law, there might be a conflict of jurisdiction, as the English side might wish to be under the English general law. I have no doubt my noble friend has succeeded in getting over that difficulty, and I feel certain the Bill which he has introduced will be of great advantage to the fisheries on the Tweed. Before saying whether I altogether approve of the abolition of the Tweed Commissioners, and the placing of the powers of that body in the hands of a district board, I should like to see the details of the Bill. Under the Bill many of the restrictions now imposed, and many of the disadvantages which are experienced in the higher reaches of the Tweed, will be done away with, and the fishermen there will be put on a more equal footing with those in the lower reaches. When the Bill is before us, I shall give it my earnest consideration.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With regard to the point raised by the noble Marquess, I may say that it is the intention in this Bill that the Tweed and all its tributaries, whether in England or in Scotland, should be under the Scottish law.
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill to repeal the Tweed Fisheries Acts, and to provide for the application of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts
    1430
    to the district of the River Tweed—Was presented by the Lord Balfour; read la; and to be printed. (No. 213.)

    THE NEW WAR OFFICE—MODELS OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to move:
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that models of all public buildings of importance that are about to be erected at the public cost should be made and publicly exhibited, and that this is more especially to be desired at the present time."
    I would ask the indulgence of your Lordships while I bring this resolution under, I hope, your favourable consideration. Those of your Lordships who may have chanced to go to the Victoria Gallery will have seen the plans that are exhibited there, and will have noticed, perhaps, some writing of mine attached thereto, to the effect that no wise man in private life builds without the aid of models; and that what is so desirable and sensible a practice in private buildings applies with greater force to public buildings erected by a public department at the public cost. A memorial has been presented to the Government, very numerously and very influentially signed, asking practically that what this Resolution proposes should be done by the Government, and that models of all intended public buildings of importance should be shown, more especially at the present time. This memorial was sent by me to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, and the answer I got from him was that he would not interfere, an answer I received almost within twenty-four hours of the time the noble Marquess received that memorial. The system I propose is an almost universal custom abroad. Not only are models shown, but it is usual to put up sections of the building in the rough, and there is an architectural term that applies to that process. They talk in architecture of things being "offered up." This custom is adopted in France. In Italy they go to the extent of having a plébiscite on public intended improvements and art decorations. Thus, recently, when the faÇade of the Duomo at Florence was to be finished and decorated, casts of what was proposed were "offered up," and the opinion of the general public thereon was invited, with the happiest results. But what do the Office of Works and

    1431
    Her Majesty's Government do here? Drawings only are shown—and where? In the tea room of the House of Commons, to which, I believe, no one can gain admission unless personally conducted by a Member of that House. The plans were also shown for three days in the Victoria Gallery: such is the Government's view of an architectural art plébiscite. But in asking Her Majesty's Government to adopt the system of models I am not asking them simply to follow a private or foreign practice, for the system was successfully adopted in our own country when Sir Henry Layard was First Commissioner of Works. It was suggested to him that a model should be made of this part of Greater Westminster, showing all the existing public and other buildings, which were all made removable. The model was twice as large as the Table of your Lordships' House, costing£1,500, and the last occasion on which it was used was in that of the proposed Admiralty offices. At that time there was a design for a new Admiralty. The proposed building was shown in model, with a tower next the Horse Guards 300 feet high, and it so shocked the public who saw it that the plan was knocked on the head. How the present Admiralty Offices grew up I cannot say, with its towers and buildings springing up every day like mushrooms. Nobody has seen this building in model, and I contend that if these new Admiralty buildings had been thus shown in model like the designs for the previous one, they would have been equally condemned, and you would have had the site differently treated. The memorial which I had the honour of sending to Lord Salisbury pointed out that, in the opinion of the memorialists, the building of a new War Office on the historic site of the intended Whitehall Palace offered a unique and last opportunity of realising, at least in part, Inigo Jones's grand design for the said palace—of which the banqueting hall alone was built. The memorialists continue:
    "We pray Her Majesty's Government to have models made and publicly exhibited of the proposed War Office, and of a suggested adaptation of Inigo Jones's design—now on view in the Victoria Gallery—which, it is believed, might, without difficulty, be made to meet all War Office requirements, while it would present a more imposing symmetric and extended front—immediately facing the Horse Guards—than the design that has been
    1432
    officially adopted. In respectfully making this request we are only asking in the public interest, and for the sake of those who come after us, that all possible care and precautions should be taken to ensure the erection of a War Office building in all ways worthy of the site; and that by the public exhibition of models, as proposed, successful precedents established in the case of designs for public buildings by Her Majesty's Office of Works, should now be followed."
    As regards the design which has been officially adopted I do not like to speak strongly against it. I recommended Mr. Young, the architect to the Board of Works. He is a most able man, but I must say that in my opinion the plan which he has shown is not a satisfactory one, and the way in which he proposes to connect the main building with the banqueting hall is simply senseless—viz., by a statue in the centre of the roadway and meaningless obstructive archways over the foot-pavements. Now many objections have been made, and will be raised, against the suggested adaptation of part of Inigo Jones's design for Whitehall Palace to the proposed War Office. Let me anticipate them. The first objection is that Inigo Jones's design was for a palace and is not suited for a Government office. My answer is that Somerset House is a palace—the finest, most palatial building in London—and yet it is devoted to Government offices. Further, it is a libel on architects to say that given the suggested Inigo Jones frontage and the War Office site they could not adapt these to all needful requirements. Let it at least be tried. This has not yet been done. The second objection is that the banqueting hall would be overshadowed by the centre of the proposed Inigo Jones elevation. It will not be overshadowed more than it was in the original design of which they both formed part. The third objection is that the arches across the road that leads to the Whitehall Mansions would be dark tunnels. My answer is that they will be considerably wider, higher, and lighter in proportion than the present Horse Guards Arch, through which Her Majesty and the Jubilee procession managed to pass two years ago. The fourth objection is that rooms over archways are objectionable, and that Inigo Jones would not have dreamed of such a thing. My answer is that at Stanway, in Gloucestershire, there is a "gatehouse" by Inigo Jones. Further, his Whitehall

    1433
    Palace consists of a series courts with archways leading to them, over which rooms are built; and how as to Somerset House, Buckingham Palace, St. James's Palace, the Palace of Westminster, the Foreign and India Offices, Windsor Castle, the Louvre, etc., including every house in Paris or elsewhere with a porte cochère? All these are liable to the same objection. But such an objection is childish, and I pass on to objection No. 5, which is that the proposed adaptation is "tampering" with Inigo Jones's work and "defaming" his memory. It is hard to see how Inigo Jones's work will be tampered with or his memory defamed by an endeavour—to use the words of the memorial—to "avail ourselves of this unique and last opportunity of realising, at least in part, Inigo Jones's grand design for Whitehall Palace, of which the banqueting hall alone was built; the proposed faÇade, moreover, being simply taken from Inigo Jones's design. As to the banqueting hall, with its splendid ceiling painted by Rubens, it is now used as a United Service Museum, containing old uniforms and arms. On the other hand it is proposed in the suggested adaptation scheme to utilise it as a fitting hall for War Office and Government official receptions, allotting a portion of the War Office site facing Whitehall Mansions to the Royal United Service Institution, which would be thus better accommodated than it now is. It may be said that the foundations for the new War Office are now laid. I was told that they were, but I recently walked over the site and I found that no foundations had yet been laid. I may also be told that the contract has been entered into. I do not care if it has. Any man with a knowledge of building knows that a contract consists of certain scheduled work at certain prices. If another plan is adopted you have only to hand the contract to the same man at the same scheduled rate of prices, and, if there are any differences, you can settle the matter by arbitration. I repudiate the idea that if the contract is taken it puts a stop to any other plans being adopted than the one the Government propose. If a model such as I have suggested had been prepared in connection with the new Government buildings in Whitehall the defects of the architect's design in relation to the surrounding buildings would at once have been apparent. Now all matters affecting
    1434
    public buildings are, we know, entirely in the hands of the Board of Works. I have had a long experience of Parliamentary life, beginning in the year 1841, and I have taken a great interest in these questions; been a member of Commissions thereon, and followed the action of the Office of Works with regard to public buildings and monuments, and I have no hesitation in saying that its career has been marked by many blunders. How can it be otherwise? How is the First Commissioner of Works appointed? Is he appointed because of any special aptitude with regard to buildings? Not at all. Sir Henry Layard was the only First Commissioner in my time who had any special aptitude in this line. The office is simply treated as a halfway house between an Under Secretaryship and a seat in the Cabinet. The present holder of the office happens to be in the Cabinet. But I suppose that is because he has been a Whip, for in these days, when politics rest not on principles but on bribes, it is necessary to have in the Cabinet a gentleman who can tell the best way to bait the political hook, whether with an old pensioner or a young shopgirl. Let me, then, now give some instances of the deplorable doings of the Board of Works in my time and generation. The Wellington statue on the Hyde Park Arch we owed to the Office of Works. Then, that same Office of Works proposed to make a carriage way—where there is now a footway—across the water of St. James' Park. That, happily, we stopped, They intended to maintain permanently the Exhibition building of 1862 along Cromwell Road. This they were forced by a vote of the House of Commons to pull down. A Commission decided, as regards the Kensington Museum, in favour of Captain Fowkes', R.E., design; this being selected in a competition to which many distinguished architects had sent drawings. Has this premeated design been followed? By no means. It was Classic in style. Mr. W. Cowper, then First Commissioner, approved it, but his successor, Lord John Manners, the present Duke of Rutland, was Gothic in his architectural tastes, threw it over, and to him we owe the present Natural History Museum in Cromwell Road. What the new Kensington Museum will be we only know through what appeared in the public prints on the day of the laying of its

    1435
    foundation stone by Her Majesty. Yet this new building will cost, it is said,£800,000!Again, when Sir B. Hall was head of the Office of Works he put down£1,000 in the Estimates for a red polished granite pedestal for Charles I. statue at Charing Cross; the present original pedestal being the work of G. Gibbons! Well, this was resisted, and the Gibbons' pedestal was grouted and saved. To Mr. Shaw-Lefevre we owe much when he was First Commissioner. It was he moved the Wellington Arch and placed it on the slope of Constitution Hill—thus giving it a long and short leg—a thing quite unique in arches. He was responsible for the flight of stairs and the griffons in Westminster Hall, that entirely alter the character of that grand old pile. When I first saw the stairs and griffons it was at the time of the Fenian excitement, and I said to the policeman on duty, "I do not think the Fenians could have done worse than this," and the policeman, who was evidently a man of taste, replied, "I do not think they could, my Lord." To Mr. Lefevre we owe also the Portrait Gallery at the back of the National Gallery—with which it is in immediate connection—and of which it may be said architecturally to form part, and yet it is in style wholly different. Lastly, it was Mr. Shaw-Lefevre who destroyed Sir C. Barry's St. Stephen's entrance to the Palace of Westminster by building up against one side of it a buttress of Westminster Hall. Again, was there ever a more dreadful building seen in this world than the United Service Institution building adjoining the banqueting hall? The Board of Works is responsible for that; but if the faÇade of Inigo Jones were taken, this and the banqueting hall would be included, and you would have a very beautiful building. Of the new Admiralty I have already spoken, and will say no more; save that with its many minarets it reminds one of the Water Court at Earl's Court, where Savage Africa is now located. But perhaps the most audacious, and I might say atrocious, thing done by the Office of Works was when Mr. Ayrton was First Commissioner. Do you know what he did to Kensington Gardens? He absolutely destroyed them, altering the whole symmetric plan. He actually stopped and planted up the Broad Walk half way, diverting it to the Albert Memorial, and to do this, cut
    1436
    down forty of the old Kensington elms. That was done without the knowledge of the public, and at the ipse dixit of the gentleman who for the time held the office of Chief Commissioner, and who had boasted, when he took office, that he was neither a mason nor a market gardener. I have thought it desirable to point to these things, for the reason that our experience of the Board of Works is not such as to justify giving that Department a blank sheet of paper whereon to write what they like—and not allowing those who pay for these things any voice in the matter. I have received a letter from the Duke of Abercorn, in which he says:—
    "I regret that, being in Ireland, I cannot support your motion for to-morrow (Friday). Had I been present, I should certainly have voted for it. He who pays should have some voice, or, at any rate, some eye in viewing, what he has to pay for. At the present time all these new public buildings are left entirely in the hands of some official, or whoever may for the moment be head of a public Department."
    I think, my Lords, I have said enough to justify my motion. I merely add that the memorial I had the honour of presenting to Lord Salisbury was one of the most weighty ever presented. It included among the 139 signatories, one archbishop, several bishops, six dukes, two field marshal—Lord Roberts and Lord Wolseley—and the names of peers on either side, including the Marquis of Ripon, the Earl of Kimberley, and Lord Tweedmouth, plus Lord Lorne. A memorial such as this deserves, I think, consideration, especially when all that the memorialists ask is that, for the sake of those who come after us, all possible care and precaution should be taken to ensure the erection of War Office buildings in all ways worthy of the site. On the strength of this memorial I speak and act.
    Moved, to resolve that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that models of all public buildings of importance that are about to be erected at the public cost should be made and publicly exhibited; and that is more especially to be desired at the present time.—(The Lord Wemyss, E. Wemyss)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it requires some courage to gainsay the noble Earl, who comes here

    1437
    to-night, not only with all his usual ardour and conviction, but fortified by the moral, if not material, support of the noble Lords, a list of whose styles and titles he has read to the House. I can assure him that we are very far indeed from desiring to treat the memorial with any disrespect. On the contrary, I like to reflect that the object of the memorialists and our object are the same. We all of us desire that upon a site of this importance, and for a purpose of such importance, no building should be erected either unworthy of the site or inharmonious with its surroundings. Although I desire to treat the memorial with all possible respect, I must be allowed to scrutinise it a little closely. The noble Earl asks us for models. He proposes that a model should be exhibited whenever a public building is about to be erected, in order to protect the public against the erection of an unworthy or inartistic structure, and, above all, in order that there may be an appeal from the Government of the day to some other tribunal, the precise character of which he certainly failed to explain to the House.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Public opinion, to which all Governments have to submit.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:The noble Earl spoke of an old model made in the time of Sir Henry Layard. I have made inquires about that model, and find that it was a large model on a very small scale, and was constructed of very perishable materials. I believe a few fragments have been discovered, but it was constructed thirty or forty years ago, and it is not surprising that it should have paid the debt of nature. I fancy our ironclads do not last much longer, and it is scarcely surprising that this fragile structure of cardboard—
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. The model was made of wood.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: At any rate, it was extremely fragile, and is, I am afraid, no longer available. I should like to ask your Lordships whether it is quite so clear, as the noble Earl would have us believe, that there is much
    1438
    instruction to be gained from the exhibition of the models of proposed buildings? A model on a table never by any chance presents the appearance of the actual building—you see the model as you might see the building from the top of the Duke of York's Column, a point of view from which the noble Earl on the cross benches is very fond of regarding men and things in general. We humbler individuals contemplate these structures from the pavement as we walk on our way to Westminster. Again, a model would enable you to regulate the size and proportion of buildings erected on Government ground, but what power does it give you of regulating buildings erected immediately alongside on ground which is not the property of the Government? Take the case of the proposed new War Office buildings. You might adjust the height of those buildings to the height of the surrounding Government buildings, but the huge building immediately behind it, Whitehall Court, might put out the whole scale of proportion. As regards the War Office buildings, it is impossible to comply with the request for a model, but in regard to buildings to be erected hereafter, the Chief Commissioner of Works will consider the suggestion; the right hon. Gentleman tells me that he regards the subject with a perfectly open mind. The greater part of the speech of the noble Earl was an indictment of the manner in which plans for new public buildings are designed and prepared, and those of your Lordships who signed the memorial may not be fully aware of the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government when the matter was dealt with. In the first place, we decided that we would not adopt the procedure of inviting competitive designs. It was this system of competition which led to the construction of several of those buildings of which the noble Earl spoke in terms of strong but, I must say, not wholly unmerited condemnation. The result of recourse to competitive designs is, I believe, generally admitted to be unsatisfactory, and there is also this to be remembered, that many of our best architects refuse altogether to take part in such competitions. Therefore, we put that procedure aside, and this is what we did. We invited the Institute of British Architects, which, after all, is a body whose professional reputation in regard to architectural matters is higher than that of any other

    1439
    body in the country, to recommend the names of a certain number of architects who, in their opinion, were well qualified to undertake a building of this sort. A list of names was sent in to Her Majesty's Government, and a Committee of the Cabinet considered those names, and also designs of work already carried out by the gentlemen in question. We selected from the list two gentlemen, Mr. Young and Mr. Brydon, both architects with a very considerable reputation. With regard to Mr. Young, the Committee were a good deal attracted towards him by the excellence of the work which he has carried out for the noble Earl himself at his seat in Scotland. These two gentlemen sent in designs for the new Public Offices, and these were examined by a Committee presided over by the President of the Institute of British Architects, who is Professor of Architecture to the Royal Academy. Then the designs were published in the month of March. The noble Earl seems to think that the publication consisted simply of hanging them up in the tea-room of the House of Commons, but they were published in all the architectural newspapers, and in various illustrated papers. They were commented upon in every direction, and I say, without hesitation, that on the whole the verdict of public opinion upon them was exceedingly favourable. That was in the month of March, and now, in August, the noble Earl comes down to this House and asks us to undo everything we have done. He spoke of the extent to which we had gone in the matter of contracts. I will tell the House exactly how we stand in that matter. The plans and specifications have all been prepared, and they are ready for the quantity surveyor. It is true that we have not laid any foundations, but the ground has been broken in order to test it for that purpose, and the work will proceed very shortly. To ask us now to hold our hands and begin again seems to be an altogether unreasonable proposal. The site alone, lying idle, costs the country£20,000 a year, and to my mind it has lain idle quite long enough. I speak rather feelingly on this subject, because one of the offices to be accommodated is the office with which I am connected. The War Office at this moment is scattered about in no less than eleven different buildings, an intolerable state of things, which interferes to an extent which I do
    1440
    not suppose anybody realises with the efficient conduct of business, and we protest against any further delay in supplying us with a suitable home. How is the noble Earl going to take a plébiscite on this matter of plans? He says by appealing to public opinion. Supposing that, as a result of the noble Earl'splébiscite, our plan had been condemned and another one substituted, what would there be to prevent some other self-constituted arbiter saying he must have another plébiscite on a different set of plans? To speak plainly, this is a case of spretœ injuria formœ. What is in the noble Earl's mind is a. preference for his own plan—Inigo Jones's plan, if you like—but the plan which he has fathered and put before the public as the rival to our plan. I admit, at the outset that in the noble Earl's plan there is a very beautiful faÇade, but the building is entirely unsuited for public offices.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My point, is that it can be made so.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will come to that in a moment. I do not think the noble Earl's building would stand the ordeal by model. It would completely dwarf and overshadow the Horse Guards; it would cut the site to waste in the most reckless manner; it would cost more money, and it would produce only 17,000 ft. of floor space, instead of 29,000 ft. as in the Government plan.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I have a. right to ask how those figures are calculated.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: They are the figures that were given to me, and I believe them to be the result of a trustworthy examination.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: They are absolutely worthless.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl spoke of the bridge by which, in his plan, the banqueting hall is to be connected with the central building. Where you are obliged to have a bridge it may be harmless enough, but I cannot conceive anybody in their senses deliberately putting up a bridge of this kind as part of a public office. It may be a useful way of passing from one block of a hospital for infectious diseases to another block, but it cer-

    1441
    tainly is not a convenient way of passing from one part of a public office to another part of the same office. The noble Earl spoke airily of the expropriation of the United Service Institution. But the Institution would have to be reckoned with, and would, I presume, have to be provided with a home elsewhere, as would also the Charity Commissioners, who would be swept away by the destroying hand of the noble Earl. My main objection to the noble Earl's plan is the objection which he anticipated—namely, that his plan is the plan of a palace, and not of a public office. The noble Earl says in his memorial that it is believed that his plan could easily be adapted to the wants of the War Office. We believe nothing of the sort. We are convinced to the contrary. I submit that rooms thirty feet high are not the kind of rooms into which you want to put the clerks in a public office, and there is only one way in which the adaptation the noble Earl suggests could be carried out, and that is by dividing these lofty rooms horizontally by means of a floor, with the result that you would give one half of one of these big windows to the top floor and the other half to the lower floor. What would be the result? The men on the lower floor would get the bottom half of the window, and could not possibly see out of it; while the men in the room above would have the top half of the window, which would be close to the ground, with the result that it would throw no light into the room. In one or two of the existing offices an arrangement of that kind has been attempted, but it has proved most inconvenient and inconsistent with the proper discharge of the work of the offices. The fact is, the noble Earl begins at the wrong end. Instead of saying, "I want a public office containing such and such accommodation; give me a beautiful building to put it into," he says, "Here is a beautiful building, shove your public office into it; it has got to get in there somehow." The noble Earl is thinking entirely of the external appearance of these buildings; I am thinking not only of the outside, but of the occupants. When I say that, I trust your Lordships will not think that I am solicitous for future Secretaries of State or Under Secretaries of State. They are birds of passage who come and go, and who rarely stay for more than four or five years, and they generally
    1442
    take the best rooms. I am thinking of humbler people—the permanent officials—the War Office clerks, without whom the administration of the Army could not be carried on, who will inhabit these rooms. They are in for life, and I want them to have rooms of proper shape, properly ventilated, and with proper communication between one room and another. In that respect our plan gives us all that we could desire, and it is at that point that the plan of the noble Earl hopelessly breaks down, and no amount of adaptation will make it fulfil the requirements on which we insist. I know the noble Earl attaches great importance to symmetry in these matters, but it is too late to think of arranging all the approaches of Westminster on a symmetrical plan. The buildings are there; they are not ranged symmetrically in line, and I do not think the result of this trifling irregularity is otherwise than pleasing. I very much prefer an irregularity of that sort to a monotonous boulevard, symmetrical from end to end. At any rate, it is too late to think of arranging these buildings in symmetrical fashion, and we contend that our building, although it may not exactly front the Horse Guards, as the noble Earl would wish, will be a very useful and ornamental addition to the buildings which already surround Whitehall, and it is our fixed intention to go on with the construction of the building as rapidly as possible. I will not follow the noble Earl in the latter part of his speech, in which, after giving us a few ideas on the construction of public offices, he gave us hints on the subject of the construction of Cabinets. I am afraid that his notions upon the one subject are almost as unpractical as are his theories in regard to the others; at any rate, whenever a new Prime Minister is called upon to bring together a Government, I shall be very much surprised if it is found that he is able to do so upon the lines which the noble Earl has suggested for his guidance.
    LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing, though very shortly, the deep regret I feel that Her Majesty's Government should have met the motion of my noble friend in the manner they have done, for I fear it means that we must take it for granted that another grand opportunity is about to be lost, as so many grand opportunities

    1443
    have been lost before, of embellishing this metropolis by the erection of public buildings really worthy of the admiration of the country to which they belong. As it is, our buildings are too often a subject of derision to those who come to see them from afar, and Her Majesty's Government are mistaken if they think that the public are at all gratified by public buildings being erected at a cheap cost and in great haste. I fear, from the tone of the noble Marquess's speech, that it is quite impossible to get him to perceive even the spirit in which this matter is regarded by those who have a real love for art and architecture. The noble Marquess urges that the War Office wants immediate accommodation for its clerks, that there is no time to be lost in getting that accommodation, and that it must be provided at once. If that is so, why not build a temporary iron and glass shed? I am certain the public at large would rather that the War Office clerks should wait another year for the building than that one should be erected which should not be worthy of this great Empire. The noble Marquess says a palace will not do for a public office. I have known public offices in Paris, Vienna, Berlin, and in Amsterdam, which have very much the likeness of a palace, and are yet not unfit for use. You have an unequalled site, and a magnificent plan by a dead architect. It is quite natural that living architects should prefer a plan by one of themselves, but Her Majesty's Government, in my humble opinion, should have simply given instructions to adopt, as far as it could be adopted, the plan of Inigo Jones. How anyone, having the power to do that, and having that site in hand, should have thought of erecting anything upon it except the magnificent design planned by one of the greatest English architects for that very site I cannot conceive. I have not a word to say against Mr. Young's plans. These are, I believe, effective; but to compare Mr. Young with Inigo Jones is to compare the infinitely small with the infinitely great. I have only risen to express my surprise and deep regret at the apparent incapacity of Her Majesty's Government to see what is really the question at issue, and to express my strong belief that the country at large does desire to see buildings erected which shall be worthy of the Empire, and would certainly not demur
    1444
    to a larger expenditure being incurred for this purpose. I am sorry I cannot myself throw any light on the moot question, which the noble Marquess and my noble friend must fight out themselves, as to the temporary or permanent nature of the model. I have never seen it, but I have had the honour of being on intimate terms with Sir Henry Layard, and I know that in his opinion it was not a temporary model. He was of opinion that it was a model which might be preserved for a long time to come, and on which all buildings on that site should be exhibited. The noble Marquess says they are of no use at all, looked at from above. I would venture to suggest, with all submission, that this depends on the height of their pedestals.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: There were one or two points raised by the noble Marquess which require an answer. He objects to models, and he said you could only see models from a height, looking down on the chimneys. Is it not possible to conceive, without any great stretch of imagination on my noble friend's part, that there is a possibility of raising the model to the level of your eye? In that case his chimney-pot argument falls to the ground, and in his objections to models the noble Marquess is opposed to well known practice in this and other countries. It was the use of a model which settled the tower at the Admiralty. As regards the model in question, if it is destroyed its destruction is due to the way it has been taken care of. It was made of solid wood, and was perfectly sound ten years ago. The Board of Works have either lost it or broken it up, probably the latter, as they were afraid to show their work, having in view the good result which was attained by the exhibition of a model in regard to other places. With reference to the banqueting hall, there is no question of going from the lower ground of the War Office to the banqueting hall, because I expressly stated that the idea was that the banqueting hall should be reserved for the receptions of my noble friend. I repudiate and deny altogether the statement that you cannot turn Inigo Jones's palace into a public office. There are trade unions everywhere, even among architects, and they naturally stand by one another in this matter, and would not select the plan of a dead architect if they

    1445
    could help it. When I showed the President of the Institute of British Architects the plan for the adaptation of Inigo Jones's design, he could not deny that it was a beautiful building, but he remarked, "There would be nothing to show the architecture of the nineteenth century." What my reply was your Lordships may imagine. I blessed the architecture of the nineteenth century, and said I preferred Inigo Jones's. One thing is clear, viz., that my noble friend's views on architecture and his speech are taken from a recent article in the Builder. Now that was evidently not written by an architect, but by a hod-man, accustomed to the throwing of bricks and rubbish. Further, when the noble Marquess dies, which, for his family's sake, I hope will not be for many years to come, he will require no monument such as they put up to him for his good government of India, because he will leave the hospital for which he alone is responsible on the rock of Edinburgh Castle, and this building behind him. I venture to think that the action of the Government is nothing short of treason to posterity, a betrayal of a temporary trust, and an audacious act on the part of chance, temporary, self-sufficient authorities. These are my last words, but I shall certainly divide the House even if I vote alone.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL(The DUKE of NORFOLK): My Lords, I venture to appeal to the noble Earl, having expressed his feelings with great vigour and strength, to consider whether he could not be content with the expression of opinion his motion has elicited. The thing having, unfortunately, gone so far, no good purpose will be served by a factious opposition. Personal experience has taught me that models of intended buildings are of great use, and I hope the Government will take into consideration whether, in future, when public buildings are to be erected, models cannot be provided.
    THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It has been said that it is too late now to raise the question, but I should like to say that two or three months ago I asked for a model of these new buildings.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I asked for it more than six months ago.
    THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: And that model was refused on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that the Government will take into consideration what has fallen from the noble Earl and the noble Duke, and that in future models will be exhibited of all proposed public buildings. I do not think it is at all fair that the taxpayers should be called upon to pay for buildings, which might be very bad, and which they have no opportunity of saying beforehand whether they like or not. I am glad this discussion has given the noble Marquess an opportunity of explaining how the Government plan was selected. I think on the whole the action of the Government was fairly satisfactory, but I hope that in future models will be exhibited. I hope that the banqueting hall will be put to another purpose than that to which it is at present devoted, and for which it is ill suited. The noble Marquess and a great many of your Lordships will recollect that before Mr. Stanhope left office the last thing he did was to give an entertainment in the banqueting hall, and the whole thing was done in a most splendid manner. Anyone who saw that hall, decorated as it was, must have left it with the firm conviction that it would be an immense national loss if it were used for any other purpose. It is, as I have said, unsuitable for the exhibition for which it is now used; the space is too great, and a much smaller room would be equally if not better adapted for the purpose. I would suggest that the noble Marquess should try and make some arrangement by which the hall should be used as a place in which public entertainments can be given by Her Majesty's Ministers.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I wish to state that after the appeal which has been made to me, and which, I think, ought to have more effect with the Government than any Division, even if it went hostile to them, I do not intend to divide the House, but I hope the noble Marquess will take into consideration the words of his colleague.
    Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

    COLONIAL LOANS BILL.
    Read 2a [according to Order]; Committees negatived: Then Standing Order

    1447
    no. XXXIX considered [according to Order], and dispensed with: Then Bill read 3a, and passed.

  INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD BELPER: My Lords, this small Bill applies to purely technical matters in the Inebriates Act of last year. The object of Clause 1 is to make the expenses of all prosecutions under Section 2 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, which provides for the detention of habitual drunkards, payable as in cases of felony. Under Section 6 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, the Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to Inebriate Reformatories, and may thereby impose a fine not exceeding £20, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour, for the breach of any such regulations. The object of Clause 2 is merely to make it clear that breaches of these regulations may, where they involve fine or imprisonment, be dealt with by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Belper.)
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2aaccordingly; Committees negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered [according to Order], and dispensed with: Then Bill read 3a, and passed.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
    TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION) BILL.
    House in Committee [according to Order]: Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered [according to Order], and dispensed with: Bills read 3a, and passed.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL.
    TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Read 2a [according to Order]: Committees negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

    BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
    Commons Amendments considered [according to Order].
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): The Commons Amendments to this Bill are not of any great importance. I do not observe on the other side a large number of noble Lords who appear to entertain any curiosity on the subject, and therefore, as there is no burning desire to hear any remarks from me, I beg to move that the Amendments made in another place be agreed to. I shall be prepared, however, to express my views if any noble Lord desires.
    Commons Amendments agreed to.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL [H.L.]
    POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered [according to Order], and agreed to.
  BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to assimilate the law in respect of baths and washhouses situated outside the metropolis to that of those which are situated within. During those months in the year when the baths are closed there is power, in the metropolis, to use them for public recreation. The proposal in this Bill is that this power should be given in connection with baths that are outside the metropolis, provided that a proper licence is obtained from the authorities in whose area the baths are situated.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
    On Question, agreed to.
    Read 2a [according to Order], and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next, and Standings

    1449
    Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ROYAL NIGER COMPANY BILL.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.

    PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.
    RESERVE FORCES BILL.
    MILITARY WORKS BILL.
    Read 3a [according to Order], and passed.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered [on motion], and agreed to.
QUESTIONS.

  THE CONVEYANCE OF MILITIA.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War who was responsible for the arrangements made for the return of the 3rd Battalion the Royal Scots from Salisbury Plain to their depôt at Glencorse. The question may appear one of trivial importance, and one which might be considered unworthy of being referred to in your Lordships' House, but I think this impression will be removed when I state the facts. I was in active command of this battalion for some time, and I am now its honorary colonel. The battalion was ordered to Aldershot, and it accomplished the journey from Glencorse in the reasonable space of twelve hours. The battalion consisted of 500 men, and was divided into two trains; but on the return journey, for reasons, I presume, of economy, the whole battalion of 500 men, with their officers, arms, and accoutrements were conveyed in one train, drawn by a single engine, with the result that the journey occupied about twenty-three hours instead of twelve hours. When the train arrived at Clapham, it was an hour and a half late, and part of the further delay was caused by the discovery that the
  1450
  baggage and accoutrements had been placed in wagons which would not pass through the tunnels of the Underground Railway, and the trans-shipment of the loads, which was performed by twenty-two or twenty-three bricklayers, took some three hours. I have not heard what the damage to the accoutrements amounted to, but it must have been considerable. They eventually got to King's Cross, where they were detained for a considerable time. This enormous train then went on with one engine, and two of the couplings broke on the journey. If all this happened when it was known four weeks beforehand that these men, with their arms and accoutrements, were to be sent by a certain railway to Scotland, what would happen in the case of mobilisation in a hurry? One moral is that the War Office should see that either all tunnels are sufficiently high to enable all trucks to go through, or that the trucks, on which arms and accoutrements are likely to be placed, should be so constructed as to go under any tunnel in the United Kingdom. There is another point I wish to raise. The noble Marquess has done all in his power to make the Militia service more popular, and I tender him my hearty thanks for what he has done; but it must be remembered that during the whole of the twenty-three hours occupied by the journey the men were locked in the carriages, and not allowed to leave for any purpose whatever. The officers of the battalion had made arrangements for the men to get refreshments at York and other places on the way, but, owing to the delay, they got nothing to eat or drink the whole twenty-three hours. They may have been very happy at Salisbury Plain, but such incidents as this are bound to have a bad effect on recruiting. The dreadful treatment these men received will probably be related all over the country, and it is not likely to encourage recruiting in the district to which the men belong. I am sure the noble Marquess will do what he possibly can to see that such a state of things is not likely to occur again.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have not yet received any official information with regard to the very regrettable incident to which my noble friend has called attention. I had

  1451
  heard of it from a private source, and I had given directions to have the fullest possible inquiries made. I have reason to believe that an official representation upon the subject will reach the War Office before long, and I promise my noble friend it shall be thoroughly investigated. It is obvious that if what he says is correct, bad arrangements of this kind, producing as they do great suffering and inconvenience to the men, cannot but have an injurious effect upon recruiting. The responsibility for the arrangements for the conveyance of these Militia battalions rests with the Quartermaster-General's Department of the War Office, but those arrangements, of course, have to be carried out by the railway companies, and until I have received the official report it is impossible for me to say whether the blame rests with the War Office for unwisely planning the arrangements, or whether it is the railway authorities who deserve censure for having failed to carry out the programme arranged between them and the War Office. The matter shall be thoroughly investigated, and if the House is not sitting when I get the report I will undertake to communicate the substance of it to my noble friend.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four of the clock.