Sitting of 16 March 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. J. G. WEIR: Sir, I have a Notice on the Paper to move the rejection of this Bill, but I do not wish to move it. I wish, however, to say that since the recent speech of the President of the Board of Trade, warning the Railway Companies with respect to their new rates and charges, no progress has been made towards securing a general reduction. Reductions have certainly been intimated, but the reduced rates are for showman's vans, ambulance waggons, and brood mares—the entire revenue from the carriage of which would scarcely pay the wages of a dozen railway porters. What the traders and agriculturists want is a reduction of the rates for raw material,

    195
    manufactured goods, and agricultural produce, which are carried on our railways in hundreds of thousands of tons everyday. I would again call attention to the case of Mr. James Keopp, of Arbroath, in respect to the North British charge to him for iron castings between Forfarshire and London. He has to pay 51s. 8d. per ton for the carriage of rough castings if conveyed at the company's risk, or 41s. if at his own risk. The cost of carriage is really greater than the value of pig-iron. Traders have also complained of the inconsistency of the North British and the other railways in charging more for solid castings than for water pipes, which occupy much greater space. The rates at present charged in Scotland by the Railway Companies paralyse trade, and especially the fishing industry in the North. As a matter of fact, herrings can be brought from Sweden at half the price they could be brought from the North of Scotland to London. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the figures, which he can obtain and some of which I have here, in proof of my statement. On the Highland Railway the charges are so excessive as to almost destroy the industries in the North and North-East of Scotland. What is the President of the Board of Trade going to do in the matter? Is he going to regard the cry of the traders and the agriculturists and compel the Railway Companies to reduce their rates, or is he going to smile sweetly on the Directors and let them have their will? I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will insist upon the companies reducing their charges, so as to give the industrial classes and the agriculturists a chance of living. As I have said, I will not move the Motion which stands in my name, but reserve to myself the right of raising the question on another occasion by moving the rejection of the measure at a later stage.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he is entirely mistaken in the attitude he has taken up, and in what he has said with regard to the action of the Board of Trade. A great deal has been done in the matter of railway rates by the Board of Trade, and since he has brought this particular case before the House, I would like to say that it was actually before the Board of Trade to-day,
    196
    and it is, I understand, in process of settlement. But, Sir, this case has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. The Bill simply proposes the construction of a tunnel a mile long for the convenience of the people in the vicinity of Charing Cross, Glasgow, and the people of Glasgow are anxious that the Bill should pass, so that they may be enabled to have this work carried out. That being the nature of the Bill, it is most unreasonable to try and prevent the people having the accommodation required. I am sorry to say that the action of the hon. Member will not serve the cause of the traders with the companies. I was anxious to be allowed to carry out the policy of getting reduction of rates. We cannot, perhaps, have reductions in all cases. The hon. Gentleman says—he made a distinct statement—that nothing has been done, that no proposition has been made. I can say that a great deal has been done, and I hope and expect that a great deal more will be done very soon. I hope the time of the House will not be occupied with a discussion on this Bill.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I do not agree that we are wasting the time of the House. This is the only way we have of bringing before the House such cases as that mentioned by the hon. Member; and so far as that case is concerned, I understand that satisfaction has not been given, and I think we are entitled to see that justice is done, and that this gentleman (Mr. Keith) shall be allowed to send his goods to London at reasonable rates. The right hon. Gentleman says this has nothing to do with the North British Railway Bill, that it is a Bill for new works, and the rates are not connected with the matter. I am always glad to support the right hon. Gentleman, though if we waited to have this Bill rejected I think we are strong enough to do so, unless he is willing to grant us justice. But I agree that there should be fair warning. I do not desire to blame this company more than others. Scottish Railway Companies and many English companies are doing their best in the main, and I do not want to interfere with their improvements, but it is when they ask the sanction of this House to a Bill for improvements that we can bring pressure to bear upon them to remove grievances, and, if they

    197
    did not consent to a policy of justice, the House has it in its power to throw out any Bill they may bring forward. Although the big traders are getting something done for them now, the small traders are still charged nearly 50 per cent. more than they ought to be called upon to pay, and I am afraid that unless this House does something in the matter, the large traders will have everything done for them, and the small traders will have nothing done for them. Now, there is another question—the question of overcrowding. This is one of the companies that has a great deal of overcrowding on its line. It is in the third-class carriages and to the inconvenience of third-class passengers that this overcrowding is allowed on the lines of these monopolist companies. I am glad to know that my calling attention to overcrowding on other railways in a recent Debate has had a good effect. I have received confirmation from many sources of what I said and thanks for having called attention to this evil. I regret the necessity of taking up the time of the House on this Bill, but it is a proper and legitimate way of dealing with the grievances that we complain of. I do not think the Board of Trade has done much good—it never did much—and I am of opinion that it never will assist us unless we make it our duty to compel it to move on, and it is only by discussing matters in this House that we can do so.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  ARLINGTON SCHOOL BOARD.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is true, as reported, that as excellent school teacher has been dismissed from the Board school at Arlington in Sussex because he complained of the insufficient and impure supply of drinking water at his residence; whether the Inspectors are authorised to report upon the suitability and condition of the teachers' residences when attached to
  198
  school buildings, and if any Report or complaint was made to the Department in this instance; whether the Department has any authority, if appealed to by a teacher who may feel aggrieved at his dismissal by school managers, to direct an inquiry into the case, and to require him to be reinstated in his school if satisfied that he has been unjustly dismissed; and whether he will cause a searching inquiry to be made as to the grounds of dismissal of the aforesaid teacher?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): Mr. Roach, teacher of the Park Mead Board school, has received notice of dismissal from the Arlington School Board under the circumstances stated in the question. Inspectors are not authorised to report on the condition of teachers' houses except in so far as they may affect the sanitary condition of the school. In this case the whole school was without a proper water supply, and the Inspector called the attention of the Department to the fact last November. The Department at once communicated with the School Board, who are now having a well sunk in the playground, and in the meantime have made arrangements for a daily supply of water to be sent to the school-house. The Department have no power to require the reinstatement of a teacher, even if they are satisfied that he has been unjustly dismissed. But they have addressed a letter to the School Board, stating that they regard the conduct of the Board in dismissing the teacher on the grounds stated (which the Board admit to be correct) as improper and unjustifiable.

  MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS IN THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is now prepared to make a statement with reference to his action regarding the nomination of County Magistrates in; Lancashire; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House his Correspondence with the Lord Lieutenant upon the subject, as well as the Memorandum of 1870?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,): Having received many complaints regarding the composition of the County Bench in Lancashire, and the great disparity in the representation of the political parties upon it, and having satisfied myself that the complaints were well-founded, I called the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to this disparity, and to the unfortunate results upon the status of the Bench and the sentiments of the people which it involves. Intimating that I was unwilling to depart from the existing practice, although that practice was of quite recent origin, I suggested to him the propriety of taking some action to diminish the disparity, and laid before him the names of 39 gentlemen as suitable to be recommended by him to me for appointment in case he were satisfied of their personal fitness. The Lord Lieutenant having absolutely declined to entertain the suggestion thus made to him, I have felt myself obliged to revoke, and have revoked, the Memorandum of 1870, by which the right of recommending was entrusted to the Lord Lieutenant, and have decided to revert to the practice in force before that year, under which the Chancellor of the Duchy received recommendations from various quarters, and not from the Lord Lieutenant only. I have informed the Lord Lieutenant of this decision, and of the reasons which have constrained me to take it. There will be no objection to producing the Memorandum of 1870 and the letter then addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, together with the Memorandum I have now signed and the correspondence (so far as it is not confidential) which has recently passed between the Lord Lieutenant and myself upon the subject, if the hon. Member will move for these documents.
  MR. LEGH: In view of the remarkable action of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if there will be any opportunity of discussing it, his salary, unfortunately, not being on the Votes?
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member is as able as I am myself to judge from the forms of the House what opportunity he will have of raising the question. I can only say that, as far as I am personally concerned, no one would be better pleased
  200
  than I should be that this matter should be discussed.
  MR. TOMLINSON: What is the practice of recent origin to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes?
  MR. BRYCE: The practice of recent origin was for the Lord Lieutenant to be the only person to send recommendations to the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  MR. MACLURE: Is it not the practice in every other county in England that the recommendation shall be made by the Lord Lieutenant alone?
  MR. BRYCE: In other counties the Lord Chancellor has the same functions as the Chancellor of the Duchy in Lancashire.
  MR. LEGH: Is any portion of the correspondence confidential?
  MR. BRYCE: The letters which are not confidential are perfectly sufficient to show the whole case. I only qualified my answer for the reason that the names of the gentlemen I mentioned were included, and they were of course given confidentially, and there are two or three letters marked "private" which passed between the Lord Lieutenant and myself. The correspondence which will be produced consists of three official letters, and they fully show the whole matter.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to give notice that I will move for the Papers.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Under the Statute, is it not the duty of the Chancellor of the Duchy and not of the Lord Lieutenant to appoint the magistrates?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. MACLURE: If my hon. Friend does not move for the Papers I shall do so immediately after Easter.
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member can if he likes move for them at once.
  MR. MACLURE: I am sorry to say I am going to Malta on Saturday.

  MAGISTRATES AND POLITICS.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the great disproportion between Liberals and Conservatives on the Commission of the Peace for the County of Gloucester, where out of 260 Magistrates only nine are of Liberal politics, while in the Eastern Division there is no Liberal on the Bench; and

  201
  whether the Lord Chancellor will consider the expediency of adding to the Commission?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him if there is any official record of the politics of the Magistrates of Gloucester, and whether the right hon. Gentleman considers it consistent with the spirit of the Ballot Act to inquire how gentlemen exercise their political privileges?
  MR. WHITMORE: Is it not the case that the present Lord Lieutenant of Gloucestershire is still, in any intelligible sense of the term, a Liberal in politics?
  SIR J. DORINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lords Lieutenant of Gloucestershire have, for the last half century, been exclusively members of the Liberal Party; and has he received any complaints as to the administration of justice; and, if so, whether there is any sufficient foundation for such complaints?
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: May I ask whether the late Mr. Winterbotham did not, on several occasions, bring the miscarriages of justice before the House in the form of questions; and whether the present Lord Lieutenant is not known as a Unionist?
  MR. MORE: May I ask whether it is the duty of the Lord Lieutenant or of anyone else to seek for gentlemen to be recommended to the Commission of the Peace unless vacancies have been certified on the Magisterial Bench?
  MR. HANBURY: What connection has politics with judicial appointments? If the principle of inquiring into the politics of Magistrates is to be adopted, will the politics of Judges of the High Court also be inquired into?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): In reference to the question put to me by the Member for Preston, in my judgment politics ought to have no connection whatever with appointments to judicial functions; and that I gather to be the ground of my hon. Friend's question. I am not aware of the precise proportion between the number of Liberal and Conservative Magistrates in Gloucestershire, though I have
  202
  no reason to doubt the accuracy of my hon. Friend's figures. The Ballot Act, so far as I am aware, has no connection, direct or indirect, with the appointment of Magistrates or the exercise of their duties.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I did not suggest that the Ballot Act had anything to do with the appointment of Magistrates. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not consider that the spirit of the Ballot Act would be infringed by inquiring how gentlemen exercised the franchise?
  MR. ASQUITH: We are not considering the question of how these gentlemen vote, but the question of what their politics are. So far as the politics of the Lord Lieutenant are concerned, I am afraid I must confess total ignorance upon the subject, though I am credibly informed that the present Lord Lieutenant is not, and has not for a long time, been a Member of the Liberal Party.
  SIR J. DORINGTONrose again, but Mr. ASQUITH did not give way.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not bound to give way.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no official knowledge of miscarriages of justice in Gloucestershire. As to the duties of a Lord Lieutenant being only to fill up vacancies, I am not aware there is any rule as to that.
  MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Lord Lieutenant of Gloucestershire is not, and has not been all his life, a staunch Liberal, although he is not one of those staunch Liberals who joined in the surrender to Home Rule?
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member had better ask the Lord Lieutenant.

  BOOTS FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is a fact that contracts to supply boots for the Navy have been given to the firm of T. B. Elley and Co., of Stafford; whether he is aware that under previous contracts this firm has reduced wages and enforced conditions of labour contrary to the recognised practice of the trade in that locality; whether he is aware that the workmen belonging to

  203
  this firm are at present on strike against reductions from their wages, which bring them below the current rate of the district; and whether he will undertake that no further contracts shall be placed with this firm until they comply with the terms of the Resolution of this House of 13th February, 1891?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): Contracts for boots for the Navy have been given to Messrs. T. B. Elley and Co., and all have been very satisfactorily fulfilled. They hold no contract at the present moment. Allegations of the character stated in the question have been made to the Admiralty, but after full inquiry, and a complete and satisfactory reply from Messrs. Elley, the Admiralty are of opinion that the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons of 13th February, 1891, are complied with by this firm.

  THE PUNISHMENT OF OLD OFFENDERS.
  MR. STEWART WALLACE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case tried at the Gloucester Assizes, when a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was inflicted on a girl for stealing the sum of 3d.; and whether he will look into the case, with a view to mitigation or remission of such sentence?
  MR. ASQUITH: My hon. Friend does not give the name of the prisoner, but from inquiries I understand that the only case which at all corresponds to the description in the question is that of Ellen Jones. She is a woman of 49 years of age, and is an old offender, having been several times previously convicted of theft and housebreaking, and once sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. There is a wide difference of opinion among the judicial authorities of the country as to the proper mode of dealing with habitual criminals who are convicted of comparatively trivial offences, and while I am always ready to consider the special circumstances of particular cases, I cannot undertake the impracticable task of equalising the scale of punishment.

  SOLDIEES' RATIONS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what changes have been introduced into soldiers' messing and rations at Aldershot in order to provide for a proper breakfast, dinner, and supper?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): No change has been made in the soldiers' messing and rations at Aldershot, but a more varied system of treating and cooking them has been introduced; while the so-called grocery ration, which the men pay for, has been bought on principles which allow of better meals being provided. The changes are too detailed for an answer in this House; but a Paper entitled "Memoranda on the Messing of the Soldier, together with Appendices and a Minute by the Assistant Adjutant General, Aldershot," which has been sent to all commanding officers, gives full particulars. If the hon. and gallant Member thinks it desirable to move for this document I shall be glad to present it.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY CLAIMS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the claims of Mr. Baird and others against Sir Baldwin Walker, senior officer of the Newfoundland Fishery Protection Service, have yet been settled; and, if not, why not?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Yes, Sir; they were settled and paid last December.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Have all the claims been settled which were practically governed by the case of "Baird v. Walker"?
  MR. BUXTON: All the claims in Court were settled for a sum of 5,500 dollars.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Will the money appear in the Estimates?
  MR. BUXTON: It has been paid out of the Newfoundland Estimate for 1892–93. The sum was provided last year.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I shall call attention to this matter on another occasion.

  NEWBATTLE COLLIERY ACCIDENT.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Report of the Procurator Fiscal of Midlothian to the Crown Agent for Scotland, showing the result of his investigations into an accident which took place at Newbattle Collieries on the 20th January, 1893, whereby John Neesam, a workman, was killed; and will he also produce the Report upon the same accident by Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): I cannot lay upon the Table a Copy of the Report of the Procurator Fiscal relative to this matter, as such Reports are confidential, containing as they do the results of inquiry made with a view to considering whether there is ground for criminal proceedings. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to say whether the Report by the Inspector of Mines can be produced.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary now?
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member must give me notice.

  THE IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN CATTLE.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in consideration of the importance of British agriculturists, importers, and shipowners being able to make their arrangements for the ensuing season, he will now state what course the Board intend to take with respect to the restrictions on the importation of Canadian cattle?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): After the most careful consideration of the various facts which have been brought under my notice in connection with this matter, I have arrived at the conclusion that I should not be justified in restoring the privilege of free entry in the case of Canadian cattle until I am in possession of the additional evidence which would be afforded by a systematic examination, extending over a reasonable and sufficient period, of the lungs of the cattle landed here for slaughter at the port. I
  206
  trust that the result of such an examination may be to confirm the view that the requirement of slaughter at the port can be waived with reasonable security against the importation of diseased animals, in which case, and in the absence of any unfavourable news from Canada, I consider that I should be bound under the Statute to allow free entry to be resumed.
  MR. LENG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the inquiry will take?
  MR. GARDNER: No; I cannot do that. It shall not be prolonged beyond the period absolutely necessary for the examination, and the more rapidly the cattle are brought in the more quickly will it be possible to come to a decision.

  GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
  COLONEL HUGHES: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to carry into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Greenwich Age Pensions (1892)?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The first recommendation of the Committee has already been acted on. The other, which involves a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, was also virtually accepted by the late Board of Admiralty, and the present Board are now consulting with the Treasury as to the best means of carrying it into effect. As it involves a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, legislation will be necessary. This reply applies also to the Question No. 25, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, and to one of which I have had private notice from the hon. Member for Devonport.
  MR. BAKER: When may we expect legislation on the subject to be brought in?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: That is a question I cannot answer.

  THE FALL OF THE RUPEE.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Slate for India (1) with reference to the intimation by the Viceroy of India to the deputation of the Indian Services on

  207
  the 31st January last, that the grievance arising from the depreciation in the rupee was one which the Government could not expect them to tolerate, but that the Government was obliged to await the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee, whether there is any immediate prospect of a Report from that Committee; and (2) whether in view of the urgency of the matter in regard to the efficiency of the Civil and Military Services of the Crown in India, the Secretary of State will arrange with the Indian Government to afford relief to those Services, or will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): (1) It is hoped that the Report will be soon ready. (2) The effect of the fall in exchange on the position of the Services is under consideration in connection with the currency question; but it is impossible to separate the two subjects, nor would it be advisable, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, to act in anticipation of any decision which may be arrived at in respect to the currency.

  INDIAN INCOME TAX.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether there is any truth in the report that the Secretary of State has sanctioned a proposal of the Government of India to levy the Indian Income Tax on pensions paid to its retired servants in England; and, if so, for how many years the Indian Government has paid pensions in England without imposing the Indian Income Tax?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The answer is No, Sir.

  LONDONDERRY PUBLIC ROADS.
  MR. M'GILLIGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many miles of public roads in County Londonderry are out of contract and remain un-contracted for at the Summer Assizes, 1892; is he aware that contractors refuse to tender to keep such roads in repair, although the prices charged for their maintenance is from 10 to 15 per cent. higher, according to the county surveyor's statement, than has been the case for the past 10 years; is he aware
  208
  that the sum of £1,374 1s. 9d. of the money to be passed to the contractors, at the Spring Assizes for said county, was, by the directions of the county surveyor, re-presented by the Grand Jury; will he explain what legal authority has the Grand Jury or county surveyor to re-present the said money; is there an Act of Parliament for dealing with contractors who fail to properly carry out their contracts for keeping roads in repair; and, if there is, does the county surveyor for the said county avail himself of the provisions of the Act in all cases; if not, can he assign any sufficient reason for not doing so; does the county surveyor receive the full amount of money levied for the keeping in repair of those roads which are in his own hands; and does he supply the full quantity of metal mentioned in the presentment for these roads?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLET,): I have called for a Report in reference to this matter, but in consequence of the engagement at Assizes of both the secretary to the Grand Jury and the county surveyor, I must ask that the question be postponed for a few days.

  THE GOLD COAST.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of the Gold Coast has instructions to report to the Colonial Department every six months; and, if so, has he done so since the 28th July, 1891, and how often; has he stated how many political prisoners are now confined in that Colony, and what are the causes of their detention; are there any who have been tried by the ordinary law, and any who are detained under Ordinances of the Gold Coast Legislative Council; and, if so, how many respectively; have any died in confinement since 1883; and, if so, how many; has any Report been made as to the imprisonment of Geraldo de Lima and others who have been detained without trial; have they been brought to trial or released; and if still in prison, will they be tried by the ordinary law or released?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. There are still five political prisoners de-

  209
  tained by the Gold Coast Government besides seven from Sierra Leone. They have not been tried under the ordinary law, but are detained under special Ordinances. Four prisoners have died in confinement since 1883. As regards the case of Giraldo de Lima and the other prisoners, I fear that a complete answer cannot well be given within the compass of a reply across the Table, but I shall be very glad to send the hon. Member all the information he may require.

  STREET ACCIDENTS IN LONDON.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of accidents caused by hooded vans in London during the year; whether vans in which the driver is entirely surrounded on three sides are permitted in any other city in the country; what powers the police have to prevent vehicles plying the streets which are a source of danger to the public; and whether he will take measures to insure that in all vehicles plying the streets the driver shall be able to have a sufficient view at the sides to prevent danger of collision with other vehicles or of running over foot passengers?
  MR. ASQUITH: The number of accidents by covered vans in London and known to the police during the year 1892 are 646–18 of which were fatal. I have no means of obtaining the information asked in the second paragraph. Except in the cabs and omnibuses the control of the police only extends to the manner in which vehicles are driven.

  DESTITUTE ALIENS.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of "Wallace v. J. and A. Allan" in the Sheriff Court of Glasgow, in which it has been held that a Shipping Company which has carried back to this country a destitute alien (being an imbecile Russian Jew whom the Shipping Company had transported from Bremen to New York), who was not allowed to land in America by the authorities there, acting under the powers of an Act of the United States dated 3rd March, 1891, was not liable in relief to a parish to which the alien subsequently became
  210
  chargeable; whether, in view of this decision, there is anything to prevent Shipping Companies from turning adrift destitute aliens, rejected by the United States, at any of our ports to become chargeable on our rates; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to prevent such a course of conduct from being pursued?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The attention of the Scottish Office was called on the 13th instant to the case alluded to by the hon. Member and the Board of Trade was at once consulted. They are now considering the subject.

  THE CLOCK TOWER.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the new signal light on the Clock Tower of the House, which is a dioptric lens of the second order, was procured by competitive tenders from the English and French constructors, in accordance with the practice of the Board of Trade with regard to lighthouse apparatus; and, if not, for what reason a French firm was chosen to supply it, without any opportunity having been given to any English firm to compete?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I have been requested by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. Competitive tenders were not invited for the lens and apparatus for the new signal light. The order was given by the Office of Works to Mr. J. R. Wigham, of the firm of Messrs. Edmund-son and Company, of Westminster and Dublin, who is the patentee of the lighthouse apparatus, which has been in use on the Clock Tower since 1872.

  SCOTCH SCHOOL TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has made arrangements with the Treasury so that provision will be made in this year's Budget for a super-annuation scheme for the teachers of schools in Scotland?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have laid on the Table to-day a Minute under which the amount available for pensions

  211
  to teachers in Scotland will be increased proportionately to the increase in England, by £830 a year.

  INDIAN RAILWAY SECURITIES.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India in Council has had under consideration the expediency of applying to those Indian Railway securities which are authorised trust investments, and carry a guarantee by the Indian Government, the provisions of the Forged Transfers Acts, 1891 and 1892; and whether he is aware that, for a premium of £500 a year, those Companies can collectively obtain insurance against any probable loss?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The question of applying the provisions of the Forged Transfers Acts of 1891 and 1892 to the guaranteed Indian Railway Companies has been under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council. An offer to insure these Companies from loss by forged transfers for an annual payment of £500 has recently been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, who is awaiting the necessary communications on the subject from the Boards of the Companies.

  TELEGRAPHIC REGULATIONS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will at once take steps to abolish the inconsistencies in counting words in telegrams; and whether, in view of the fact (amongst many other instances) that West Derby counts as two words, and West Kirby as one word, Rock Ferry as one word, New Ferry as two words, and Broughty Ferry as one word, he will give instructions that all compound words, constituting names of places or persons, shall in future be charged for as one word?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): The regulations laid on the Table of the House which relate to the names of places prescribe that "the names of all towns and villages shall be counted as one word each." West Kirby and Broughty Ferry are counted in this manner. Rockferry and Newferry do not come within the description, but they are commonly written as one word each, and they so appear in the Post
  212
  Office Guide; they are, therefore, accepted by the Department as one word when they are so written. The names of districts and roads are under the control of the Local Authorities, and need not be compound words. I do not think it would be advisable to allow such compound names as West Derby, which is the name of a district in Liverpool, to be charged for as one word, as it would lead to a serious loss to the Revenue.

  POSTAL SERVICE GRIEVANCES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the official deputed by him to examine into the truth of a petition, or statement of grievances, sent in to him at the end of last year by certain clerks representing the major establishment of the Postal Service; and whether he will appoint an independent committee, unconnected with the Post Office, to report to him with respect to the matters contained in the petition referred to, and particularly to the offer of the clerks to prove every one of their allegations?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I presume the hon. Member refers to a statement emanating from Liverpool. If I am correct in this assumption, the matter referred to raised serious questions of discipline. I examined it most carefully myself, and and satisfied that the course which I took was the right one. I am responsible for the maintenance of discipline in the Department, and am not prepared to lay the Papers on the Table of the House.

  ISLAY SUBMARINE CABLE.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the submarine cable to Islay, which was broken on 10th February, has not been repaired; and if he can say when communication will be restored, as the absence of telegraphic communication with the mainland is the cause of much inconvenience to the community in Islay, Jura, and Colonsay?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The cable ship of the Post Office has been at work on the East Coast of Scotland laying a cable to Inchkeith, and repairing the cable to Shetland, which was totally interrupted. She has, unfortunately, been much delayed by bad weather, but I

  213
  trust she will soon be able to return to London. She will then be got ready, without delay, for a trip to the West Coast of Scotland, in the course of which she will repair the cable to Islay.

  UNQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that large numbers of unqualified persons habitually practise as medical men or apothecaries, or assistants thereof, in London and other populous places; whether the only power of preventing such persons from so practising is vested in the Society of Apothecaries under the Act 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, except in cases where such persons use titles prohibited by "The Medical Act, 1858," s. 40; whether the Society of Apothecaries have ceased to use their powers under their Act for many years; and whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of conferring powers similar to those possessed by the Society of Apothecaries upon the General Medical Council, or whether he can suggest any other method of checking such unqualified practitioners?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that he was not aware of any means by which he could ascertain the extent to which unqualified persons practised as medical men or apothecaries in London or other populous places. The power of preventing such persons practising lay alone with the Society of Apothecaries, and that only, so far as practising as apothecaries was concerned. He was informed that the Society had not ceased to exercise its power, but he was not prepared to introduce legislation on the subject.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when last the Society of Apothecaries exercised this power?
  MR. ASQUITH: I must ask for notice of that.

  GUNS IN INDIA.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there are at this moment nearly 200 muzzle-loading 9-pouuder guns in the hands of the Royal Artillery in India; whether these guns are of an obsolete pattern condemned many years ago; and how soon a modern breech-loading gun can be supplied to the whole
  214
  of the Royal Artillery in India, provided that immediate orders be given to all establishments in the country capable of manufacturing them?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Royal Artillery in India have in their possession 120 muzzle-loading 9-pounder field guns. These guns are not condemned as obsolete, though they are not of the latest pattern of field gun. The whole supply of the new guns could probably be produced in a year, if the Indian Government gave the order for them; but this is a question for the consideration of the Indian Government, which would have to provide for the cost.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not a fact that the Indian Government have already given an order for the guns?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is not according to my information.

  DOONAHA WEST POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience caused by the want of a post office at Doonaha West, County Clare; and whether he is disposed to meet the views of the inhabitants in that respect?
  MR. A. MORLEY: An application on this subject has been received only within the last few days, and I have directed inquiry to be made into it. I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  WINDSOR BARRACKS WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the bursting of a water pipe during the winter in the Cavalry Barracks at Windsor, the supply of water was cut off or stopped, and the men were in consequence for several weeks unable to obtain a bath; and whether this state of things still continues, or when it was remedied?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The supply of water was interrupted during the severe frost, and, no doubt, some inconvenience was felt. The water supply was re-established before the end of January.

  SORDWANA AND SWAZILAND.
  MR. LAWRENCE: T beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds his Department has dis-

  215
  couraged the making by Mr. Van Laun, at his own risk, of detailed quantity surveys for the construction of a harbour at Sordwana, on the northern coast of Zululand, and a railway thence to Swaziland; why, in the face of the statement that the information at present in the hands of Mr. H. T. Van Laun is insufficient to enable the Crown Agents for the Colonies to judge of the cost of these works, the Colonial Office still persists in referring the matter to the Crown Agents; why the negotiations with Mr. Van Laun and Colonel William Jesser Coope have been so prolonged by the Colonial Office; whether he is aware that the Chambers of Commerce of Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, London, and Bradford have by resolution desired the construction of the harbour of Sordwana and its railway; and whether, in spite of this consensus of commercial opinion, this important harbour is to be handed over to the South African Republic?
  MR. S. BUXTON: Permission has not been refused to Mr. Van Laun to rake detailed quantity surveys for the proposed harbour and railway. But, as Mr. Van Laun stated that such a step would involve him in a large expenditure, the Secretary of State decided that the question of the practicability of the scheme and of the financial ability of Mr. Van Laun to find the necessary capital might be referred to the Crown Agents, in the usual course, for a preliminary Report, without requiring the detailed surveys to be first made. The negotiations on the subject have not been prolonged by the Colonial Office; but Mr. Van Laun has not yet approached the Crown Agents. The Secretary of State has received various Memorials on the subject from divers Chambers of Commerce; but he has not been furnished with the materials on which such Memorials have been based. There is no intention of handing over Sordwana Bay, which is part of Zululand, to the South African Republic.

  THE REMOVAL OF DANGEROUS LUNATICS FROM WORKHOUSES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the new practice recently introduced with regard to the transfer of dangerous lunatics from workhouses to district
  216
  asylums in Ireland, whether hitherto, as a preliminary to such transfer, an order was first obtained from two Justices under the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 118, s. 10, on a certificate from the dispensary doctor; whether there has been any change in the law enabling this order and certificate to be dispensed with; whether it is the practice now to transfer such lunatics in the same manner as if they were harmless pauper lunatics—namely, without a magistrate's order, and on the certificate of the workhouse doctor merely; and on what authority this change of practice is based?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of any new practice respecting the transfer of dangerous lunatics in Ireland from workhouses to district asylums. Persons admitted to district asylums as dangerous lunatics require a committal order to be signed by two Justices, together with a certificate of the dispensary medical officer. If the hon. Member is aware of any case in which there has been a departure from the law I will inquire into it.

  THE BENDOURAN.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the loss of the four-masted sailing ship Bendouran, and is he aware of the fact that she was a vessel carrying over 3,300 tons of cargo; that she had four masts; that three of those masts were square-rigged, and had 15 sails, and 15 fore and aft sails; that to stow a mainsail or a foresail on a ship of this size requires 12 men for each sail; is it the fact that this vessel had only 27 hands, all told, and that it was composed as follows:—captain, three mates, boatswain, carpenter, one cook, one steward, one cabin boy, first voyage 12 able seamen, and six apprentices; and that the usual complement of hands for a ship carrying over 3,000 tons of cargo is 42; has any inquiry been held into the loss of this ship; if not, why not; and will he state whether it is his intention to direct any inquiry to be held into the alleged under-manning of this and other ships which have been missing?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): This ship is known to be missing. She is reported to have had a

  217
  cargo of 2,780 tons, and she had a crew of 27. It is not in my power to afford further information, beyond explaining that inquiry is not ordered in such a case, as the lack of evidence precludes all prospect of a useful result. The vessel was on her homeward voyage, and there is no evidence as to the cause of loss.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the Board of Trade appoint a Wreck Commissioner to inquire into the large number of vessels of this type lost in recent years?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I must ask for notice of that question.

  THE CONSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended that, in the event of the Bill for the Government of Ireland becoming law, the number of Members in the House shall be permanently reduced; and whether the Government propose to bring in a Bill to distribute in other parts of the United Kingdom the seats intended to be set free?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): No, Sir; the Government have no intention at present of introducing any Redistribution Bill in connection with the Home Rule Bill for Ireland.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Then I may take it that the number of Members in this House will he permanently reduced.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not say so.

  THE INDIAN RUPEE.
  MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the intimation of the Viceroy of India to the deputation of the Indian Services, on 31st January last, that the grievance arising from the depreciation of the rupee was one which the Government could not expect them to tolerate, whether the Viceroy in making such intimation had given, and whether the Secretary of State for India will give, consideration to the burden that will be added to the already existing heavy burden, caused by the depreciation of the rupee, from which the taxpaying people of India are Buffering; and whether the Secretary of State for India will submit the matter to
  218
  the consideration of this House before adopting any decision?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: In considering the position of the members of the Indian Services owing to the fall in the gold value of the rupee, the effect upon the taxpayers of India of any measures that may be adopted will necessarily be borne in mind. On the second question, I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on the 16th February respecting the currency question, which must be considered in connection with the subject of compensation.

  FINING A DUBLIN STOCKBROKER.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, during the late Administration, the Lord Lieutenant ordered any Dublin stockbroker to be fined; and, if so, was the fine gazetted, and when?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that in May, 1890, the Committee of the Dublin Stock Exchange reported to the Lord Lieutenant of the day that a member of their society had violated one of the rules of the Exchange approved by his Excellency under a certain statute, and they asked the Lord Lieutenant for his sanction for the infliction of a fine. That sanction was accorded and the fine was inflicted. It does not appear to have been gazetted, and I do not understand why it should be.

  CHIMNEY SWEEPERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police have any statutory power to refuse to grant or renew certificates under "The Chimney Sweepers Act, 1875," to persons who have been convicted of burglary, theft, or other felony; and whether complaints have reached him that persons who have been so convicted carry on the business or trade of chimney sweepers, and thus have special facilities for committing crime?
  MR. ASQUITH: There is no statutory power such as that mentioned in the first paragraph. I understand that no complaints on the subject have come to the knowledge of the police.

  THE DEER FOREST COMMISSION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is intended to give crofters, cottars, and others opportunities for submitting statements and giving evidence before the Deer Forest Commission, with respect to grievances occasioned by deer forests, grouse preserves, and sheep runs; and whether the Commissioners will make arrangements to give due notice of their intended visit to the districts concerned?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Commission have instructions to inquire whether any and, if any, what, land in the crofter counties now occupied for a deer forest, for other sporting purposes, or for grazing on a large scale, is capable of being profitably utilised by crofters or other small tenants. Naturally, they will receive evidence from all competent sources, whether crofter or landlord, which bears on this subject. I have little doubt that is how they will read their Commission. The Commissioners will give due notice of their visit to any district.

  THE HOWARD DE WALDEN CASE.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of "Howard de Walden v. Howard de Walden," tried before Sir Francis Jeune and a special jury; and whether, inasmuch as the verdict of the jury involves the conclusion that the evidence imputing misconduct to Lady Howard was procured by perjury and subornation of perjury, he will take the necessary steps for bringing to justice the persons guilty of these crimes; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Sir Francis Jeune has ordered the documents to be impounded?
  MR. ASQUITH: I believe it is a fact that the documents have been impounded. I have communicated with the learned Judge, and am in consultation with the Attorney General on the subject.

  ARSON AT LURGAN.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that
  220
  on the 22nd January last the hay yard of a farmer named William Taylor, residing near Lurgan, was burned, and that two farmers, named Daniel Campbell and Joseph Campbell, supplied District Inspector Gray, of Lurgan, with a statement to the effect that they saw Taylor himself set fire to some of the stacks, and why the police have not taken any steps to prosecute Taylor on a charge of arson?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is reported that an action for slander has been brought by Mr. Taylor arising out of the burning of his hay, and pending the hearing of this action it is not advisable to make any statement.

  DUBLIN RATE COLLECTORS.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. R. M. Richardson, an officer receiving £120 a year, with a bonus of £10, in the Department of the Collector General of Rates in Dublin, who has been retired after 14 years' service, at 10 days' notice, on a superannuation allowance of £6 10s., under "The Dublin Corporation Act, 1890," while of seven officers retired under the Act five were awarded two-thirds of their salaries as retiring allowances; and if he will state on what grounds Mr. Richardson was awarded only one-twentieth of his salary and bonus; and whether he will reconsider Mr. Richardson's claim, with the view of granting him a more equitable retiring allowance?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that Mr. Richardson's appointment as warrant officer in the Collector General's Department is dated 8th May, 1890, and that his office was abolished from the 1st January last in consequence of the Corporation taking over from that date the collection of the municipal rates. Mr. Richardson then had but two years service towards pension, and his case was dealt with under the terms applicable to a Civil servant with less than five years pensionable service, whose office is abolished. The other officers referred to had many years of service, and were awarded two-thirds of their emoluments, because these were the terms usually awarded to officers appointed to the

  221
  Collector General's office as far back as they had been. Mr. Richardson, before his appointment in 1890, was in the private employment of his predecessor for 12 years. He was not during this period in any sense an officer of the Department, and whatever remuneration he received was paid to him out of the private pocket of the previous warrant officer.

  BANKRUPTCY OFFICIALS.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say upon what principle it is that Official Receivers in Bankruptcy are prohibited from accepting political agencies or appointments of that character, and also from being either County or Town Councillors, whilst Registrars of County Courts, whose duties are in many respects very similar, are placed under no restrictions whatever?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The salaried Official Receivers are permanent Civil servants of the Crown, and to these the Rules of the Civil Service undoubtedly apply. The unsalaried Receivers are in a different position, and at the time of appointment several of them held municipal offices, and have continued to do so. The Registrars of County Courts are not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade.

  THE HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
  MR. BEITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if a formal protest has been received at the Colonial Office from all of the unofficial members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong against the Third Reading and passing of the Appropriation Ordinance for 1893 (Ordinance No. 12 of 1892) in which they affirm that the sums included for salaries and official expenses were much in excess of what was necessary, and what the Colony could afford; if such sums for the salaries, &c, were included by the Committee of Council over-ruling the decision of the Finance Committee, which had passed resolutions amending the Estimates for 1893, and reducing the corresponding items in the Appropriation Ordinance; and if, in view of this protest and the known depressed condition
  222
  of affairs in the Colony, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will grant the prayer of the protestors, that an independent Commission be appointed with full power to investigate and report on the condition of affairs in Hong Kong and the relative cost of the administration?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the facts are as therein stated; but it should be noted that the increases of salary of which complaint is made, which date from 1891, were sanctioned by Lord Ripon's predecessor on the recommendation of a Committee almost entirely composed of unofficial members of Council. With regard to the third part of the question, while Lord Ripon cannot assent to the reduction of the salaries of the holders of office, he is fully alive to the fact that the expenditure on establishment in Hong Kong is very high, and he is taking measures, consistently with respect to the claims of existing officers, to reduce it. The question of an inquiry is under his consideration.

  GOLD COAST SURVEYS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is true that Sir Brand ford Griffith has proposed an official survey of railway routes within the British protectorate on the Gold Coast; if so, what are the proposed routes to be surveyed; is it also true that Captain Irvine Long, of the Royal Engineers, has been appointed to the command of the surveying expedition; and whether he is to be accompanied by an armed escort of Houssas, and what is the necessity of such an escort?
  MR. BUXTON: A preliminary survey is about to be undertaken with a view to ascertain the most practicable and expedient route for a railway or railways in the Gold Coast Colony. The question of what routes shall be surveyed will be decided in conference between the Governor and the officer in charge of the survey—namely, Captain J. Irvine Long, R.E. It will be, of course, the Governor's duty to take such precautions as he may deem necessary to secure the safety of Captain Long and his party.

  THE KANAKAS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any of Her Majesty's ships on the Australian Station have been specially charged with the duty of supervising the recruiting of Kanakas; and whether any official Report has yet been received from the Admiral in command on the Australian Station as to the working of the new Regulations adopted by the Parliament of Queensland for the recruiting of Kanakas for the sugar plantations of that Colony?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Some of Her Majesty's ships on the Australian Station are annually employed among the Pacific Islands, and among their duties is that of preventing abuses in recruiting labourers. No Report has been received from the Commander-in-Chief as to the working of the regulations issued by the Governor of Queensland in May, 1892, in pursuance of the Pacific Island Labourers Acts, 1890–92.

  NEW CALEDONIA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the late Right Hon. W. B. Dalley, P. C, when acting Premier of New South Wales, brought Tinder the notice of Her Majesty's Government the embarrassing condition of New Caledonia in relation to the Australian Colonies; whether Mr. Dalley submitted any proposals or suggestions with a view to the acquisition of New Caledonia by Her Majesty's Government, if so, whether there is any objection to stating the general tenor of such proposals or suggestions; and whether it is on record that the French Government expressed a willingness to cede New Caledonia to the British Crown in exchange for the Falkland Islands?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Parliamentary Paper, 3839, of 1884, laid by the Colonial Office, shows that the attention of Her Majesty's Government was called to the serious consequences resulting to the Australian Colonies from the transportation of relapsed French criminals to New Caledonia, but the answer to the two last paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  ALLEGED MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AT CIRENCESTER.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an alleged miscarriage of justice at the Cirencester Petty Sessions on the 6th inst., in a case of assault on a labourer named Hulbert by a billsticker named Lucy, which was dismissed by the local Bench; and, if so, whether he will take any action in the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: The case was dismissed because the Magistrates, after careful investigation, thought the evidence was insufficient to support the charge. I have, under such circumstances, no power to interfere.

  THE LOCAL VETO BILL.
  MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision of the Government not to proceed with the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill before Easter, an opportunity can be given to the House to discuss the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill before that date; and whether he can name an approximate date when the Second Reading of that measure will be submitted to the House and proceeded with?
  MR. BOLITHO: May I ask whether, in view of the impossibility of dealing with the many Bills on this subject during the present Session, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of referring them to a Committee in order that the question may be dealt with on a comprehensive basis and a settlement promptly arrived at?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Salisbury, I have thankfully to acknowledge his anxiety for the rapid progress of the measures of the Government. How soon I may be able to gratify his eager-ness in so good a cause I am unable to say, but I hope the incidents of yesterday may have given him some satisfaction and slake his thirst for rapid legislation. But his proposal is hardly consistent with that of the hon. Gentleman behind me, because he proposes a Committee, which perhaps would rather delay than facilitate the progress of the measure. I am only

  225
  able to say that as soon as we can proceed with that measure we shall be very glad to do so, and we have great hopes of success. I do not think it is a sort of measure that could be satisfactorily dealt with by a Committee.
  MR. HULSE: May I assume that this Bill is not going to be pushed forward, and that it is the intention of the Government to drop it forthwith?
  [No answer was given.]

  PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT HALLS
  MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a recent conviction of Thomas Chilvers at the Clerkenwell Police Court, on the prosecution of the London County Council, for unlawfully keeping open a place of public resort for the purpose of public music without having obtained a County Council certificate; and whether he will call the attention of the London County Council or direct the police to prosecute in the case of a number of places of public resort unlicensed, in which concerts and entertainments were announced in the Press to be given last Sunday?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that his attention had not been previously called to this case. Where there was no actual disorderly conduct or immorality the police did not take action, but left such things to be dealt with by the inhabitants of the district. He did not think it would lie advisable that the police should depart from the ordinary practice.

  THE PROPOSED CESSION OF SWAZILAND.
  MR.BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that all English residents in Swaziland and in the Transvaal are unanimously against any consent being given by Her Majesty's Government to the cession of Swaziland to the South African Republic, even with the consent of the Queen of the Swazis; whether he is aware that letters which are sent from British residents in Swaziland are sometimes detained or opened by officials of the South African Republic; if he can state what guarantee could be obtained for the protection of the interests and rights of British subjects in
  226
  Swaziland which would not have to be enforced by war; if he can state what necessity there is for the cession of Swaziland to anyone, beyond the carrying out of the bargain made by Mr. Cecil Rhodes for the undisturbed advance of his Chartered Company into Mashona-land, as stated in Blue Book, No. C. 6201, page 14; and if he is aware that the present Representative of the British Commissioner in Swaziland has reported to the High Commissioner at the Cape that if Swaziland is handed over to the Boers there will be bloodshed?
  MR. S. BUXTON: It is possible that English residents in Swaziland might be opposed to being governed solely by the South African Republic; but it is not probable that English residents in the Transvaal are opposed to the alteration of the present system of adminstration in Swaziland. As regards the second quest ion we have no information; but if the hon. Member will furnish particulars inquiry will be made. The guarantees for the protection of the interests and rights of British subjects in Swaziland will form an important element in the forthcoming Conference. The question of the future Government of Swaziland has not been raised by Her Majesty's Government; but they are bound by the pledges of their Predecessors in Office to discuss the matter with the South African Republic before the end of three years from August 1890, with a view to meet as far as possible the wishes of the latter. The Secretary of State is not aware that the present Representative of the British Commissioner in Swaziland has reported to the High Commissioner at the Cape to the effect stated in the question.

  YARN IMPORTS.
  MR. WHITELEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of Continental dyed and undyed yarns, also Continental woollen and worsted yarns, imported into this country during the year 1892, and during the months of January and February 1893?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is not possible to give the information asked. Imported yarns, whether woollen or cotton, are no. divided into "dyed" and "undyed" in the import list, nor are woollen and worsted yarns distinguished. The details

  227
  of the imports of cotton, linen, and woollen yarn for 1892 will be found in the Annual Statement of Trade which will be issued in a few weeks.

  BURLINGTON HOUSE COLONNADE.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Board of Works will accept the proposal of the London County Council and co-operate with it in the removal and re-erection of the stones now lying in Battersea Park, which formerly composed the Colonnade of Burlington House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have not been able to promise to submit to Parliament a Vote for—1,000 towards the cost of the re-erection of these stones. It would, I think, be a purely Metropolitan work.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the highest military and naval authorities in this country, sitting on the Royal Commission to inquire into the expediency of allowing the proposed Channel Tunnel to be made or examined as witnesses, expressed a decidedly adverse opinion on strategic and national grounds; whether he is further aware that the annual notice of opposition to the Channel Tunnel Bill, although given by the representative of the Board of Trade, as responsible for the control of railways, has hitherto always been given with the direct concurrence of the War Office and the Admiralty; and whether he can state that the naval and military authorities responsible for the defence of the country have in any way modified the views held and expressed by them, as before referred to, and have advised the Board of Trade to withdraw all opposition to the Bill and to support it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The important part of the question is in the last paragraph, to which my answer is in the negative.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: My question is do the Government, in face of the views of the military authorities, intend to allow this scheme to proceed?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The question was, had they modified their views. I answered that in the negative.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Then I will ask whether the Report of the Committee made to the House on the Channel Tunnel Bill was not to the effect that the majority of the Committee were of opinion that Parliamentary sanction should not be given to submarine communication between England and France, and that 13 naval and military witnesses were of the same opinion, only one expressing a contrary opinion; and whether, in view of this fact, Her Majesty's Government intend to sanction the Channel Tunnel?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not answering for Her Majesty's Government. Any question on that score had better be addressed to my right hon. Friend.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question—whether the War Office have not always expressed the opinion that such works would be dangerous; and whether the right hon. Gentleman, as head of the War Office, cannot speak on behalf of the Government and say whether he does or does not agree with that opinion?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the War Office? The naval and military authorities are now of the same opinion as hitherto, and that is against the Channel Tunnel. How often am I obliged to say that in order to make the right hon. Gentleman understand?

  THE ACHILL RAILWAY WORKS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 4th instant a young man named Michael M'Clean was compelled to leave off working on the Achill Railway works because on the previous night he had signed a Petition against the Home Rule Bill; and whether he will take steps to protect M'Clean and others in the exercise of their rights as citizens?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that the statements in the first paragraph are true so far as they go, but they do not tell the whole story. The civil engineer in charge informed the men they would be discharged if they interfered with M'Clean who returned to his work on

  229
  the 6th inst., and has been working ever since.
  MR. SEXTON: In view of the general inquiry made in the second paragraph of the question, I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will instruct the police to report to the Inspector General any cases which come under their notice of persons being discharged or subjected to injury or loss for refusing to sign Petitions?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is a question which requires consideration, and I will give it consideration.

  MAJOR JEKYLL AND THE NATIONALISTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Nationalist Convention recently held in Dublin was attended by Major Jekyll, the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and whether it is usual for the private secretary of the Queen's Representative in Ireland to attend Party political demonstrations?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will also ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to the fact that at the Unionist meeting held in Dublin this week another Viceregal official chose to declare his colours on the Tory side?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir; I have not heard of the Viceregal official who has declared his colours on the Tory side. As to the question on the Paper, the hon. Member has been misinformed. Major Jekyll, private secretary to his Excellency, informs me that the report is entirely untrue, and that he was not present at the Convention referred to.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I feel bound to say that the question is not on the Paper as I handed it in, but no doubt it was revised properly. What I desired to ask was whether the information was conveyed by the Evening Telegraph, a Government organ?
  MR. SEXTON: May I inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information that at a political meeting at Trinity College this week a Judge of the High Court of Justice—Mr. Justice Warren—attended and spoke, as a Judge of the High Court of Justice, against the Home Rule Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have been informed of this, and I received the information with some regret.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY AND HOME RULE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any objection to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary signing Petitions for or against the Home Rule Bill, seeing that the measure seriously affects the future of the Force?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Constabulary Code contains a Rule which states that—
  "It cannot be too strongly or frequently impressed upon both the officers and men of the establishment that, as its character and efficiency would be seriously injured by even a suspicion of its partisanship, the expression or any other manifestation of political or sectarian opinions on the part of any members of the Force is most strictly forbidden."
  That is the Rule in the Code, but, of course, if any members of the Constabulary think their position or prospects likely to be affected, it is open to them to submit through their officers to the Government any representation they may consider necessary in their interests.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: May I ask whether, as under the Government of Ireland Bill the establishment of the Constabulary is to last only six years, that Rule against partisanship; is to be enforced throughout that time?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I should think so; but really the right hon. Gentleman is as well able to interpret the Rule as I am. I should think that whether the Constabulary is to last for sis years or not, so long as it remains as it is now, the Rules of the Code will be applied.

  MALICIOUS INJURIES IN KERRY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number of applications for compensation for malicious injury made at the recent Kerry Assizes with the results, and if he can classify the applications and indicate the nature of the offences?
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman at the same time give the corresponding information for the preceding two years?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There were 39 applications for compensation for malicious injuries at the recent Kerry Assizes. Compensation was granted in 26 of these cases, classified as follows:—Killing and maiming animals, eight; incendiary fires, 12; injuries to property, five; assaulting and injuring a police-sergeant, one. In 13 cases compensation was refused, and the classification of these is as follows:—Killing and maiming cattle, six; incendiary fires, six; injuries to property, one. At the Kerry Spring Assizes of 1892 compensation for malicious injuries was applied for in 38 cases, and granted in 37—[Nationalist Cheers]—the classification of the latter being:—Incendiary fires, 17; maiming cattle, 15; injuries to property, five. At the Kerry Spring Assizes of 1891 compensation for such injuries was applied for in 40 cases and granted in 39, the classification of these latter being:—Incendiary fires, seven; maiming cattle, 26; injuries to property, six.

  THE IRISH LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ON CRIME.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the address of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland to the Grand Jury of County Mayo, as reported in The Irish Daily Independent of Saturday last, in which an increase in the class of serious crime is reported, and in which the Judge stated, with regard to the failure of the County Inspector of Police to report a case of unlawful assembly, that it caused a very nasty, uncomfortable, and disagreeable feeling to a Judge to have these things come out by special inquiries, and by putting special requisitions; and that, whatever might be the reason, there was no mention of this unlawful assembly on the record before him; and whether he can state the name of the County Inspector of Mayo, and if he has been called upon to offer any explanation of his conduct?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Judge did, I believe, make the observation. Contrary to the usual practice, he took the figures for the Winter Assize to the Spring Assize, instead of those for the Summer Assize to the Spring Assize. The case did not appear on the return presented to the Judge by the County Inspector, because
  232
  the constabulary did not consider the gathering an unlawful assembly, nor was it ever reported to the Executive Government as an unlawful assembly. It is laid down in the Code that none but offences recorded as such at headquarters should be included in the return furnished to the Judge. What occurred at the meeting was not considered sufficiently important to record, because the intended meeting on the farm had been prevented, and because nothing happened at or after the meeting which, in the opinion of the constabulary, deserved to be officially reported.
  MR. CARSON: May I inquire whether this meeting was not reported as a meeting specially summoned to boycott a man who had taken an evicted farm; whether stones wore not thrown at the police, who had eventually to draw their batons; and whether such a meeting was not an unlawful assembly?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A meeting was originally arranged to intimidate a man who had gone on to an evicted farm, but the police interfered, and the meeting was not allowed to be held near the farm. It is quite true that after the dispersion of the meeting a body of men did throw stones at the constabulary and the constabulary drew their batons; but the judgment of the police on the spot was that, as the meeting had been prevented, as no injury had been done by the stone throwing, and as they had not to use their truncheons, they were justified in not reporting it as an unlawful assembly.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it the custom of the English Judges to cross-examine the police on their Reports?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not able to answer the question.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps the Home Secretary will say whether it is the practice in England for Judges at Assizes to cross-examine the police with respect to the official Reports to be presented at the Assizes?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; I have never heard of such a thing.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Do they ever have to deal with a similar set of circumstances?
  [No answer was given.]

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN IRELAND.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the impossibility in some country schools in Ireland of maintaining the average of attendance required under the existing rules relating to assistant teachers, he would consider the advisability of recommending an extension of the rule regulating average attendance to two years, instead of, as at present, two consecutive quarters, for assistant teachers of long standing in the service of the Board of National Education?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As already stated, the Irish Government, in 1879, considered 70 as the minimum average daily attendance that would require the aid of an assistant teacher. The Commissioners have no intention of proposing any alteration in the Rule then made at the instance of the Irish Government, or any change in the liberal provisions existing in the Rules—namely, for two quarters' pay after the average has fallen below 70, and for even further periods of indulgence in cases of epidemic, severe weather, or such like causes of exceptional and temporary nature.

  THE BOMBAY CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the slow rate of promotion in the Revenue Branch of the Bombay Civil Service; whether there are members of the said branch, of over 20 years' service, who have not yet attained the position of permanent heads of districts, while the average time in the other Presidencies is about 14 years; what is the cause of the difference; and whether, under the circumstances, it would be possible to employ those whose promotion has been blocked, in political or other appointments, directly under the Government of India?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: Yes; the attention of the Secretary of State has frequently been drawn to the slow rate of promotion in the Revenue Branch of the Bombay Civil Service. There are five members of that branch, of over 20 years' service, who have not yet attained the position of permanent heads of districts; but of these one is serving under the
  234
  Government of India as Census Commissioner, and two others are officiating as heads of districts. It is doubtful whether the average service, before attaining the position of head of a district in other Provinces, is so low as 14 years. The principal cause of the slowness of promotion has been the over-recruitment in the years 1867-70, the effects of which are gradually passing away. The choice of officers from the various local services for employment under the Government of India is a matter which must be left to the discretion of that Government.

  TRAWLING IN THE FIRTH OF CLYDE.
  MR. BIRKMYRE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what protection is given against steam trawling vessels to the fishermen along the lower reaches of the Firth of Clyde; and whether a systematic watch is maintained upon those vessels with a view to the prevention of their fishing within the prohibited waters, the spoiling of the nets of the coast fishermen, and the injury to the breeding grounds of the fish?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Fishery Board possess a sailing cutter, the Vigilant, whose headquarters are at Rothesay, and whose duty it is to patrol the Firth of Clyde from Greenock to Campbeltown and Stranraer. Every effort is made to prevent trawling.
  MR. BIRKMYRE: I may tell the right hon. Gentleman the vessel might just as well be stationed at Portsmouth as at Rothesay, for all the good it can do in this direction.

  INCOME TAX ENVELOPES.
  MR. MOWBRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether persons making a return of Income Tax to the Surveyor of Taxes through the post are required to stamp their envelopes; and whether the form of Income Tax paper could not be so printed as to be folded up with the name of the Surveyor on the outside and forwarded free of postage, in the same way as the Demand Forms for Papers in this House?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Post Office requires postage to be paid on all letters sent through the post

  235
  to surveyors of taxes by the public. The Income Tax papers contain printed matter on all four sides, and, though the printing might possibly be rearranged, I do not think it necessary to allow the papers to be sent free of postage.

  FREE EDUCATION PETITIONS.
  MR. SIDEBOTHAM: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any inquiry is made by the Education Department into the origin of and method of obtaining signatures to the Petitions for free education sent to the Department under the provisions of Clause 5 of "The Elementary Education, Act, 1891"; whether the Department would recognise any distinction between a Petition voluntarily signed by the inhabitants of a district and a Petition obtained by means of a house-to-house canvas, which could be shown to include the names of persons who were unaware of the real object and ultimate result, of the Petition, and who on becoming aware withdrew their names; and whether, after the Department has demanded that the number of free places specified in the Petition shall be provided in the district, there is any fixed period during which a further demand upon that district will not be made?
  MR. ACLAND: Whatever may be the manner in which the signatures to a Petition for free education are obtained, it is the duty of the Department to take action upon it under Section 5 of the Act of 1891; and consequently it is not the practice of the Department to make an inquiry into the origin of, and method of obtaining signatures to, a representation under that section. The Department, however, inquire whether the signatures are genuine; and if any parents subsequently withdraw their signatures the Department do not, of course, require free places to be provided for the children of such parents. The Department have no power under the Act to say that further claims will not be met for some fixed time after a specified number of free places have been required to be provided.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Govern-
  236
  ment will undertake not to agree to any arrangement with the South African Republic, concerning Swaziland, until the terms have been submitted to the House of Commons?
  MR. BUXTON: Her Majesty's Government cannot give the undertaking required, but Parliament will be given the earliest practicable opportunity of judging of any action Her Majesty's Government may take in the matter.

  OVERCROWDED WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to take any steps for preventing the overcrowding of workmen's trains on the Great Eastern Railway between Enfield and London?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Between 4.40 a.m. and 7.50 a.m. 13 trains arrive at Liverpool Street from either Enfield or Lower Edmonton. Of these, eight are 2d. trains and five are half-fare trains. It appears that certain trains are more popular than others and that there is a pressure upon these. It is not a question that I have any power to deal with.

  LEE-MITFORD RIFLES.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the relative prices of the Lee-Mitford rifles manufactured at Enfield and at Sparkbrook?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to answer the question. The cost for the current year cannot be given accurately, as the accounts have not been made up. For the two years ended last March there was a difference of Is. in favour of Sparkbrook. The cost varies necessarily according to the output of the respective factories, and too much importance should not be attached to any difference that may be shown in the cost accounts.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS:May I ask whether, in calculating the cost, the interest on the outlay upon land, buildings, machinery, and plant was included?
  MR. WOODALL: The accounts for the two factories had been made up on the same principle.
  MR. J. COLLINGS: My question was whether the interest upon the cost of the plant, land, buildings, and machinery of the two establishments was included in the cost of production?
  MR. WOODALL: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be satisfied with my assurance that the accounts of the two establishments are kept on the same principle.
  MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether interest is charged upon the cost of the land in both cases?
  MR. WOODALL: Not upon the cost of the land.
  MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Then, of course, there is a very distinct preference given to Enfield?
  An hon. MEMBER: Is it not a fact that other things besides rifles are manufactured at Enfield?
  MR. WOODALL: It is perfectly true the manufacture of sword blades and other things is also carried on there. As a matter of fact, during the past year two-thirds of the machinery for manufacturing rifles has been standing idle.

  SHOP HOURS ACT.
  MR. STUART-WORTHY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Homo Department when the Return "Shop Hours Act, 1892 (Inspectors)," ordered on 6th February, is likely to be in the Lands of Members; and whether there is any prospect that this Return will be presented and distributed before the Debate on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, of which notice has been given for Tuesday, 21st March?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): The Local Authorities have not sent in all their Returns, and the Return will not be ready by the 21st inst. It may, therefore, be a convenience to hon. Members if I give the result of the Returns up to the present:—Four counties have appointed 15 Inspectors; 45 have not appointed any; four have the matter under consideration; seven have not yet replied; 35 boroughs have appointed 48 Inspectors; 191 have not appointed any; 15 have the matter under consideration; 60 have not yet replied.

  LAND IMPROVEMENT LOANS IN IRELAND.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received resolutions from Public Bodies in Ireland in reference to the rates of interest for loans for the; improvement of land in Ireland: and whether the Treasury will take into account the agricultural depression and the reduction in the rate of interest payable by the Government since those loans were granted, with the view, by a reduced rate of interest and the extension of the time for repayment, of making the payment of the instalments easier?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No, Sir; I have not been able to trace any such resolutions; but I must point out that the reduction in the rate at which the Government can borrow since the time at which the loans were granted is irrelevant to the question, the rate of interest fixed for borrowers being of course determined with reference to the rate at which the Government could borrow at the time. I may also add that the terms of repayment, being fixed by Act of Parliament, cannot be altered without legislation.

  THE LOSS OF THE ROUMANIA.
  MR. MACLURE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the boats belonging to the steamship Roumania had apparently not been put into the water for six months prior to her sailing, and that they were found at the moment of emergency to be unworkable, and that, as it would appear from the late inquiry, it is the practice of some ships to put the life-belts in the cabins when in port and to remove them from the cabins when at sea, the Board of Trade are prepared to give such directions to their Surveyors as shall insure to passengers by licensed vessels the same security as is granted to those by emigrant ships?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Board of Trade have no statutory power to compel masters of vessels to carry their boats outboard, and in many instances this would not be practicable. The attention of the Board's Surveyors has been directed to the recommendations as to the stowage of life-belts contained in the Report of the official inquiry

  239
  into the Roumania casualty. It would not be possible to extend to all steamships holding passenger certificates the system of survey before every voyage.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot the Board of Trade point out the desirability of carrying the boats outboard?
  MR. MUNDELLA: In some cases it would not be practicable.

  MAIL SERVICE DELAYS.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he could state to the House how many times during the last year mails were unable to be embarked or disembarked at Queenstown owing to stress of weather, and also at Plymouth, and what approximate delay was occasioned by the mail vessels being obliged to proceed to the next ports; and whether any such delays have ever arisen at Southampton in connection with embarking or disembarking the mails?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I also ask whether, in comparing the relative merits of the two ports—Queens-town and Southampton—he will inquire, as far as Southampton is concerned, how many times the mails have been delayed by fogs in the Channel?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I will inquire as to that. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that there was only one instance in which an outward steamer was prevented by stress of weather from calling at Queenstown. The mail which she should have taken is computed to have lost nearly five days by having to wait for the next steamer. There were five occasions on which homeward steamers were prevented by the same cause from landing mails at Queenstown. The effect of this was not the same for all destinations. Some letters were delayed, while others gained considerably. No similar case is on record in connection with mails intended to be landed or embarked at Southampton or Plymouth.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he could state to the House what is the quickest time on record for the delivery of mails from the General Post Office, New York, to the General Post Office, London, viâ Queenstown and viâ Southampton respectively?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The best information which I can give the hon. Member on the subject of these passages is to be found in the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Dundee for throe consecutive years. The Return for 1892 will shortly be laid before Parliament. The transit times, however, are taken from embarkation at the port of departure to receipt by the Post Office at the port of arrival. I have no record of the transit times from the New York Post Office to that of London.

  SIR HENRY BLAKE.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is at his own request that Sir Henry Blake, Governor of Jamaica, has been relieved of the important duty of presiding over the Legislative Council of the island; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which passed between Sir Henry Blake and the Colonial Office on the subject?
  MR. BUXTON: It was upon the suggestion of Sir Henry Blake, the present Governor, that the Governor of Jamaica was relieved of the office of President of the Legislative Council. I will consider whether the correspondence can be given.

  JUSTICES' CLERKS.
  MR. OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is the frequent practice for Justices' Clerks in England and Wales to act for licensed victuallers and others, in regard to the purchase or sale of public-houses, situate in the Petty Sessional Divisions in which they exercise their official functions, and even to prepare the notices to lead to the transfer of the licences of such public-houses, and afterwards to Act in Court and advise the Justices upon the applications for such transfers, and in regard to complaints against the same public-houses respecting which they have been previously concerned as solicitors for private clients; whether he is aware that it is also the frequent practice for the clerks to the Justices, who advise Magistrates sitting in Petty Sessions as to sending cases for trial, to act as solicitors for the prosecution at Quarter Sessions or

  241
  Assizes, and to derive fees from the prosecution which follows when such cases are so sent on their advice; and whether he is prepared, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent Justices' Clerks from acting in their private capacity in cases which are likely to come before the Magistrates to whom they act as clerks?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no information concerning the frequency of the practice referred to in the first question, but the statement of the hon. Member is probably accurate, inasmuch as Justices' Clerks are almost always solicitors, and sometimes the only solicitor of standing in a district. In answer to the second paragraph, the practice is prohibited, so far as clerks in boroughs are concerned, by Sub-section 3 of Sec. 159 Municipal Corporations Act, 1882; but the prohibition does not extend to Justices' Clerks in counties. The question of the expediency of such extension has been frequently considered; there is much to be said in favour of it, but the practical difficulty is, as I have already said, that in many rural districts the Justices' Clerks are the only solicitors of any standing, and interference with their private practice would not be conducive to the administration of the law. The extent of the practical evils resulting from the present system is doubtful, and I am not at present prepared to undertake to propose legislation, but I will confer with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General with a view to further consideration of the subject.

  SHERIFFS' CLERKS AND POLITICS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the advertisement of a meeting of the Inverness Liberal Unionist Association, to be held at Inverness tonight, at which Sir Henry C. Macandrew is announced to speak; whether Sir Henry C. Macandrew is Sheriff Clerk of Inverness; and whether it is admissible for such an official to interfere in Party politics?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether, considering that all these meetings wind up with singing "God Save the Queen," the right hon. Gentleman intends to censure Government officials who protest against the dismemberment of the Empire?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I have no information on the point. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that an advertisement of the nature indicated in the question has been shown to me. Sir Henry C. Macandrew is Sheriff Clerk of Inverness-shire. Having regard to the important duties which Sheriff Clerks have to perform in connection with Parliamentary elections, I think it better that they should not take part in political meetings—at all events, within their counties. The considerations which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland mentioned on 10th February, in giving an answer with respect to Sheriffs, appear to me also to apply to Sheriff Clerks.

  ALLEGED TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a telegram handed in at Leicester at 10.30 a.m. on 10th March was not delivered to the addressee, William Campbell, fish merchant, Plockton, until 6.15 p.m. the same day, and that in consequence of the delay Mr. Campbell suffered great loss and inconvenience; and whether, under the circumstances, the Post Office will make some compensation to Mr. Campbell for his loss, and take such steps as may be necessary to prevent a similar occurrence?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am informed that Mr. Campbell was at sea when the telegram arrived, and that, on his return to Plockton, it was delivered to him; but the matter calls for further inquiry, and, as soon as this is completed, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  HIGHLAND PAROCHIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is a fact that under existing arrangements money expended by Highland Parochial Boards on erecting houses for parochial medical officers has to be repaid in one year; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to allow the payments to be spread over a term of years so as to enable poor districts to provide suitable accommodation for their medical officer?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: This question only appeared on the Paper this morning. It would be very convenient if hon. Members would, if possible, give

  243
  three days' notice for Scottish questions, as the Scottish Office in London is not over-manned, and has to communicate with Departments in Edinburgh and with Local Authorities all over Scotland with reference to the matters which hon. Members bring before me.

  THE VOLUNTEER DECORATION.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to recognise the services of non-commissioned officers in Volunteer corps in the same manner as they have the commissioned officers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I stated my views on this question in introducing the Estimates. The matter is one for consideration.

  NON-RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in consequence of his having stated that the Lord Chancellors have not considered non-residence as a reason for removing a Justice from the Bench, and that exemption would not be made in a special case, whether steps will be taken to remove from the roll the 33 Justices of the Peace for Ross and Cromarty who reside in other parts of Scotland, India, the Continent of Europe, and England?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: No one but a Lord Chancellor can remove Justices from the roll, and the hon. Member has stated in his question the practice which Lord Chancellors have adopted.

  COUNTY COUNCILLORS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will advise the Government of the desirability for such an amendment of the Local Government Act as will permit of payment being made to County Councillors of their travelling expenses, if not also for their services to the public?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: This matter will be considered when a Bill is introduced to amend the Local Government of Scotland.

  FINES ON KERRY FISHERMEN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  244
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether eight fishermen of Brandon, County Kerry, have been sent to gaol owing to their inability to pay the fines and costs imposed upon them for fishing in the Owen More and Cloghane Rivers; and whether, in view of the poverty of these men and the exceptional circumstances of their case, the authorities will consent to their release?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that seven fishermen were committed to prison in default of the payment of fines imposed upon them for illegal fishing, and that in the cases of six of these their term of imprisonment, which was for one week, will expire either to-day or tomorrow. As regards the seventh, he was committed to prison for two consecutive terms of seven days each. One of 1hese has just expired. He was released this morning from the other on the payment of the fine and costs.

  COLONEL MARTIN'S MISSION TO SWAZILAND.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the interview which Colonel Martin, the British Commissioner, was to have had with the Queen Regent of Swaziland has now taken place, and whether the message which Sir Henry Loch sent to the Queen Regent through Colonel Martin, to the effect that the projected meeting between Sir Henry Loch and President Kruger would probably decide the fate of Swaziland, has been so delivered; whether he adheres to the statement that such communication was a personal one, and was not made in pursuance of any instructions from Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government repudiate it; whether he will now state that, before the Treaty of 1890 is allowed to lapse, and before any fresh arrangements are made by Her Majesty's Government, or any agreement is entered into with the Transvaal Government, Papers will be presented, and an opportunity given to the House to express its opinion on such policy?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Without accepting the description of the message given by the right hon. Member, I have to reply that the interview has taken place. I adhere to the statement I made that the communication was a

  245
  personal one from the High Commissioner, Sir Henry Loch. There is no question of repudiation. The High Commissioner was acting within his powers in making the communication which he did; and, now that the full text of the message has been received, it has been approved by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government cannot give the undertaking required in the last paragraph of the question; but Parliament will be given the earliest practicable opportunity of judging any action Her Majesty's Government may take in the matter. Papers cannot be presented at present, as such a course would be prejudicial to the interests of the negotiations.

  THE IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION OFFICE.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the clerks in the National Education Office, Dublin, are only granted a half-holiday every alternate Saturday instead of every Saturday, as is the case in other public offices in Dublin?
  MR. J. MORLEY: By Order in Council of 19th August, 1890, Section 6, it is prescribed that—
  "Officers who are required to attend seven hours a day shall be allowed a half holiday on alternate Saturdays, provided that the Heads of Departments in which such officers are serving are satisfied that the state of public business will permit."
  The Commissioners of National Education have applied this regulation, and they know of no other rule on the subject.

  THE AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture why the Agricultural Returns up to 4th June last have only just now been printed, while in former years they were published in September or October; and what is likely to be the date of their publication in future?
  MR. H. GARDNER: Under the arrangement sanctioned last year, the Agricultural Returns are now issued in throe stages: A preliminary summary is published in August, and in October a complete abstract is issued showing the acreage under each kind of crop, and the number of animals under each head in
  246
  each county of Great Britain, and in each division of the United Kingdom. This statement contains the information which agriculturists and others chiefly require for practical purposes, and under the new arrangement we are able to supply the particulars referred to at a much earlier date than was previously the case. The annual volume recently issued contains the full details from which the summary and statement previously published were made up, together with many comparative statistics of a supplementary character. I think the hon. Member will find that under the plan now adopted we are able to furnish in a convenient form more complete information as to the statistical position both at home and abroad, and yet at the same time to place agriculturists in possession of the information of the greatest importance to them at the earliest possible date.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government in the case of all Government contracts to conform to the Resolution thereupon which was unanimously adopted by the House of Commons upon 13th February, 1891; and whether it is the case that hitherto the conditions imposed by that Resolution have been enforced only upon contractors whose work is executed within the United Kingdom, while their foreign competitors have been exempted from its operation?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government have conformed, and will conform, to the general spirit of the Resolution referred to. But I need hardly repeat what I said the other day—that the Resolution has no relation whatever to the purchase by the Government of goods manufactured abroad.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the second paragraph of the question?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am not aware that there has been any contract made for goods abroad. The question the other day had reference to goods purchased in England which had been manufactured abroad.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I was not referring to that question. I want an answer in general terms to the second paragraph of the question.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I really have no knowledge of the practice with reference to contracts made abroad.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the late Government declined to cease supplying Swedish matches to this House?
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state to what the Resolution refers if not to articles purchased by the Government manufactured abroad?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: To something entirely different.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: To what then?
  [No answer was given.]

  CORTICINE.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the forms issued from the Admiralty by which manufacturers are invited to tender for the supply of "corticine" floorcloth, whether he is aware that the use of the term "corticine" excludes from competition English and Scottish linoleum manufacturers; and whether, in view of the fact that linoleum commands a higher price in the open market than corticine floorcloth, such alteration will be made in the Schedule issued as may make it possible for linoleum manufacturers to estimate for Admiralty requirements?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Schedule is at present headed "Corticine," but this does not preclude English and Scotch manufacturers of linoleum from competition. They are, indeed, invited to tender. To prevent any possible misconception the Schedule will, in future, be entitled "Corticine or linoleum."

  IRISH CONSTITUENCIES.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return of the number of electors in each of the constituencies in the 1st schedule of the Government of Ireland Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The fullest available statistics in regard to the 1st and 2nd schedules of the Government of Ireland Bill will be found in a Return circulated a few days ago—House of Commons Paper, No. 104.

  BOUNTIES AND HOME RULE.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BART-LETT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be possible, under the "Homo Rule" Bill, for the Irish Parliament to grant bounties in favour of Irish products?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There is no provision in the Bill respecting bounties, and such a practice is not contemplated to be within its scope.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Is it prohibited?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There is no provision in the Bill about it.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that bounties did not come within the scope of the Bill. The answer seems to be most enigmatical. I will, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the establishment of bounties is forbidden by the Bill, and, if not, how the Irish Parliament is to be prevented from establishing bounties?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have already said there is no provision in the Bill dealing with bounties, and that they were not contemplated as being within the scope of the Bill. I am unable to add anything to that answer.

  LIGHTING ON THE SPANISH COASTS.
  MR. CAYZER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the large loss of life and property on the coast of Spain and Portugal, and to the fact that he is advised that an improved system of lighting would conduce to the greater safety of ships, he will name the lights on this coast, which, in the opinion of his advisers, require improvement; what improvement they recommend in each case; and if any new lights are recommended by them, what is to be their description and position?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am unable to give the information asked for with respect to lights on the coasts of foreign Governments.
  MR. CAYZER: Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman will take no steps in this matter?
  MR. MUNDELLA: AS I told the hon. Gentleman the other day, representations have been sent to the Foreign Office. We have no power to survey the coasts of other nations.
  MR. W. REDMOND: When were those recommendations made, and were they communicated to the Governments of Spain and Portugal?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot answer that without notice.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the opinion repeatedly expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee, and the Treasury, and also to the fact that the Ordnance Vote has always recently been introduced before the end of the financial year, he will place the estimate for the Ordnance Factories as a first Order upon the Paper before the Easter Recess?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The answer to this question is furnished by the Notice Paper of to-day. There is no sufficient reason for taking this Vote as the first Order.

  SCOTTISH COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what legal authority he had for permitting, as in the case of Ross-shire, the payment out of the rates of the travelling expenses of County Councillors attending County Council meetings?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I explained to the House the view taken by the Scottish Office on the question of payment of expenses by County Councils. That view has been embodied in a Circular and goes to-day to all County Councils in Scotland. No expenses of County Councillors have been sanctioned, or will be sanctioned, except in accordance with that Circular. The advice on which a Minister acts is a matter for himself alone.
  MR. HOZIER: Was the advice given on the 28th December legal or illegal?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: It was not advice on which eventually we acted.
  MR. HOZIER: Is the letter withdrawn?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Of course it is.

  OFFICIAL ADVERTISEMENTS FOR NEXT-OF-KIN.
  MR. F. TRESS BARRY: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to an advertisement in The Times of 13th February, 1893, requiring the next-of-kin of the late Henry Thomas Coghlan (who died intestate) to prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kekewich on or before the 11th day of March, 1893, or in default thereof to be peremptorily excluded; whether he is aware that the said Henry Thomas Coghlan left personalty valued at more than £678,000, and that letters of administration have been granted to Sir H. D. Broughton, Baronet, one of the next-of-kin; whether he is also aware that the chief clerk, the administrator's solicitors, and the administrator's sureties, have received notice that one of the next-of-kin is residing at an address at present unknown, but which will shortly be known, in Now Zealand, and that the chief clerk has declined to grant any extension of time for allowing next-of-kin in the Colonies to be communicated with; whether, in view of the fact that it would take 13 weeks for the advertisement to reach New Zealand and for the receipt in London of a claim despatched in consequence of such advertisement from New Zealand, or nine weeks more than are allowed by the chief clerk, he will take steps to obtain an extension of time for claims to be sent in from the Colonies in this case; and whether he will recommend that, in view of the large number of Her Majesty's subjects who have emigrated to the Colonies, a sufficient period should in future be allowed, in cases of official advertisements for next-of-kin, to permit of next-of-kin in the Colonies being communicated with?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL,): The facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs. As to the third, no formal application for extension of time was made, but the solicitor was informed by the chief clerk that he had no authority to alter the time. The chief clerk added that any application for ex-

  251
  tension of time made in the ordinary way would be duly considered. I wish to add that neither the Government nor this House has any control over judicial proceedings. The Judges decide upon their own responsibility in the matters that come before them according to law as they understand it, subject to appeal.

  IRISH HARBOURS.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill, Kingstown and other Irish harbours which have an Imperial value and importance in connection with the Naval, Military, and Potal Services, will be maintained at the expense and under the control of the British or the Irish Government?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Clause 25 of the Bill will allow arrangements to be made dealing with this question.

  PROPOSED RAILWAY FROM SORDWANA TO SWAZILAND.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British Government have granted permission for a railway from Swaziland to the coast to be made on behalf of the Government of the South African Republic, south of 278 of south latitude; whether the Crown Agents for the Colonies have come to any decision on the proposal to build a railway from Sordwana Bay to Swaziland by an English syndicate; whether he is aware that deposits of valuable steam coal have been discovered near the coast on the line of the proposed railway; and whether he will now lay upon the Table any further Correspondence on the subject?
  MR. BUXTON: The only agreement with the South African Republic on this subject is contained in Articles 11-21 of the Convention of 1890 (C-6217), entered into by the late Government, under which the South African Republic were accorded the right to make arrangements for the construction of a railway from Swaziland to Kosi Bay. As regards the second point, the representative of the promoters of the scheme for the construction of a railway from Sordwana Bay across Zululand was referred some
  252
  time ago, in the ordinary course, to the Crown Agents for the Colonies, in order that they should report to the Secretary of State as to the practicability of the scheme and the financial resources of its promoters. The promoters have not, however, as yet communicated with the Crown Agents. As regards the third question, the Secretary of State has no official information on the subject. If the hon. Member cares to move for Papers on the subject, they will be presented.

  THE KERGUELEN ISLANDS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can lay upon the Table any further Papers concerning the annexation by France of the Kerguelen Islands; whether such annexation of islands, situated some thousands of miles from any other French settlement, will be recognised by the Powers unless made effective by actual occupation; and whether he can state the purpose for which these islands have been annexed.?
  SIR E. GREY: There has been no Correspondence on the subject, and Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to express an opinion on the points raised in the second and third paragraphs of the question.

  THE POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  MR. PERKS: I wish to ask the Chairman of the Committee of Selection a question of which I have given him private notice. It is, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, which consists of nine Members, was unable to form a quorum on Tuesday and Wednesday last to consider a Bill appointed to be taken on those days; whether the Blackpool Improvement Bill, which was fixed for Tuesday and subsequently for Wednesday, was consequently postponed until Tuesday next; whether a large number of provincial witnesses, who had come up to town to give evidence before the Committee, were obliged to return to the country without being heard; and whether in future, when the Committee appoints a day for hearing Private Bills,

  253
  they will take some effective steps to secure a quorum?
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: The matters referred to in the question of the hon. Member are not such as come under my special cognizance its Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I believe the facts are as stated, and that no quorum of the Police and Sanitary Committee was formed on Tuesday or Wednesday. The Committee of Selection appointed that Committee on March 3, in pursuance of a Resolution of the House passed on March 1. Their duty with respect to that Committee is to select nine Members, who choose their own Chairman, determine the order in which the Bills are taken, and regulate their own proceedings. A largo proportion of the Members appointed this year are experienced Members of the House, who have served on the Committee in former Parliaments. It is much to be regretted that the promoters of the Blackpool Bill suffered inconvenience, but the Police and Sanitary Committee is now fully constituted, and I believe that an adequate attendance of Members will be secured on Tuesday next, and there is every prospect of the business referred to that Committee being transacted with promptitude and despatch

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. SETON-KARR: In regard to the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to make as to Public Business, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will give plenty of time for the consideration of the Employers' Liability Bill, because it is a measure in which many Members of the House are interested?
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Uganda Vote will be taken first, if the Supplementary Vote is put down for Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is it intended to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates in the order in which they stand on the Paper?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: That is the intention, but it may be altered by the statement to be made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Prime Minister is not able to be present
  254
  to-day, and it therefore falls to me to invite the attention of the House to the progress of Public Business from the present time to Easter. In the opinion of the Government it is highly desirable that the Committee of Supply should be terminated this week, in order that it may be reported on Monday, and that the Ways and Moans Bill should be entered upon on Monday, in order that it may be passed into law. We consider that that is not an unreasonable desire. I have now ascertained carefully the number of days which have been occupied in Supply in previous years in comparison with the number of days occupied this year. The figures I gave on a former occasion require to be corrected, because they included the days given to Votes on Account. I do not propose to include the days given to Votes on Account in the enumeration I am about to give, but to include only what I may call the necessary Estimates—the Supplementary Estimates and the Votes for the Army and the Navy. I find that the maximum number of days so employed was eight in 1892, seven in 1891, four in 1890, six in 1889, five in 1888, seven in 1886, six in 1885, seven in 1884. Hon. Members will therefore see that there was a maximum of eight days, and an average of about six days in passing the Votes corresponding with those with which we are now dealing. Excluding the day which I previously included—the day when the Chairman of Ways and Means was nominated—we shall to-morrow have spent 10 days in Committee of Supply. That is two days in excess of the maximum in the last 10 years, and four days in excess of the average of the last 10 years. Having said so much, I desire to state to the Committee what, in the opinion of the Government, will be a fair and proper, and a wise appropriation of the time which still remains. We propose to-day to take the Army and Navy Estimates, and I am sure I shall receive the support of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench in concluding these Votes to-night, and in this week I should hope, without resorting to any extraordinary or extreme measures, we might conclude the Votes in Supply. On Monday we propose to take the Employers' Liability Bill and Report of Supply, and afterwards to bring in and take the First Reading of the

  255
  Ways and Means Bill. Upon Tuesday, the President of the Local Government Board would ask leave to introduce the Local Government Bill for the purpose of establishing Parish Councils, and on that day the Ways and Means Bill would he read a second time. Wednesday, of course, is not at our disposal, but we shall have the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Bill on that day. I am sure there will be no opposition to that formal stage of the Bill being taken before the close of the Sitting on Wednesday. On Thursday we should proceed with the other measures of the Government which are already before Parliament. I hope we may be able to forward the Registration Bill. Upon that day would be taken the Third Reading of the Ways and Means Bill. The Lords are in the habit of passing the Ways and Means Bill in a single day, and Friday would suffice for that purpose. Her Majesty being abroad it is necessary that arrangements must be made by which the Queen will be able to sign the Commission giving the Royal Assent in time. That must be on a fixed day, which cannot be departed from. Her Majesty must be enabled to sign the Commission on Saturday in next week, because the journey of the messenger bringing the Commission from Florence would take nearly 48 hours, and he would arrive on Monday afternoon. That would enable the Royal Assent to be given on the Tuesday of Passion Week. That is an important point. I should also mention that it is of great importance that the Royal Assent should be given to the Ways and Means Bill upon the Tuesday, because it is necessary that a short time should elapse after the passing of the Bill in order to enable the Treasury to administer the funds, which cannot be administered until it is passed. I should on this point like to read what will be admitted on both sides to be a most authoritative statement sent by Mr. Hamilton of the Treasury. This is what Mr. Hamilton says—
  "Until the Ways and Means Bill has received the Royal Assent in the usual manner, the Treasury are unable to take any step with respect to the issue of the money required for the Supplementary and Excess Grants for the expiring year. On the signification of the Royal Assent the first proceeding is to obtain credit from the Audit Office and to advise the Departments that the money is available. Communications have to be made with Ireland,
  256
  and it would be obviously imprudent to trust to the telegraph alone without a written confirmation, for any error not detected before the close of the financial year is irreparable. It is evident if the messenger only arrives on Wednesday afternoon, subsequently, to which the Royal Assent has to be signified, any un-punctuality of the train would make it impossible to get written advices over to Ireland by post. At any rate, the risk is too great to admit of our being able to take the responsibility of being driven into such close quarters."
  We are placed in a difficulty as to the time at our disposal this year for two reasons: First of all, the messenger bringing the Royal Assent must take two days; and, in the next place, the last day of the financial year falls upon Good Friday, which is a dies non, and the whole of the Business must be concluded on the preceding Thursday—that is, on the 30th instead of the 31st of March. Therefore, in our opinion, the last day on which Her Majesty can sign the Commission for the Royal Assent will be Saturday in next week. The Vote on Account would be taken on the Monday in the week after. It must also be reported before the close of the financial year, and that necessarily takes two days. These days, in addition to the 10 days I have already spoken of, will make 12 days to be devoted to the necessary Financial Business of the year before Easter. I hope, after the statement I have made, we shall have the cooperation and assistance of gentlemen on both sides of the House to conclude Supply this week, and to proceed to get the Ways and Means Bill through both Houses by Friday in next week, and also to give reasonable time to the promotion of other legislative measures. If Supply is driven into next week, it is quite impossible that the House can rise until the Thursday before Good Friday.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What Business does the Government propose to take on Friday?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That I cannot absolutely say at this moment. I can only speak of the Employers' Liability Bill and the introduction of the Local Government Bill, hut probably we should proceed with the Registration Bill.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to my question as to the Uganda Vote?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would rather not give an answer on that

  257
  subject. My object is to induce hon. Members on both sides to make an amicable effort to close Supply this week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has made his statement in a way which certainly excites no hostile feeling on this side of the House, and in the few observations I shall make I shall raise no unnecessarily controversial matter. May I, in the first place, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the law—I do not say the official convenience—can be adequately fulfilled if Supply is not closed till Monday, and if the First Heading of the Appropriation Bill takes place on Tuesday? The calculation I have made, with the assistance of hon. Gentlemen intimately acquainted with Treasury practices and Rules in the matter, is that if we finish Supply on Monday and take the First Reading of the Appropriation Bill on Tuesday, there would be no difficulty in getting the Royal Assent and finishing on the Tuesday following.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have not asserted that the scheme I proposed was the only one consistent with the observance of the law. I do not deny that by allowing no margin for accidents Supply need not be closed till Monday, but it was to that point that I addressed my observation that if that was done the House would not rise until the Thursday before Good Friday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am glad I have the assent of the right hon. Gentleman to my statement, and therefore if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to finish the discussion of Supply by Friday nobody need be under the apprehension that the law will not be complied with. The right hon. Gentleman asks us, nevertheless, for the convenience of the House, to terminate the Business on Friday, and his justification for that was that discussions on Supply before Easter have already taken longer time than in previous years. He gave us some figures to establish that contention, but I observe that he did not include 1887 in his table.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I thought I did. Supply occupied seven days before Easter in that year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In his enumeration of the days taken in Supply,
  258
  the right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the discussions on the stages of the Appropriation Bill or upon the Vote on Account, all of which form part of that general system of finance which the House has to get through before the 31st of March. I took the trouble this afternoon to go through those days which were occupied with Financial Business last year, 1892. The whole, or part, of the following days were occupied by financial work—February 25th, 29th, March 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, and 25th. On some days the time occupied was short; on others the Sitting was long, extending long after midnight; but in all I find that no less than 16 days were wholly or partially occupied in the Financial Business to which I have alluded as being usual to get through before the 31st of March.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That includes the Appropriation Bill, Report of Supply, and the Vote on Account. If you include these the number of days occupied with Financial Business this year before Easter will be 20. There is no reason to believe that Report of Supply will take any time, and I do not agree that it will be necessary to take up anything like so much time this year as was occupied last year. But may I point out to the Government and to the House that the amount of time which may properly be taken up on Supplementary Estimates must necessarily depend upon the character of those Estimates? The Supplementary Estimates this year happen to raise novel and particularly important questions. I will mention four of them: There is the Uganda question, the new departure the Government have made in regard to the payment of the Law Officers, the Evicted Tenants Commission, and the naval policy of the Government. Last year and the preceding year that question was not raised in Supply, because the general building programme was embodied in a Bill. This year it is not; and therefore it is necessary to discuss it on the Estimates. As a matter of fact, the amount of time occupied in Supply will, by the end of the financial year, be ac-actually less than that occupied last year, and therefore I cannot agree that any special effort should be made on that ground to stop discussion. May I, in conclusion, point out that there was

  259
  one important omission from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He told us when the holidays might begin in certain contingencies, but he did not tell us when they were going to end. It does seem to me not an unreasonable demand that if gentlemen on either side of the House are asked to shorten discussion specially for the convenience of the Government, the Government for our convenience, at all events, ought to shorten their general programme up to the holidays. I hope the Government, in making any appeal they may think it necessary to make to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to hurry over the discussion on the remaining 20 or 30 Votes, will sweeten the pill as some substantial inducement to come to an arrangement.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had no reason to join in the pot-and-kettle discussion about what took place last Parliament. He wished to make a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had an Amendment in the Supplementary Estimates with regard to Uganda, and he was told a considerable number of gentlemen on his side of the House were anxious to express their views on the subject briefly. Personally, he was quite ready to get through the Estimates as far as Uganda was concerned, but there might be discussion on previous Votes. It might be that there would be no time left to discuss Uganda to-morrow, and therefore he would suggest that his Amendment should be taken on Report and not in Committee. He would just as soon speak at 4 o'clock in the morning as at any other time, but some gentlemen did not like it. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to come to this agreement. Assuming that Uganda was not reached to-morrow, or just before the end of the Morning Sitting, the Uganda Vote should be allowed to pass Committee, and the Report taken at some reasonable hour on Monday, or, if the right hon. Gentleman liked, the matter might be brought up on the Appropriation Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have had a long experience of my hon. Friend, and I know nobody who is so agreeable at 4 o'clock in the morning; but I am afraid I should act imprudently if I entered into any agreement with him upon any particular Vote, because I
  260
  should be immediately asked to enter into some other agreement on some other Vote. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which seems to me a very natural one with respect to the holidays, and he used the phrase, "If the House does certain things for the convenience of the Government." Now, I must demur to that observation. Nothing asked for in the Motion before the House is for the convenience of the Government. As far as convenience goes, it is the convenience of the House and—much more important—the advantage of the country that we have to consider, and therefore I do ask the House not to deal with this matter as a question upon which the Government have a different interest to the House or the country. With respect to the holidays, all I have got to say is that so little progress has been made with Public Business—less than in any former year—that I am afraid the House cannot give itself, in any event, a very long holiday. All I can say at this time, until we see what progress we make in Supply and with other Business, is that the more Business we get through the longer the holiday will be, and the less Business we get through necessarily the shorter holiday we shall have. That is a condition which nobody can dispute, and I am afraid that is all I can say at present.
  MR. REIDasked whether, if the arrangement of Business before Easter was such that no Debate could take place on Uganda, the Government would give the House an opportunity of discussing a matter of such grave importance?
  MR. KENYON: Have I a right, Sir, to ask a question? I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the immediate urgency of the Registration Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman said must necessarily be taken by a certain day? That is the only question I ask.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I never said there was an immediate urgency for the Registration Bill, but that there was a constant urgency that this House should do some Business. I said that the rule ought not to be established that no Legislative Business should be got through by the House of Commons before Easter Day. As regards the question of my hon. and learned Friend behind me, I am ex-

  261
  tremelyanxious that opportunity should be given for discussing the matter referred to, but, for the same reason I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, I do not think it would be prudent on my part to enter into any specific engagement upon the subject.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he was very anxious to forward Supply—ordinary Supply. [Sir W. HARCOURT: No, no!] He would ask whether, as ordinary Supply had not yet been begun, the right hon. Gentleman would consider the putting off such a measure as the Parish Councils Bill, which could not possibly become law this Session, and other measures which could not possibly be dealt with with a view of furthering Supply?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not share the hon. Member's opinion that this Bill will not become law. As far as I can understand, the hon. Member seems to think that no question ought to become law or will become law.
  MR. BYLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the Queen was still at Windsor, Her Majesty's Advisers would consider whether it would be proper on their part to advise Her Majesty, having regard to the convenience of this House and the country, to remain in England until she had been able to see——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (REPORTS OF SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and the proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the House might agree to the Motion if it were on all fours with the Motion proposed by the predecessors of the Government. But that is not the case, and it is the first time the Government have proposed, as far as I know, that it should become a Standing Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a separate question.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he would like to have an undertaking from the Government that where there was a good deal of contentious matter, and where they allowed Votes to go through in Committee for the convenience of the Government, the Report of Supply should he put down on those occasions at such a reasonable hour that matters could be discussed. If they passed the Motion as a Standing Order it must be on the understanding that where special cases were brought forward the Government would undertake not to force the Debate on Report of Supply at all hours of the night. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explicit statement that sufficient time would always be allowed for the discussion of contentious matters. As the Resolution stood, he considered that it would enable Report of Supply to be taken at any hour on any occasion without proper discussion.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The proposal to make the Resolution a Standing Order was made on the representation of the authorities of the House, that that course would be the most convenient. The Government will be anxious to consult the convenience of the House with reference to discussions on Report of Supply. I cannot give any absolute undertaking. It might be absolutely necessary, as the hon. Member will see, that there should be no delay—on an important Vote on Account, for instance—but although I can give no absolute undertaking, if there should be a fair demand for a discussion upon Report of Supply, it would doubtless be allowed.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the House would be most anxious to support the Government, and assist them in carrying through Business, so as to enable compliance to be made with the law; and no one was more ready to assist them than he was. But he understood the right hon. Gentleman now to say that if there was a bona fide object in discussing any subject on Report of Supply, he would undertake that Report should be brought on at a reasonable hour, when the subject could be discussed. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would observe that the requirements of the law would be in no

  263
  respect jeopardised by his placing the Report of Supply as the first Order on Monday. That would enable any subjects which were crowded out of the Debate in Committee of Supply by the exigencies of the moment to be discussed.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I shall be glad to consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman; but until we see how matters stand, I cannot give a promise. But I have another suggestion to make: to give a little more elbow-room to hon. Gentlemen to-morrow, which, perhaps, might be carried out with the co-operation of both sides of the House. I propose to put down Effective Supply for the Evening Sitting. The Motions put down on the Paper for to-morrow evening do not seem to me to † e of a very urgent description; and if non. Members who are responsible for those Motions are willing to postpone them, the whole of the Sitting will be available for the discussion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolution be a Standing Order of this House."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will not press the Motion if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition objects; but I understood that it would be for the convenience of the House generally, not only for ourselves, but for those who come after us, that the Motion should be a Standing Order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite understood the right hon. Gentleman put this down in deference to objections which have been made from time to time. But I believe it is so considerable an interference with the ancient privileges of the House in regard to Supply, that, on the whole, the House would be well advised in requiring each Government to bring the Motion forward in turn.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will not press it.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that it was perfectly absurd to say that the Motion would affect ancient privileges. Report of Supply was never taken until 2 o'clock in the morning until the late Government passed the Rule that the House should rise at 12
  264
  o'clock. The "ancient privilege," therefore, dated only about two years back, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES, 1893–4.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,620,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c, to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894."
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESrose to make a few remarks on the question of the Navy. He said that an acquaintance with nautical matters and men, the fact that he represented a seaport town, and that he had had the advantage of much intercourse with naval officers must be his excuse for occupying the time of the House. He was moved by no hostility to Her Majesty's Government in calling attention to the Navy. He started with the assertion, founded upon a certain amount of knowledge, that the English Navy was extremely good, and that it always had been the best and strongest Navy in the world. His belief was that its traditions would be worthily maintained by the Board that now sat at the Admiralty, and by the First Lord. There were some who said that the Navy had lost the advantages it formerly possessed. He entirely denied that. He said that the relative advantage of the English Navy over other Navies was not only as great as ever it was, but was far greater; in all the essentials that concerned a Navy, this country had by far the greatest advantages. It was here that iron had replaced wood as a material for shipbuilding, that steel had ousted iron, and that all the improvements in engineering had taken place. A ton of coal now went four times as far as it did 25 years ago. In armament and shipbuilding they were still pre-eminent. He was aware that in consequence of certain Protocols an amount of power had been taken away from the British Navy which was of great importance. He was aware that they had almost rendered blockade nugatory, and had pretty well abolished

  265
  prize money; but the time might come, perhaps, when the powers now laid by would be resumed, and then it would be seen that Navies could coerce Armies, that the whale could fight the elephant, that once again, as it had done before, the British Navy could coerce the furthest confines of the continent of Europe, and that those who ruled the sea could command the land. But as regards our ships and guns, he thought there was much criticism that might be addressed to the Navy. As regarded the men and the methods, he believed there was none; but the ships and guns had been subjected to this great mistake: that the Admiralty had not been content to rely upon their own traditions, but had been apt to copy the blunders of the foreigner. But in the men and methods they had followed their own traditions, and they were the most pre-eminent elements in the British Navy. They might have a bad ship but a good crew, and it would be able to work marvels; but if they had the best of ships and guns, they would be able to do nothing if the crew was not equal to the service required of them. He believed our crews were admirable. As an instance of the superiority of our crews and men over those of foreign Navies, he pointed out that the British Navy manœuvred at the close distance of 400 yards, measured from mainmast to mainmast, whereas foreign Navies measured the distance not from mainmast to mainmast, but from the stern of the foremost ship to the stem of the after ship, the interval being 120 yards smaller between two vessels in the English Navy than it was between two vessels of a foreign Navy. The result of that in a line of six vessels would be great indeed, and, while the English Navy would be concentrated, the foreign Navy would be dispersed. In order to carry out these close manœuvred great nerve, skill, and practice were necessary, which qualities were possessed in an eminent degree by our officers and men. On the question of construction, be was interested to hear that they were to have two new vessels, the Powerful and the Terrible, which were to be of an enormous size, and which were to cost £700,000 apiece. The Admiralty had at last come to the very proper conclusion that the guns now used were too big. These big guns on a vessel when heavy

  266
  seas were shipped used to got full of water, and it was impossible to fire them in this condition without serious danger. He therefore congratulated the Admiralty on having discarded the big type of guns, and on having as their biggest gun the 12-iuch 46-ton gun. But having given up the big guns, he was unable to see why they should go on building two vessels much larger than had ever been built before. It seemed to him that when they had smaller guns, and consequently a diminution in the weight of everything that related to the guns, they might well be content with smaller vessels and have gained the advantage of having two vessels where they now had one. If they were going to have these enormous vessels where were they going to get docks to put them in for repairs? There were no such docks now, and were they to build them at an immense cost? Then on the question of manœuvring, if they went on increasing the length of their vessels and maintained the present sound Admiralty rule of measuring the distance from mainmast to mainmast, it might be that one vessel would eventually overlap another. The Secretary to the Admiralty had told them in the most general terms what these ships were to be, but he had maintained a profound mystery as to their exact dimensions and character. He ventured to say that that mystery was entirely misplaced. It was not the first time the Admiralty had maintained an air of mystery, with the result that the only people who did not know anything about the matter were those who ought to know. A few years ago a naval lieutenant was told off to conduct a Russian around the Dockyards. He did so, and when they came to the place where the models were, what occurred? The Russian attaché was allowed to go in, and the naval lieutenant, who it was desirable should have gone in, was left outside. The House of Commons were not to be informed about these two vessels, but would the Russian attaché be told? These vessels would be built by contract; elaborate specifications would have to be drawn out, and a whole mass of information given to the contractors, and consequently to their workmen, whilst such information was kept from the House of Commons.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Of course, the House of Commons will be

  267
  informed. At present the designs are not completed.
  MR. T. G. BOWLESwas pleased to find his representations had had so immediate an effect. He now came to the Torch and Alert, two new sloops, which were to be built with sails and yards. There was some objection to sails and yards as being disadvantageous in an action; but if they were to make a sailor, they must put him where there were sails and yards. As to the torpedo boats, he neither believed in the torpedo boats nor in the torpedo. The torpedo was a fraud, and the torpedo boat a tin toy. The torpedo had been tried and, he contended, had turned out an enormous failure. As to the torpedo boats, they were only one-sixteenth of an inch thick, and if they were scraped the scraper would go right through. Again, the rails and stanchions were so slight that if a man of any weight lurched against them in a heavy sea he would go clean overboard with the rail and stanchion too. Assuming that these tin boats, with their compeers the "catcher" and the "destroyer" were to be continued, he would suggest that for the boilers the steel boiler tubes should be replaced by copper tubes, which would last much longer and would be found to be much more serviceable. Again, he urged that there should be a thorough and rational classification of the torpedo boats. Coming to the proposal that the coaling stations should be taken over from the War Office by the Admiralty, he said he was entirely opposed to any such change. He thought, however, that here two things might be done. In regard to the coaling stations, it should be laid down as a rule that the naval Commander-in-Chief and the senior naval officer should have a veto on the sea defences of the stations. He also thought it would be useful to have a small number of Marines at each station; and instead of all the Marines being in England, there should be a sufficient number at these stations to enable a captain, if he came into port with sick Marines, to make up the deficiency in the number by obtaining other Marines from the coaling stations. He was opposed to the Admiralty taking over the Marines for these reasons: it would be necessary to man them by Marines; they would consequently have to increase the number, change their nature entirely, and ruin
  268
  them. At present the number of Marines was such that they were half their time ashore and half the time afloat, and it was this which made them the amphibious web-footed soldiers they were. If they doubled the number of Marines, they would be obliged to keep them three-parts of their time ashore and only one-part afloat, and thus enormously decrease their efficiency. Moreover, the Admiralty bad no experience of the organisation of land forces and defence of fortresses, and it was far better their attention should not be diverted from what ought to be the sole matter of their attention—namely, the maintenance of the English power at sea. It would be inimical both to the interests of the Army and Navy if the Admiralty were to take away any of the laud forces from the War Office. Coming to the question of grievances, he said that any suggestions he should make would be made with a view to doing something which would be for the good of the Service. He held the opinion that the Dockyard employé had no real grievances. He had the honour to hold a paper commission in the Royal Naval Reserve of which he was proud, and he should like to bring the grievances of the officers of the Naval Reserve before the Committee. The foremost grievance put forward by them was one which he did not think very well-founded. They said there had been a breach of faith on the part of the Government, inasmuch as they were told they should rank with, but after, the officers of the regular Navy, whereas they were now called upon to rank after the officers of the Indian Navy. He, for his part, considered this quite right. The Indian Navy was a permanent Force, whereas the Naval Reserve was a casual Force, only to be employed in case of necessity. Turning to the question of pension, the Second Class Naval Reserve man got no pension at all, and only became entitled to one when he got into the first class. A first-class man, if he joined about 30, after serving 15 years, or if he joined before he was 30, after serving 20 years, became entitled to a pension of £12 per year. But whereas his service usually ended when he was about 50, his pension was not given until he attained the age of 60. He suggested that it would be much better to give the Naval Reserve man

  269
  his pension as soon as he finished his service, even if in consequence they had to make the pension somewhat smaller. There was another defect to which he should like to call attention. The Naval Reserve rarely went afloat, and it was now proposed they should go afloat once every five years. He thought they ought to go afloat once every two years. A Naval Reserve man was often a fisherman, and if he was ever to be used for the purposes of war, it was absolutely necessary he should get used to the life on board a man-of-war and into the discipline. Again, the batteries for the Naval Reserve men to be trained on ought not to be shore batteries, but floating batteries. The more they kept the Naval Reserve man on shore the less amphibious and less web-footed they made him. He should like to see the Force of the Naval Reserve somewhat increased. It was to be this year 24,010. He thought if the Government took a little courage, and in some future year increased it to 30,000 men they would find it was a great advantage. This Naval Reserve was not a visionary or paper Force, but a real Force, and everything should be done to increase, to encourage, and to train it. He now came to the Coastguards, who had three grievances, but he would only deal with what he considered sound grievances. Two out of the three grievances he would not occupy time in going into, but the other one he considered a perfectly valid and fair grievance. A chief officer of Coastguard got the same pay from the day of his promotion to the day of his pension, but it was quite otherwise with warrant officers on board ship. The Naval Reserve was a Teal Force, and he was of opinion that everything should be done to encourage it. He hoped, also, that the Admiralty would take into consideration the right of the chief officer of the coastguardsmen to have an increase of pay on length of service, just as the warrant officers on board ship had. He now wished to speak of the training of naval officers. In his opinion, there was something required in this direction; as matters stood, they had too much theory and too little practice. There had been too much sitting on forms and listening, and too little standing on deck and acting. Certain examination papers were sot before the
  270
  officers; the answers were given, and there and then they were told they had obtained a certain proportion of marks. What the officer was not told, and what he (Mr. Bowles) considered of first importance was, whether his answers were right or wrong, and which was right and which wrong. The officers could absolutely learn nothing from the examination. What should be done was that the papers should be set, and then when examined and reported upon, each officer should be told whether his answers were right or wrong. By this method they would learn something from the examination. If they took the case of the seaman gunner, he could tell all about the length and dimensions of a gun and of the component parts of gunpowder; but he had got too much of that, and all the while he was neglecting what was of greater importance—and that, was whether, if asked, he could hit the mark. He would rather have a man who could hit the mark than a man who had nothing to recommend him but his scientific knowledge and ideas of the scientific character. He was waiting for the usual "No, no," but it did not come, and he was glad of that, because if it had come he should have cited the case of the Serpent, and he thought he could have convinced the House that in that case the theoretical as against the practical training was not without its dangers. The home of this theoretical training was Greenwich. At Greenwich they had a Professor of International Law, a Mr. T. J. Lawrence, M.A., who appeared to hail from Cambridge. This Mr. Lawrence had published a handbook on International Law, which, it seemed, had been adopted for the use of the Royal Navy. The Admiralty had so adopted it. This Professor seemed to him to be a rather dangerous man to let loose upon naval officers, and he was doubly dangerous when his book was adopted as a text book. At the end of each chapter they had "Hints upon Reading," and then, after mention of authorities, they were told that there was a nice book by Lawrence on the subject, whatever it might be. The wind-up always was a recommendation to one of Lawrence's text books on the subject. He was wondering how this gentleman came to fill the post he did, until he came upon a

  271
  reference to the works of "Historicus"—he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) had left his place—and on seeing this reference he could understand the reason for the appointment of Mr. Lawrence during the time of the present Party in power being in power in 1885. But there was one important thing in this hook which he would call the attention of the House to. It was Mr. Lawrence's definition of what ought to be done at a critical period. He said, "It is evident that no declaration or other notice of war is necessary." Other eminent authorities did not say so. He submitted that Mr. Lawrence was wrong, and he could quote authorities to show that a declaration or notice of war was necessary. He submitted to the House that that was so. Mr. Lawrence went into——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that the question of whether such declarations are necessary does not come before or on this Vote. It can be properly gone into, if he wishes, on the general question of Estimates.
  MR. T. G. BOWLESsaid, he would not, therefore, pursue the subject further; but he hoped the handbook to which he had referred would not be crammed down the throats of naval officers. He would like to say that as against the system of which he complained the Britannia system of training was one of which they might all be proud—one, certainly, of which the captain and crew should be proud—and the Britannia had one of the best captains in the Navy. In the matter of lights, the Board of Trade did not deal fairly, and he hoped the Admiralty would pluck up courage to have something done by way of amendment in the system that at present prevailed. Then there were the grievances of officers. In the first place, there was the question of leave. At home officers get six weeks' leave, but when on foreign service they got a fortnight, which, according to the Regulations, was to be taken up when the ship came home. But then they did not get it when the ship came home. They did not get it at all. An officer might be entitled to six weeks' leave which had amounted up for him, but he did not get it. What he (Mr. Bowles) had to suggest was where an officer was deprived of his leave at one time it should be allowed to him at
  272
  another time. After a man had been on foreign service for a long period it was reasonable that he should have his leave when he came home, as he might wish to see his wife or sweetheart or mother or friends, and it was a matter for the earnest consideration of the Admiralty whether the suggestion which he had made should not be carried out. If this grievance was removed he believed the others would sink into insignificance. They took a man that destroyed his health by sending him to an unhealthy station; and instead of trying to bring him back to health, they took off his leave, which was a thing that was not done in other Services—especially in the Military Service. Another thing was, that when an officer returned home sick, they should either keep him until he was able to return to his ship or until his services were not likely to be longer required. Again, there was the question of long commissions. He could understand long commissions in time of war, but in times of peace—in days like the present—he failed to see why they should have a longer term than three years. They had the Surprise on this service for 3 years and 11 months; another vessel 3 years and 5 months; a third 3 years and 5 months; and others 3 years and 4 months and 3 years and 5 months. The question of relief was an important one. It was a mistake to relieve the engine-room—the whole staff at once. It took a new staff a very long time to learn how the engines were worked and to get them up to full working power. The present system was that the whole of the crew was taken out at once and a perfectly new crew put in. His suggestion to the Admiralty was that the engine-room should be relieved by one-third each year, so that they would always have a good proportion of men there who would avoid the difficulty that a new crew was calculated to cause. His next point was as to domestics, for he held that the Government should put the domestics of naval officers on proper wages. Another question was the entertainment of foreign and other dignitaries. It was most unfair that the cost of such entertainment should fall on the officers of a ship. He did not see why, if the visitors required wines or any other refreshment, the officers, whose pay was small, after all, should be obliged to pay for them.

  273
  They had an allowance made for them at Spithead, and he suggested that the Government should consider the advisability of making an extra allowance all round when such dignitaries visited British naval ships. The Admiralty would find that it would be to the advantage of the Service to do this. He was sorry to say that the good faith of The Times newspaper had been surprised by some person who had been allowed to use its columns for the ventilation of erroneous views on this subject—views which were inimical to the interests of the Navy—and he regarded this as all the more astonishing, because up to that The Times had always supported naval officers in the redressal of their grievances. These claims that were made by the naval officers were not excessive, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree with them, and endeavour to relieve the officers. One other question was that of the appointment of Flag captain. At the present time when an Admiral joined a ship he selected his own Flag Captain, and the business of this officer was that he should give his attention to the Admiral, and actually that he should take command over the ship. That was too much for him to do. The official ought to be known as a separate official; he ought to be called the Captain of the Fleet; he should be selected by the Admiral, and he should go wherever the Admiral went, and go there as Chief of the Staff. This, he thought, was a practical suggestion. Well, then, there were the Savings Banks. These were established in 1886, and in a very proper spirit it was agreed that the men should be allowed l¾ per cent. more than anybody else. But the sailor was a peculiar animal. The intention was that the sailor should be encouraged in thrift, and Lord Clarence Paget wrote a statement in which he pointed out that the sailor might by the Savings Bank save enough to build himself a cottage to which he could retire after long service; but this statement, which was attached to the Savings Bank books, had, he noticed, been eliminated—cut out! What was the reason of this? Was it because of the high price of paper? Then it would be an encouragement if the men were to get the money they had saved on some reasonable
  274
  notice. It was said that when a man went on shore, he would get drunk. That reminded him of a story of a man who asked leave to go ashore, and who was told that if he went on shore he would get drunk. "What is the use of going ashore, making a promise not to get drunk when you are sure to get drunk," was the reply. That was the British sailor of the old times. He had changed from that—there was an alteration in the character of the British sailor of to-day. The man who came on shore to-day came for a useful purpose. They had an instance of men coming on shore for the purpose of learning the French language. These were the class of men whom it was the duty of the Admiralty to encourage, and who should be allowed every facility for saving when they wanted to do it. If the men were allowed to give four days' notice of withdrawal, so that they might get the money when they went on shore, it would encourage them to save their money. He now came to the last point, which was that of the warrant officers. On the question of promotion they were told that it took place for gallantry; but that was not fair, for it was not everyone who could have an opportunity of doing something—engaging in some exploit—which would entitle him to reward for gallantry. What he would like to see was the quarter-deck open to the lower-deck, so that a man might feel that when he had passed a proper test examination, he was capable of being promoted to the rank of an executive officer. They should hold out inducements to men to join the Navy, and make the bluejacket feel that he could rise from grade to grade until he had reached the highest. He would not trouble the House any further, but he hoped his suggestions would not escape consideration.
  SIR E. J. REEDsaid, he did not agree with all that the hon. Gentleman had said. Many of his points he agreed with, and many he did not agree with. Upon one point he had a word or two to say. The hon. Gentleman referred to the theoretical education in the Navy——
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Theoretical as compared with practical.
  SIR E. J. REEDsaid, he had seen many indications of late years to make him think that we were making satisfactory

  275
  progress in the methods of obtaining education, and he would like to illustrate this by referring to a letter which appeared in The Times the other day from a very distinguished officer—one of the most distinguished in the country—Sir Geoffrey Hornby, in which he called the Admiralty to account for the Minute published in regard to the loss of the Howe, and said he did not know a single officer in the Royal Navy who thought there was anything wrong in going into an intricate navigation like that of Ferrol upon the flood tide. Well, the most elementary scientific knowledge of the principles which should regulate the handling of ships would have shown Sir Geoffrey Hornby that he could not possibly enunciate a more dangerous doctrine, emanating as it did from a man of great and deserved authority in the naval affairs of the country. He (Sir E. Reed) considered that the dangers of taking a ship into Ferrol Harbour were largely multiplied by selecting the flood tide instead of the ebb tide. The Government were not quite fair in putting the Committee under such pressure with regard to these Estimates. Excluding Monday week, which was not wholly devoted to the question of the Navy, but was mainly spent upon a Labour Question, they had been allowed to discuss the Navy Estimates at one Morning Sitting of about four hours, and he was afraid he must protest against the doctrine that there was any public advantage gained to justify the Government of the day in suppressing Debates upon Supply, and particularly upon these great Services. He admitted that at that moment there were hardly a dozen Liberal Members in the House to discuss the important questions before the Committee involving the expenditure of £15,000,000 of money. He did not intend to go deeply into any of these questions, but there were one or two upon which he should like to make a few observations. With regard to the Minute issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty, it was therein laid down that, as long as the requirements of the nation for vessels of war at home and abroad continued as they were, it would be impossible to reduce the number of men serving in the Fleet. He had been for 30 years trying to get some light in a definite form as to what the requirements of the Fleet really
  276
  were. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to communicate some facts to the House as to what were the requirements of the Navy at home and abroad. The idea had been that the British Navy should be equal to the Navies of any two other Powers, but that was totally different from the idea embodied in the Minute of the First Lord; and he really thought that, when they were having large Estimates submitted to them involving a substantial increase in the Navy, they should have a comprehensive statement as to what the requirements of the Naval Service were, as based on our necessities at home and on foreign stations. There was another point on which they should have information. An hon. Member had referred to the Manning Committee, which they were told consisted of the First Lord of the Admiralty——
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No; the First Sea Lord.
  SIR E. J. REEDsaid, he was glad to have that correction, as it would render it unnecessary for him to make some remarks which he had been about to offer. That Committee, however, had made a Report, and he wanted to know why the Committee of the House of Commons were called upon to vote extra sums for the manning of the Navy while they were kept in the dark as to the conclusions arrived at by the Committee? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to offer some information on the point. He (Sir E. Reed) ventured to say that though the House, owing to the exciting questions before it, was not taking much interest in naval matters, the time was near at hand when many Members who had not been in the habit of discussing the affairs of these Spending Departments would be disposed to ask why expenditure of this kind was so continuously and so largely increasing. Reference had also been made to the Technical Committee. That Committee had, no doubt, been the outcome of one of the most remarkable series of temporary failures in connection with the machinery of the Fleet that had ever been known or thought of. Immense public anxiety had been caused by the fact, first announced years ago by the noble Lord who was then at the head of the Admiralty, that Her Majesty's ships were not to be tried as to speed in

  277
  accordance with the contracts under which they had been built and paid for. The ships had been presented to the House as being capable of accomplishing a certain speed, and when they failed to accomplish that speed the Admiralty declined to put them to the promised tests. No great fuss had been made about this, although it was a matter of great public concern. They had been told that the difficulty had been almost entirely surmounted, and that the ships were now more nearly capable of accomplishing that which had been promised and which had been expected of them than formerly. How had the difficulty been got over; what was the conclusion arrived at by the Committee? Could not the House be furnished with a copy of the Report? He submitted that, in the absence of information of this kind, it was impossible to say that the House had control over the Navy. Some great disaster might occur in the Naval Service owing to defects in the vessels, or in the system, and yet, when they came to ask for information as to how defects were to be remedied and avoided, they were kept entirely in the dark.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: It will be convenient if I at once state that, owing to the interest taken in this Report, so much of it as is not of a confidential character will be laid on the Table of the House. A large part of the Report is of an extremely confidential character, embracing information only obtained on the promise of confidence.
  SIR E. J. REEDsaid, he should be the last man to ask for information which it would be injurious to the interests of the Service to make public. There was another point on which he thought the House was unnecessarily kept in ignorance. Speaking of the waste and depreciation in the Navy, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had said that in 1892–3 it was £2,063,000, and that in 1894 it was £2,150,000, and he added that those figures completely cut the ground from under the feet of anyone who complained of excessive waste. Well, he (Sir E. Reed) wanted to see the implement which had cut from beneath the feet of the House the expectation of economy. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had given them correct figures, but he would suggest that in future the Government
  278
  should put them in possession of calculations which would show that the waste represented by those figures was justifiable. It must be a difficult thing to accurately measure the waste in the Navy, especially seeing that the First Lord of the Admiralty had described as still useful ships which had been put down as absolutely valueless years and years ago. To draw attention to another and somewhat smaller point, whilst the House was supposed, in a general way to control naval expenditure, and was kept uninformed as to many guiding facts, the Admiralty appeared to have taken upon themselves to build ships without authority from Parliament. That appeared to him to be a most extraordinary proceeding, and all the more from the manner in which it was announced to the House—without any apology, without any promise of an effort to avoid similar things in future. They were told in a very simple manner by the right hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty had been enabled, by arrangements made within the last few months, to build six torpedo destroyers at private yards. He (Sir E. Reed) did not suppose that the House would be disposed to make much complaint in the matter if the Government had condescended to give them full information—to give them a clear and full statement of the grounds on which they took this exceptional step. Unfortunately, however, they had not done that. They simply talked about it as if it was quite within their right to lay down as many ships as they chose in the course of the year without reference to the House of Commons. Then they had put before the House blank estimates for four of the most exceptional and important—for four of the largest—ships that had over been built in the world. He was entirely with the Admiralty in their determination to build large ships—in this respect he differed entirely from Lord Brassey in the statement he made the other night in the House of Lords. They could obtain from a very large ship service they could not expect from a small one. The hon. Member opposite had said that smaller guns should be put into the ships, that the magazines and munitions, and so forth, should be cut down, and that with the savings they could build another ship.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his statement was that, instead of one large ship, it would be better to have two small ones.
  SIR E. J. REEDsaid, it was quite impossible to build two powerful and fast smaller ships for the cost of one large one, and he was entirely in favour of the construction of large ships, because he was satisfied they could not secure with small ones that superiority which it was necessary Her Majesty's ships should possess. But his point was that when Her Majesty's Government wanted to build larger ships the House surely ought to be put in possession of their project and their proposal. He agreed with the hon. Member, who had said that the system of keeping things secret which was so often resorted to by the Public Departments had the effect of letting those people know who ought not to know and of keeping those who ought to know in ignorance. He had heard it said that it was easier to obtain information of an exceptional character from the foreign Embassies than from the Board of Admiralty. Foreign engineers come over to this country for the express purpose of obtaining special—and more or less secret—information, and they had, to his knowledge, been allowed access to Government information which had been denied to Englishmen, and to Parliament. Therefore, notwithstanding that he cordially approved of the proposal of the Government, when the Vote for shipbuilding was brought before the House, he should be prepared to join with the hon. Member opposite in resisting it, unless all necessary information was given to them. With regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that docks would be constructed for the large vessels, he trusted the designs would not be entrusted to the Director of Works without consultation with the Naval Constructor. He mentioned this because, on one occasion when he was at the Admiralty, new docks were about to be proceeded with which he knew nothing about, although he was designing ships for the Navy, and he had put it to the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was wise to construct docks without reference to the Constructor of the Navy as to the ships that were likely to be put into the docks when constructed. The matter was referred to him (Sir E.
  280
  Reed); but there was a danger of this not being done in the present instance. Obviously, it was necessary that the Director of Works should be under the Controller of the Navy, so that there might be one governing mind over the ships and the docks into which those ships were to go. He would only mention one other point, and that should be in the nature of an appeal for information and not for the purpose of discrediting any of Her Majesty's vessels or their designers. In fact, he desired to join in the general praise accorded to the present Director of Naval Construction for the very great success which had attended his labours since he had been at the Admiralty. He had seen an evening or two ago in The Globe newspaper a letter written from the Royal Sovereign, which stated that that ship had been rolling incessantly for many days and even weeks, that she was useless for fighting purposes, because not only did she roll when under exceptional circumstances, but whenever she was out of port. He could not but think that that was an exaggerated account of the behaviour of the ship, but the matter was important inasmuch as it was alleged that the vessel was valueless for fighting purposes. It was desirable that such a statement should receive an official contradiction.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I am oppressed with the sense that if I did my duty I ought now to move to report Progress, because during the whole of this discussion in which we have been invited by the Government to Vote money for the service of the Navy not one Cabinet Minister has ever been on the Front Bench opposite. In former Governments when the extremely inconvenient arrangement existed of having only the Secretary to the Admiralty in this House to represent the Navy, the First Lord of the Admiralty being elsewhere, it was always promised and understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some Minister responsible for the spending of the public money would be present during the Debate on the Naval Estimates. My friend, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, repeatedly moved to report Progress when such a Minister was not in his place, and his appeal was always listened to—a Minister was always brought in. I am sure my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir U. Kay-

  281
  Shuttleworth) knows that I am not saying this out of the slightest discourtesy to himself. I wish he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and if he were I should discuss these matters in his presence with the most perfect satisfaction. I do not intend on this occasion to move to report Progress, but I do hope that the Government will show due respect to the House of Commons, and that in future when these large sums are asked some one who is responsible for the spending of the public money—which my right hon. Friend opposite is not—will be in his place. I have to apologise for the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord G. Hamilton), who would have been here to night but that he is unfortunately confined to his house by illness. It is rather at his request that I am intervening for a few moments in the Debate. I shall not of course attempt to deal with those naval topics which the last speaker is so well qualified to deal with, and which my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn is conversant with as an amateur. I will only venture to make a few observations on the finance of the Government scheme. Here I would say that the two authorities who represent the Board of Admiralty in this and the other House seem to speak with two rather different voices. Anybody who listened to the recent Debate on the Navy in another place must have come to the conclusion that it is the opinion of Lord Spencer that when the naval programme which was being carried out under the Naval Defence Act comes to an end next year it would be necessary to have a fresh naval programme carried out under a fresh Naval Defence Act in order to continue the admirable work of increasing the efficiency of the Navy, which the Naval Defence Act has accomplished to some extent, and will still further accomplish in the course of the next financial year. But that hope has been destroyed by the observations that have been made on several occasions by the Secretary to the Treasury. I understand now that the idea of the Government is that there shall be a new naval programme, but not a new Naval Defence Act. They still adhere to the principle which they pressed so much on the House when the Naval Defence Act was under discussion—that though it was very desirable that there
  282
  should be continuity of shipbuilding, and though the actual operations of the Naval Defence Act had given satisfaction, yet they were such financial purists that they hesitated to withdraw complete control over the progress of naval shipbuilding from the House of Commons. Those are the principles upon which, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is going to proceed. I confess that hearing that and comparing these professions of financial purity with the actual facts as disclosed in Lord Spencer's Memorandum and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in this House, I am somewhat astonished at their inconsistency. The Government in their programme of the present Session have withdrawn all financial control from the House. The hon. Member for Cardiff pointed out just now the extremely cool manner in which the Government have built, without any authority from this House, a number of torpedo boats. The effect of omitting to put in Lord Spencer's programme, or to mention in the speeches in this House the dimensions of the four new battle ships which you are going to lay down is, in fact, to ask the House to pass blank Estimates and to withdraw from this House all control whatever over the kind of ships that are built and over the policy of the Government. Under the Naval Defence Act, although the programme was settled once for all, and though Parliament was pledged to carry it out in five years and find funds to do it, at all events the House of Commons had in the first instance the full programme before them and the programme was adopted. But here we are asked to vote money for the building of four new battle ships over which the House has no cognizance or control whatever. The right hon. Gentleman opposite interrupted the Member for King's Lynn whilst he was speaking, but I do not know whether his interruption went so far as the hon. Member for Cardiff seems to think. If my memory servos me aright the right hon. Gentleman has distinctly refused to pledge the Government to give the dimensions of these ships before the Vote for Construction is taken.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: That is a mistake.
  SIR JOHN GORST: If that is a mistake a good deal of the criticism I am making falls to the ground. If the Government, though they withhold this information from us at present, give it to us before the Vote for ship construction is taken, a good deal of my objection will be removed, but you must remember that the money we are going to vote to-night can be spent by the Admiralty and will be spent by the Admiralty in commencing their ships. Therefore, to a great extent it is true that the present Admiralty are going to lay down and build ships which have never been submitted to the House of Commons, and for which they have no authority from the House of Commons whatever. My point is that for persons whose financial purity is so great that they will not pass another Naval Defence Act to sanction such a proceeding as that is most inconsistent. I should also like to be assured that the secrecy the right hon. Gentleman is observing as to the dimensions of the ships is not grounded on the desire on the part of the Admiralty to be at liberty to make alterations from time to time. If there is anything more satisfactory than another in the Naval Defence Act it is that the building of ships under it is carried through according to the original plans with great economy and speed. To my mind it would be a matter for great regret to fall back on the old system of construction under which the plans of ships were constantly altered, which caused great delay and largely increased expense. As I am addressing the Committee there is another subject I should like to refer to—namely, the wages of the men employed in the Indian troopships. I presume I shall be in Order in raising that subject. Notice has been given for raising it by the late Secretary to the Admiralty, and it stands on the Paper for Vote 1. The late Secretary to the Admiralty is not here to move that Motion. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the expenditure under the Admiralty Votes upon Indian troopships is not in any sense whatever in the interest of the Indian taxpayer, that so far as he is concerned you may keep up these Indian troopships or not, as you please. Troops could be carried to India much more cheaply by contract. The present large troopers would be
  284
  perfectly useless in the event of war breaking out. If war broke out they could not be used, therefore if the Indian troopships are kept up they are kept up in the interest of the Imperial Government and not in the interest of the Government of India. The late Secretary for India—Lord Cross—repeatedly expressed his willingness to make other arrangements for the benefit of the Indian troops. If another arrangement could be made it would be much more economical to the Indian Government. I do not know what the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Admiralty is in the matter, but, as having held the office of Under Secretary for India, I am in a position to say that the Indian taxpayer and Indian Government are not concerned in this matter in any way.
  SIR E. HILLsaid the hon. Member for Cardiff had commenced his speech with strong strictures in regard to the pressure which had been put upon the Government to allow time for the discussion of the Estimates, and the want of interest which the Committee seemed now to take in the discussion as evidenced by the small attendance of Members. He (Sir E. Hill) entirely concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member on that subject. There could be no more important question for the House to consider than the condition of the Navy, which was our first line of defence, and on which so much of the National prosperity, not to say the National existence, depended. It was distinctly satisfactory to know that within 12 months 61 out of the 70 vessels provided for in the Naval Defence Act of his noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) would be completed, and that the other nine were in a very forward state. He concurred in the expressions of satisfaction which had been made use of respecting the great exploit performed by Her Majesty's Dockyards in building the Royal Sovereign, not only with so much speed, but at such a saving of cost. It was evident that continuity of work was the only possible condition of economical success. He felt some regret that more fast cruisers were not being constructed. We had an enormous Mercantile Marino to defend, and in order to defend it effectually a very considerable number of cruisers was needed.

  285
  There was much to be satisfied with respecting the present condition of the coaling stations. Under the courteous guidance of Sir Charles Warren, the Commander of the Port of Singapore, he recently had the gratification of examining the fortifications of that port, and had had the pleasure of seeing that Sir Charles Warren's resources were such that he was able to man the forts fully in three hours. He was glad to see that something was to be done in respect of the training of officers and men of the Reserve, which was a most valuable course, and deserved every possible attention from the Government. The hon. Member for Lewisham (Mr. Penn) the other day spoke about the engines of the Navy with an authority which was peculiarly his own, and showed the House how undesirable it was to endeavour to effect economies in the engine-rooms of vessels at the expense of the effectiveness of such vessels. Speaking as a steamship owner, he (Sir. E. Hill) confirmed every word his hon. Friend had said on that subject, believing, as he did, that there ought in every case to be a sufficient staff to cope with any emergency that might arise. He himself had a point to bring forward which he thought was of equal importance. It related to the manning of the fleet. He was glad to find there had been some increase in the number of sailors and Royal Marines in the Navy, but the Navy itself was constantly increasing, and the statement issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty distinctly showed that the men now in the Navy were only sufficient for the vessels actually in commission. He could not help asking himself where the Admiralty were going to obtain the sailors to man our ships in case of war suddenly breaking out. It might be taken for granted that whenever war did break out we should not have much time allowed us to make our preparations. It might be said that we should get the men needed from the Naval Reserve. Those men, however, might be scattered to the four corners of the globe just when they wore needed, and it would be very difficult indeed to find them. If the intention was to fall back on the Merchant Service it must not be forgotten that there was a great scarcity of sailors even in that Service, and further, that something like 25 per cent. of the crews were
  286
  now composed of foreigners. If war broke out it might be assumed that a considerable number of those sailors would return to their own country. Sailors could not be created at once, but must be trained. No boys were employed on steamers in the Merchant Service. A certain number of lads were taken in the sailing vessels, but they were chiefly boys who aspired to become officers, and could not be relied upon for manning war ships. Until quite recently the coast trade and the fisheries could be relied upon to furnish a large number of men, but the coasting trade was now almost entirely done by steamers, and steam was being increasingly used in the fisheries. He knew of nine steam trawlers which wore being made at the present moment, and in all probability not one of them would employ boys. The question was discussed in another place a short time ago, but no suggestion was made for improving the state of things. There was, of course, plenty of raw material. Thousands of English boys would be only too glad to accept the sea as a profession if they had the opportunity, and all that was needed was that the Government should increase the number of training vessels at different points on the coast and take boys on board. He would supplement action of this kind in a manner which would be at once practical and inexpensive. He would propose that the Government should purchase 10 or 20 sailing merchant vessels, which could be bought cheaply enough at the present time as they were a drug in the market. In those vessels lads could be taught something of a sailor's duties, and they could then be kept at sea in the ordinary way. In this manner we could create a stock of seamen from which the Navy might hope to get sailors in case of emergency, and we could fill up gradually the places now occupied by foreigners in our Merchant Service. These vessels would answer still another purpose. In the opinion of many authorities our junior naval officers did not have sufficient opportunity for sea practice and would be all the better if they could cruise more about the world and learn more about seamanship. He would, therefore, suggest that junior naval officers should spend some time on board the sailing vessels he spoke of.
  MR. GOURLEY(who rose on the return of the Chairman to the House after the usual interval) said, there were one or two points on which he needed information, but as no representative of the Government was present he would move to report Progress.
  MR. HANBURY: May I say, Mr. Mellor, it is a most unusual thing that not a single representative of the Government should be present?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think I ought to put the Motion to report Progress, as the usual time has hardly expired.
  MR. HANBURY: I would ask you, Sir, whether it is possible for us to discuss these Votes in the absence of all the Ministers?
  [At this point Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH entered the House.]
  MR. GOURLEY MR. GOURLEY, proceeding, said, when the Naval Defence Act was passed, the waste of the Navy was something like £2,000,000 per annum, and it was stated in the Naval Defence Programme that something like 30 vessels, including four battleships, were to be struck off the active list. He wished to know whether this proposal had been carried out or not? The naval policy which had been laid down by the late Government was that this country should have a Navy equivalent to the Navies of two other European Powers, say, France and Russia. He thought our naval policy should be guided entirely by the necessities of the protection of our own interests—that our Navy should be made to suffice for the protection of our food supplies; for the safeguarding of our coasts in the event of war; and for the protection of our Colonies. He wished to know if the Admiralty intended to adopt a system of grouping our Fleet in the event of war. He meant that a certain class of ships should be devoted to the defence of our coasts; another class of ships to the protection of our food supplies; and a third class to the protection of our Colonies. He thought the chief and final object the Admiralty should have in view was the proper grouping of the ships of the Fleet in time of war; that they should have a system prepared, and not leave the matter to the haphazard of chance when the emergency arose. He also wished
  288
  to know why so many ships—23 or 24 altogether—were maintained in the Mediterranean. The original object of placing such a large fleet in the Mediterranean was to maintain what was called the balance of power in Europe in the time of the French Revolution; but that idea had long been discarded, and he thought such a line of action tended, in the event of war, to weaken our powers of defence and offence around our coasts. The policy of Governments in these days was to concentrate their strength on their coasts or frontiers, and that being so he considered that portion of the Fleet should be brought home from the Mediterranean for the purpose of our own immediate protection. The Government proposed to construct three large ironclads, and two other vessels commonly called battle-ships. He differed altogether from the view of some naval authorities that the larger the ship the better the fighting platform. He maintained it was quite possible to build smaller ships which would have just as good a fighting platform as the large ships. He would much rather see three or four more of the smaller ironclads built than one large vessel, for the cost was the same, while our fighting power was increased. The rolling of the big ships interfered with correct gun firing, while the small ships were steadier and faster and more under command, so long as they were not burdened with too many guns. Our commerce, which required protection was spread over every part of the world, and if we continued to build a few huge ships instead of several small ships, the Fleet at our disposal would not be sufficient for our purposes in a time of war. Therefore, when the Votes for these large vessels came up for sanction he would be obliged to differ with the Government in respect to that portion of their programme. The experience of modern naval warfare had proved that the most effective vessels were vessels of the ram type. Yet there was only one vessel of that description in the Navy. In his opinion, the proper policy of the Government would be to increase the Dumber of vessels of the ram type of a high rate of speed. Vessels of the ram type formed the most powerful element in the naval battles of the American Civil War. He would also point out that it was the characteristic of the British

  289
  sailor in all our naval wars to get into close quarters with the enemy. He believed that in the future, as in the past, our Admirals would always make it a point to got into close quarters, and, that being so, the most suitable, and the most destructive, vessel would be the ram vessel. For these reasons he hoped the Government would largely increase the number of ram vessels in the Navy. He wished also to call the attention of the Admiralty to the fact that the officers of the Naval Reserve complained most bitterly of having been superseded in rank by the creation of the Indian Marine. In 1864 an Order in Council was issued directing that officers in the Naval Reserve should rank with officers of the Royal Navy. But iu 1891 the Indian Marine was created, and the status of officers in that service was declared to be similar to that of officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, but senior to those officers in their respective ranks, and that the officers of the Naval Reserve considered was an injustice to them. The men of the Naval Reserve had also got a grievance. They were not entitled to a pension till they reached the age of 60, while the men in the Navy proper got their pensions at 50. Considering that the pension was only the small sum of 7¾d. per day, and that not 5 per cent. of merchant seamen attained the age of 60, these men thought the pension should be granted at 50, and he hoped the Government would take the matter into consideration. He also thought that a change for the better should be made in the drilling of the Naval Reserve men. They were trained in an old-fashioned manner on board obsolete vessels and with obsolete guns. He thought they should be sent once in every two years on board a man-of-war. There was no reason why that should not be done. The men would probably ask for more pay, but that should not stand in the way of making the Naval Reserve a fighting force, by putting the men under a course of modern drill and making them acquainted with modern naval guns.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid he could assure the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the grievance of dockyard men were real and substantial. He would not detain the Committee on that subject consider-
  290
  ing the Debate which took place a few days ago, but he hoped and believed that these grievances would receive due consideration at the hands of the present Board of Admiralty. He had no wish to unduly prolong the Debate, and he should not have intervened at all had he not considered it his duty to his constituents to bring forward a matter strictly relevant to the Vote, on which he had endeavoured without effect to obtain by means of questions satisfactory assurances from the Board of Admiralty. What he wished to call attention to was a subject mentioned in the supplementary statement of the First Lord—namely, the proposed establishment of a Naval School of Gunnery at Sheerness. Just before leaving Office the late Government struck a very great, and he thought unnecessary, blow at Sheerness by issuing an Admiralty Order directing that ships commissioned at Sheerness should in future be commissioned at Chatham, He urged on the noble Lord who was head of the Admiralty Office at the time the inexpediency of the measure. However, in spite of his representations the noble Lord declined to withdraw or modify the Order, but the right hon. Gentleman proposed as a compensation to establish and develop a School of Gunnery at Sheerness. Accordingly in the Estimates for 1892–93 there was a sum of £3,000 voted for the development school, which sum it was proposed to lay out on drill-ground sheds and drill patrols necessary for the use of the men under instruction. But for some reason or another which he had been unable to discover, not only was the money not spent, but there was no mention of the matter in the Estimates of this year. The promises of the present Board of Admiralty as well as of the late Board of Admiralty had been broken in this matter. On the 19th of January of this year a deputation from Sheerness waited on Earl Spencer and urged him to extend one of the docks. His Lordship said he could not do that, but he intended to develop the newly-made Gunnery School. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) put a question last week to the Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject, asking the right hon. Gentleman what steps had been taken to spend the £3,000 already voted, and whether any provision was intended to be made for the further development

  291
  of the School. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said—
  "The Gunnery School has been established at Sheerness, and the present Board intend to carry out a scheme for providing the necessary ground and buildings for its proper development. The scheme first proposed had to be modified; and, pending further consideration, it was not possible to spend the £3,000 voted in 1892–93, and it was thought better to reconsider the whole scheme."
  He regretted to say that that answer was not accurate. From information he had received he considered the answer misleading, though he did not attribute any intention of misleading to the Board of Admiralty. He had a letter from one of his constituents at Sheerness, who wrote in reference to that answer—
  "At present, in spite of their promises, not a single building has been started, or plot of ground purchased, to carry out the development of the place, and the instructional work is all cramped up by being carried out in the naval barrack-rooms, which are entirely unsuited to the purpose. For the above reason the number of men who can be received for instruction is very small, compared to the number that could be received if proper accommodation was provided for carrying out their drill. A gravelled and well-drained parade ground; a battery for heavy gun drill; an ammunition-room; a gymnasium; a rifle range are urgently needed, and plans and estimates have been drawn up and are at present with the Admiralty, who will not move in the matter. From the above you will see that no men whatever are employed in buildings or draining drill-grounds. The number of seamen at present under instruction for seamen gunners is 120. Besides these, 100 second-class stokers are undergoing a gunnery training. If properly developed the school could receive at least 800 seamen for training."
  He, therefore, asked the Government for some information on this subject—why the £3,000 which had been voted for the school had not been spent on the development of the school; whether the Board of Admiralty had ready any scheme to develop the school; and, if so when they intended to carry them out?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): I think the subject of the Gunnery School at Sheerness comes more properly under another Vote. I can satisfy at once the request the hon. Member made for information as to the present condition of the question. I do not think the answer I gave him on this subject on a former day was inaccurate, and I do not think that anything the hon. Member has now said has disproved
  292
  that answer. What he asks for is some satisfaction that the present Board of Admiralty do intend to do something to develop the School of Gunnery at Sheerness. On that point I have no hesitation in giving him the assurance he requires. It is the intention of the Board of Admiralty to develop the School of Gunnery at Sheerness. The reason why the experiment is not in a more forward state is very simple. The hon. Member read a letter from a correspondent who said quite accurately the Estimates were made out for the construction of a drill parade and a rifle range. The War Office were requested to transfer to the Admiralty the necessary ground for the buildings. I do not think that I am breaking any rule of official confidence in saying that difficulties with the War Office are the main cause of the delay in carrying out the scheme. The War Office object to giving the site. On account of these difficulties it has been found impossible to spend the £3,000. The whole scheme has to be reconsidered, and pending that reconsideration we have not thought it necessary to ask for a further sum during the present year. But it is the intention-of the present Board of Admiralty to go on with the scheme. The First Lord takes a personal interest in it. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will accept that as an assurance that the scheme will be satisfactorily carried out. MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.) said, he hoped he would be pardoned for intervening in the Debate; but as his constituency had a coast-line of 60 miles, along which there were many coastguards, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the grievances under which these men were suffering. One of these grievances was that the chief officers in charge of the coastguard stations only got the same pay which they had before their promotion, though they were responsible for the drill and subordination of the detachments under their charge, and had also to furnish themselves with uniforms. A second matter was that they did not get the extra 2d. a day when re-engaged; and when they had served the time for a pension they did not get the 6d. a day extra which their comrades serving afloat in the Navy received. Considering that

  293
  the coastguards consisted of only 4,200 men, who were the most efficient sailors we had, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make arrangements for spending the small sum of money necessary for removing the complaints he had referred to. There was another matter to which he desired to call attention. Two years ago the First Lord of the Admiralty of the late Government, by some ingenuity, arranged that the refuse of Sheerness Harbour should be discharged in the Estuary of the Thames. This practice drove away the fish, killed those that were not driven away, and spoiled and smashed the nets of the fishermen. He had before this made many representations to the Admiralty on this subject, and about three months ago there was a deputation to Lord Spencer, when they were promised every possible consideration, with the result that nothing whatever had been done. Further than that, the Admiralty sent down a Committee of Inquiry, who sat for a couple of hours, having gone, judging from his experience of these things, with their minds made up beforehand, but who had given them no Report at all. They could got no satisfaction from the Admiralty; when they put questions to the Admiralty in this House they did not got a courteous reply, and, therefore, in order to obtain some explanation, he bogged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the subject he has been discussing is not in the Vote at all.
  MR. HANBURYonly wished to say one or two words upon this Vote. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. J. Reed) was a great authority upon all naval matters, and he was very glad to hear the remarks with which the hon. Member prefaced his speech. Considering that one day was taken up by the discussion of dockyard grievances, considering this was a new programme, and considering also the fact that, to a certain extent, they had got to get their information secondhand, because they had not the First Lord of the Admiralty in their House, a Debate lasting two nights upon such important matter as the Navy Estimates was by no means too long. The first question he should like to ask his right hon. Friend was the
  294
  question put by the hon. Member for Cardiff—namely, on what system they made their demands to the country for the establishment of the Navy? His hon. Friend and himself sat on the Naval Estimates Committee two or three years ago—a Committee, by the way, which only inquired into about half the Votes—and he thought it would be well to have another Committee to inquire into the remainder of the Votes. After all the Navy Vote was the most important that came before the House, and he was not sure that any important step had been taken by the Government, either in the past or the present day, to remove the one great blot on their military administration. By that he meant the Army and Navy Administration, and the great blot was that at this moment there was no proper system by which the two Services would work in unison. Whenever these two Services worked together, they did not pull together. [Admiral FIELD: We do not.] His hon. and gallant Friend said "we do not," but it was the same for the country whichever Service it was. The recommendation made by Lord Hartington's Commission was, that these two services should work more together in unison, and he wished to know whether anything had been done in the direction of carrying out the recommendations. He knew that the late Government appointed a Cabinet Committee but was there anything of the Kind existing now, was there any Committee of the Cabinet that attempted to deal with the joint administration of the two Services? Going to another matter, he should like to know whether they had made up their minds as to the coast defences being in the hands of one of the Services—the Army or the Navy. He fancied from what he heard from some naval officers, who were well fitted to express an opinion, that the coast defences had fallen into the wrong hands, and that the Army were wasting large sums of money upon submarine defences and fortifications. His hon. Friend had boasted that in the last Parliament they spent £3,500,000 upon naval affairs they knew how that was criticised, and he wished to know whether they were to waste another £3,500,000, or what was to be the definite proposal upon the naval defence that was to be established? He should also like to ask, as they were

  295
  starting with a new policy and a new Government, what was to be the standard up to which our Navy ought to be built; that was to say, did the present Government accept the standard of the late Government, that the Navy of England should be equal to any other two foreign nations? He was asking questions which to a certain extent were questions of Cabinet policy, but his right hon. Friend ought not to escape from answering because he was not in the Cabinet; the Committee was entitled to have the fullest and best information on these points. He knew very well it would be said, "Oh, we are building up to the same point that was fixed last year." There were two things to be said about that. In the first place that was a deteriorated standard, because the expenditure of last year was lower than in other years, perhaps owing to the Election. He was afraid that both Governments were likely to be affected by an Election being at hand, and was afraid it, affected the late Government. As they stood now, they were two war ships in arrear; was the present Vote to make up for them and keep up the standard at the same time? He did not sec that it was—he rather thought it was the other way, and that the ships they were building were in substitution for, and not in addition to, the two that ought to have been commenced last year, but which were not. There was another thing he should like to complain of. They were assured by the First Lord that they had a programme that would extend over two or three years—assuming they had a chance of carrying it out—but if they had a programme why not produce it now rather than next year, for after all it was important our ships should be built upon some definite system continued through a series of years. Every one recognised this was a question apart from Party differences, and what was the result of having a policy of continuous shipbuilding extending over a series of years? It was that they built cheaper, 10 per cent. under instead of 10 per cent over; that they built in three years instead of five, and every one ought to admit the necessity of a policy of that kind, of lifting the Navy, on which the very existence of this Empire depended, out of Party considerations. Though it must be remembered that they bad not
  296
  the same opportunity in this country of putting great questions of this kind outside Party considerations as they had in other countries, they had not got that strong Executive that had been carefully provided for and maintained in other countries, in America or in France. Even if Parties change there was always a strong Executive to carry out a policy for the benefit of the whole country. It was this that had always struck him as a strong reason why they should have a shipbuilding policy extending over five years, and if his right hon. Friend was sitting there another year he hoped he would let them have a new five years1 shipbuilding programme. Now, assuming that the standard of the Navy was that it ought to be equal to any other two Navies he wanted to know how that was worked out, because there was a speech made some days ago in another place that rather struck him that the Admiralty had not themselves the proper means of estimating our Navy as compared to other Powers. He took the mere expenditure first, and asked whether they were guided by the expenditure? He found that, including armaments, the expenditure upon ships was about £4,600,000. He found that the French for three years had been spending about £2,800,000 a year upon new ships and armaments, and Russia—which had lately been increasing its expenditure upon shipbuilding and armaments enormously—had almost equaled the expenditure of France, for it had reached £2,750,000. If they added those two sums together they found it had exceeded by the sum of nearly £1,000,000 that which we were expending upon our Navy. That was a serious matter, because they were falling £1,000,000 behindhand in this year alone, and both these Powers, France and Russia, said they meant to add to their expenditure in coming years, that that was not their normal standard. The one Power that did not say they were going to add to their expenditure, so far as he knew, was ourselves. There was one sense, no doubt, in which it would be quite possible for us to get as good value out of our £4,600,000 as France and Russia got out of their £5,500,000, but on that point he wanted information because he did not like the fact of this £1,000,000 short, He wished to know exactly whether we got better

  297
  value for our money than France and Russia got, if we did then the £1,000,000 would be made up, but they ought to have a very distinct assurance from his right hon. Friend on that point. He was not so sure about it himself, because he had some figures given him a few days ago which seemed to show we built one ton of warship for £30, and Franco only built the same amount for £46, whilst the cost to Russia was a great deal more. Those figures were not official in any sense, and he did not lay any stress upon them, but he noticed the First Lord of the Admiralty in another place, alluding to this point, said that we did undoubtedly get better value for our money; for taking the case of the Royal Sovereign the cost would be about £200,000 more to build in France than in England. But there he initiated the whole of his argument by adding that the system on which the tonnage was calculated in France was very different from the tonnage system of England, and if the two systems were analysed the difference would be very small. If so, they had £1,000,000 left, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth), or the Civil Lord (Mr. E. Robertson), would be able to tell them whether that could be made up by the cheaper cost of building in England. Another point he wished to allude to was this: Admitting the ships we had got complete at the present day were equal to, and perhaps better than, those of the Fleets of any other two nations, had they got ships completing and on the stocks which in three or four years would keep them in that position? ["Hear, hear!"] His right hon. Friend said "hear, hear!" and if he trusted to official figures he did not think his "hear, hear!" could mean "yes," because judging by the ships on the stocks he found we were in a very inferior position. Take the battle-ships of the first-class, those already complete, we had got 11 to 12 of France and Russia; of those completing we had 9 to their 3, but of those on the stocks we had only 1 to their 9. These were the figures of the right hon. Gentleman himself, so it was no use his shaking his head. Take the second-class. The right hon. Gentleman said we had got 14 afloat as against their 13; none of the second-class either com-
  298
  pleting or on the stocks, as against their 6. The figures as to our cruisers showed better than for our battle-ships, but then they must look at the enormous trade we had to protect, which was out of all proportion to that of foreign countries; it was three, four, five, six or ten times as much. It sounded well, no doubt, on paper, as a mere question of number against number. With regard to cruisers over 5,000 tons we had 10, as against 4; completing 6, as against 2; on the stocks 5, as against 5; making 21, as against 11. Of those from 3,400 to 5,000 tons we had 22, as against 3; 5 completing, as against 1; on the stocks 7, as against 8; making a total of 34, as against 12. That was a more satisfactory showing, no doubt, but what he should like to make sure of was: was this difference in number adequate to the difference in the duties which those cruisers had to perform. It was not quite the proportion requisite, and though it required some one more of an expert than he was to go into these matters, it was possible even for a layman to know the proportion was nothing like the proportion necessary considering the difference between our seagoing trade and theirs. There was one other point which he supposed he should be able to discuss upon this Vote, and that was what was being done in the way of survey. They had had some experience lately of a number of ships that had run aground, and that in home waters, one case having occurred at Malta. He should like to know, considering the increase of our trade and our war ships, what steps were taken to increase the strength of our surveying vessels? There ought to be at least one on every foreign station in addition to those supplied by the Colonies; but he was told if that standard was maintained we should be at least short of the number we ought to have. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to give them some information on the subject. There was one other point he wished to refer to, and that was the point alluded to by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. T. G. Bowles) respecting instruction. In regard to this he had looked up the last volume of Lord Brassey's annual—["No, no!"] His hon. Friend said "no, no!" but it was a very good thing to go to on the subject, and he found it contained some most interesting information. He

  299
  found the information given under such headings as these, "Losses from unskilful navigation. Further instruction in pilotage necessary. Abolition of navigating line." There were also these remarks from the Report of the Committee on the education of naval officers. Though he did not like reading extracts this was so important that he might be allowed to read it. The Report of the Committee was this—
  "Before proceeding to indicate the lines on which a special course might be arranged, we would direct attention to the widespread feeling of disappointment which prevails among navigating officers. Of all avenues to promotion the performance of navigating duties has come to be regarded as the longest and most tedious; while the lieutenant who takes up the gunnery, torpedo, or first lieutenant line is tolerably sure of advancement, the lieutenant for navigating duties, whatever his ability, and however expert he may be, has the mortification of finding his friends constantly promoted over his head. Accordingly the navigating branch, though possessing some advantages, is avoided by the more enterprising members of the profession. It is obvious that this state of things, if prolonged, will lead to serious mischief. The tendency will be to drive every officer of ability from navigating duties, and yet everyone recognises how important it is that those duties should be well performed."
  That, he thought, was conclusive evidence that what had been said was true. Before sitting down he would like to ask one other question of the right hon. Gentleman, and that was whether he would try to do away with the enormous number of types of guns in the British Navy. In the old days they had an astounding number, and even in the present day there was a very great danger of increasing them. For instance, they were going to have a new quick-firing gun, and that was in addition to the rather long list of quick-firing guns they had already, but it had this advantage, that it was a 12-pounder, and was to have the same ammunition as was used in the gun of the British Artillery. If that were the case it was a step in the right direction, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would do something to reduce the enormous number of guns.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTTLEWORTH: I must apologise to the Committee for rising at once, but the time is arriving when we must consider the Army Estimates, and I will therefore, as rapidly as I can, run over the various points brought forward in the Debate, and I
  300
  will deal with them in the order' as far as I can, in which they were raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. T. G. Bowles) asked me some questions about the boilers for torpedo-boat destroyers. I may tell him that some engineers have used brass tubes, but our engineers prefer steel tubes. He asked me as to the classification of torpedo-boats. We have first-class torpedo-boats—namely, those that cannot be lifted on deck, and a second-class, which consists of those which can be carried on deck. Those are two classes that now exist. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into the numberless points he raised that are germane to particular Votes, as they will come up for consideration under those Votes. He dealt with the question of the Royal Naval Reserve; I have already answered some of the points, and others I must reserve for Vote 7. Also with regard to pensions, those points will be better dealt with upon the Non-Effective Vote. With reference to the points raised as to Greenwich, those matters will come up on Vote 5. The hon. Member has made a suggestion with respect to the relief of engine-room crews. It is obvious that there will be difficulties in the way of doing what he suggests, but I will report the matter to the Admiralty, who will give it their careful consideration. The hon. Member has also brought forward the grievances of the warrant officers. That is a question which has been under the consideration of the Admiralty, and we are quite ready to make appointments in the Ordnance Establishment for the chief warrant officers as these gradually come under the control of the Admiralty. Most of these offices are filled by officers from the Army, and no opportunity has yet offered to the Admiralty for introducing warrant officers into these appointments; but as they come more under the control of the Admiralty warrant officers will be appointed to them, and a new sphere of usefulness will thus be opened up to them, whilst it may then become possible to increase the number of chief warrant officers. Suggestions have been made as to giving a new grade to the warrant officers, but the Board do not see their way to overcoming the difficulties which stand in the way of such a course. We

  301
  feel much sympathy as to the want of prospects of promotion in the case of warrant officers at a certain stage of service. But I would point out that there is stagnation also in some other branches of the Service, and to remove it might cost more than could be justified on general grounds. If anything can be done to improve the condition of the warrant officers we shall only be too glad to do it. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed), I will not follow him into his observations as to the letter written by Admiral of the Fleet Sir Geoffrey Hornby, because I think I had much better reserve any remarks on that head for the Debate which will no doubt take place as to the stranding of the Howe. As the Papers, also, are not yet in the hands of hon. Members, I think it would scarcely be fair for me to enter into that subject. First of all, the hon. Member complains that the Government were not quite fair in putting the House under pressure as to the time for the Estimates. I think my hon. Friend has under-estimated the time that has already been given to naval subjects. For instance, he omitted the three hours given to the Naval Debate on Monday after the labour Debate; and the latter, I may point out, was mainly concerning the Dockyards, and was therefore, to a great extent, a naval Debate. In my observations on the occasion of the previous Naval Debate I devoted a considerable slice of my speech to the Manning Committee Report to which my hon. Friend has referred to-night, and I shall be glad to give him more information as to the Report if he will mention any specific points on which he requires information. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that, in the time of the late Board of Admiralty, certain trials of ships were not insisted upon. I take a considerable interest in that subject, because it was inquired into by a Committee upstairs, of which I was Chairman, during the last Parliament. I share the regret the hon. Member expressed that it was necessary to release any of the contractors from submitting to the full trials contemplated, but I can assure him that, whatever may have been the case in the past, the full trials contemplated by the contracts are now insisted on. My hon. Friend seems
  302
  to think that we have kept the House in ignorance as to the basis of the estimated annual depreciation of the Navy; but if he will refer to pages 260 and 261 he will there find the calculations on which our statement are based. But he will find that we have copied the calculation of our predecessors; and that in a footnote we have guarded ourselves against adopting the basis as our own. Again, my hon. Friend suggested that certain ships were being built without authority. He referred to six torpedo-boat destroyers. The right hon. Gentleman opposite also referred to that, and spoke of four new battleships. That is a little inaccurate. No doubt he intended to refer to the two battle ships and two cruisers—four ships in all. Dealing with the six torpedo-boats, there was urgent necessity, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, for building boats of that description. They did that which has been done before when Parliament has not been sitting. They applied to the Treasury for authority for using some of the money voted in Parliament for this urgent and new necessity. The Treasury authority was given, what was done was perfectly regular, and when Parliament is not sitting no other course is open. My hon. Friend spoke—and so did the right hon. Gentleman opposite—as if we were presenting blank Estimates for these four new ships. I am not prepared to admit that. We are following the course pursued in that respect by our predecessors. We are giving just the same information—in fact, we are giving a little more than was given by the late Board—in respect of the ships of the "further programme," that is, not built under the Naval Defence Act. On March 14th, 1892, speaking of ships in the new programme, the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) said—
  "The details will be laid on the Table before we come to the Shipbuilding Vote, so that hon. Gentlemen will have ample opportunity of putting further questions to me if they wish to do so."
  But those particulars were not laid on the Table. What happened was that when Vote 8 was passed on June 9th, 1892, there was not even any reference made to them, and no information was given. But we are prepared to go much further, and before the Shipbuilding

  303
  Vote comes on we hope the designs will be well advanced, and we shall then be quite prepared to lay such details and particulars before Parliament as may be considered consistent with public interests. It is obvious that there may be certain novel features in the designs which ought not to be disclosed at the present stage, but when the proper time comes there will be no reason for withholding anything, and full information will be given. The hon. Member for Cardiff referred to his own experience in connection with the building of docks, and laid stress on the importance of consultation with the Naval Authorities, and particularly the Controller of the Navy, when any such works were being carried out. Whatever may have happened in times past without consultation with the Controller of the Navy cannot possibly take place now under the new system, the Controller of the Navy being fully consulted on any works of that kind. Information has been asked for about the rolling of the Royal Sovereign. Newspaper paragraphs on that question have been greatly exaggerated. I am stating this on the highest authority—namely, that of Mr. White, Director of Naval Construction, to whom a well-deserved tribute has already been paid, and who has rendered great services to his country. Mr. White has furnished me with the following Report on this subject:—
  "The official returns of the rolling since the Royal Sovereign left England in January last have been received at the Admiralty, giving results of observations made up to the arrival of the squadron at Madeira in the middle of last month. The facts are briefly as follows:—During the first six months of her commission no rolling took place worth recording, its extent being very limited. In June, 1892, in a heavy south-westerly swell off the South of Ireland, the Admiral reported that the Royal Sovereign did not appear to roll nearly as much as the other battle ships. Her period of oscillation for a single swing—say starboard to port—has been found to be about eight seconds. This closely agrees with the corresponding period for ships (like the Monarch, Inconstant, Hercules, and Sultan), which have a high reputation for steadiness; and on the basis of all past experience ought to secure great steadiness under conditions of bad weather at sea."
  The hon. Member for Cardiff is well aware that ships of long period, such as the Monarch, if they fall in with a long, low swell (which slightly affects other ships of shorter period) are sometimes set rolling through larger angles
  304
  than occurred in much heavier weather. On the passage to Vigo, and again on the passage to Madeira, this condition was met with by the Royal Sovereign, and she rolled more than on any previous occasion. But even under these circumstances her rolling was very easy, and moderate in extent, as shown by the Returns. The mean angle of heel to the vertical during the period of observation was from 7" to 8½". The maximum angle of heel, occasionally reached, was from 13½" to 16". Bilge keels have been suggested. No bilge keels which could be fitted would appreciably influence the rolling of a ship having the great inertia and weight of the Royal Sovereign. Bilge keels were, therefore, intentionally omitted in the designs after very full consideration. I have omitted to notice what the House will regret, namely, the absence of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton). We all, I am sure, sympathise with him, knowing the cause of his absence, and we are extremely sorry he should not be present. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested that I and the First Lord of the Admiralty have spoken with different voices, but I am quite unconscious of any difference in the voices, and I am sure my noble Friend is equally unconscious of any such difference; and there is no foundation for any suggestion of any intentional difference. With respect to what I said as to the inexpediency of passing a new Naval Defence Act, although it is desirable to have a new programme, I know my noble Friend heartily concurs. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our view is that it is desirable to have a programme, and a programme extending over more than one year, and we shall not go back to the system of changing the designs while ships are being built. As to the Indian troopships, our experience of the views of the Indian Government does not bear out his impressions; the Admiralty have received strong representations from the Indian Government in favour of keeping up of the troopship system, and a new plan has for some time been under consideration. A Departmental Committee has been appointed, on which two representatives of the Admiralty, two of the Naval Lords, and two representatives.

  305
  of the India Office, have places, and they will report on the new scheme. I shall be glad to communicate the result to the House at the earliest opportunity. In reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, I would point out that some of the older ships are being put into condition to form a second line of defence; and the time in which a vessel will become obsolete will, no doubt, be somewhat prolonged thereby. My hon. Friend asks what is the policy of the Admiralty, and he is joined in that inquiry by the Member for Preston. I thought I had fully answered that question in my previous speech. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that we must have a fleet capable of protecting our coasts, our food supplies, and our commerce, but I adopt the statement of the Member for Preston that we have also to keep an eye on the forces of other Powers, and that we ought to have a Navy equal to the task of meeting the Navies of two foreign Powers. But with respect to the £1,000,000 more of money which it is alleged certain Powers are spending, it must be remembered that this country gets a great deal more for her naval expenditure than other countries, because she is able to build more cheaply. Happily we are also able to build more rapidly. As has been admitted, Great Britain is much stronger in cruisers than other Powers; and in battleships is abreast of them, and likely to keep abreast, considering the vessels building or to be built.
  MR. HANBURY: The figures of the First Lord himself were 58 to 64.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have not the advantage of having the figures before me at present, so that I could check them, but I may say that we shall keep well abreast. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland asked me a question as to the policy of grouping our ships for war, some for our coasts, some for the maintenance of our food supply, and some for the protection of our Colonies, and for other naval purposes. I can assure him these are among those points which are constantly under the attention of the Board of Admiralty, and to which they give every consideration, so that we may have ships for all these purposes. My hon. Friend said he would rather see in place of one large ironclad four smaller vessels for the
  306
  same price as the larger ironclad. I think I recognise here an old acquaintance—namely, the reproduction of a controversy raised some years ago, and into which I have no intention of entering at the present time. But I may tell him that six Centurions would cost more than four Royal Sovereigns, therefore he cannot get these four smaller vessels for the price of one. As to the Royal Naval Reserve officers, and the question of the precedence over them of the officers of the Indian Navy, that is a matter which was fully considered by the late Board, and I can hold out no hope of there being any change. As to the grievances of the coastguards they will receive every consideration. The hon. and gallant Member for South East Essex (Major Rasch) complains that nothing has been done with regard to the question of dredging upon the fishing ground near Sheerness, as to which a deputation had waited on Lord Spencer. But Lord Spencer, as the hon. Member himself knows, immediately ordered an inquiry. My noble Friend sent an officer from the Admiralty, with another from the Board of Trade, down to the district. Those gentlemen made full inquiry into the matter and found that the fishermen had some reason for their complaint. That Report is now under the consideration of the Admiralty, and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman shows an ungrateful spirit for what has been done. I can only assure the House that his ingratitude shall not be allowed to injure the interests of the fishermen. If he will have patience to wait a little longer he will find that full justice will be done. After the full reply that I have given, and considering the other business that has to come before the Committee, I hope that we shall now be allowed to take the Vote.
  ADMIRAL FIELD, before the Vote was taken, wished to make some observations. He expressed his regret that the Admiralty had not acceded to the very reasonable proposals of the warrant officers and granted them new rank. The warrant officers did not press for the rank of lieutenant, but they thought they should have the rank of Fleet gunner, Fleet boatswain, and Fleet carpenter just as they had Fleet engineers, Fleet surgeons, and Fleet paymasters, and the late First Lord of the Admiralty had promised that the

  307
  matter should be very carefully considered. He had noticed that his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn had something to say on these subjects. He welcomed him as an ally in the sphere of naval questions, but he could not agree with him, and he could not agree with the hon. Member for Preston, because there was no ground for complaint about the talent of the officers of the ships of war.
  MR. HANBURY: I quoted from the Report on Naval Officers.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, if that were so he held that the Report said nothing of the character that the hon. Gentleman had stated to the House; he must have misunderstood it. If it did contain anything of the kind, then he challenged it. The question had been up before years ago, and no change was advocated, as none was necessary. There was no ground for conveying an imputation on the Service as it stood. The hon. Member for Preston had said that there were too many types of guns in the Navy, but he found that there were practically only eight types of guns, and they were, in his opinion, all necessary and suitable for the vessels that had to carry them. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University had regretted that the First Lord of the Admiralty was not in the House of Commons. Well, he did not share in the regret of the right hon. Gentleman. He had every respect for the noble Earl, but he thought the hon. Member for Cardiff was the only man on the Government side of the House fit to fill the post—if he was in the running at all. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had cast contempt on torpedo-boats and torpedoes. Navy men did not share his view, for they considered it was absolutely necessary to increase the number of torpedo-catchers and cruisers. The naval officers were not too highly educated, having regard to the high standard of education in the Naval Service of other countries. The hon. Member, too, wanted a captain of the Fleet for the small Channel Squadron of about four ships. Well, the present flag-captain, acting under the Admiral, did all that was wanted. They did not want a captain of the Fleet. He was very glad to see the hon. Member for Cardiff in his place, for he had done real service on behalf of the Navy.
  308
  But where had he been all this time? Why was he not present on Monday and Tuesday to give hon. Members the benefit of his professional assistance? Achilles had come out of his tent at last, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty would profit by his reappearance. No man had a better right to speak on the subject than the hon. Member for Cardiff, and, personally, he should be delighted if he were sitting on the Front Bench. It was not his (Admiral Field's) fault if he were not. Now, why did not the Government carry out the recommendation of the Hartington Commission with reference to the Services? That Commission considered that it would be of advantage if each member of the Board of Admiralty were required to prepare annually Reports of the working of the branch of the Service under his immediate control. There was nothing in the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty about the mercantile cruisers. Naval men were much interested in those cruisers. The country had been paying £15,000 a year for them for some time past; but the Inman Line had now passed into other hands, and thus the country had paid money for nothing. It was but reasonable that the Government should require in future contracts that, if the Companies sold the vessels or handed them over to a Limited Liability Company, they should pay back the subsidies they had received, subject to a deduction of 10 per cent. for wear and tear. Then there was the question of the torpedo-boats and torpedo destroyers. The provision for ammunition accommodation did not appear to be quite satisfactory, while if, as was stated, the boats attained a speed of 27 knots, which was the maximum speed of the torpedo itself, there was grave danger of the boat outrunning the torpedo, and so coming seriously to grief. When the Government came into power the Dockyards were visited by a right hon. Gentleman opposite in order to hear certain grievances; but the whole question had been settled by the late Government, and he thought that it was a mistake to re-open it. What the Government did for the Dockyards, because there were votes in the question, they were in honour bound to do for the warrant officers, lieutenants, and seamen of the Coastguard Service—men who had no

  309
  votes. Was it right or just to pass over the men who did not agitate, but who bore their grievances patiently? The grievances they suffered under were very real and substantial. He had often forced them on the attention of the House, but without effect. Would the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the subject? Then, again, the Surveying Department was starved; and the hydrographer was being worked to death. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but they had only to look at him in order to see that he was fitted for the hospital. The attention of the Government should also be given to the poor men who lost their lives in the discharge of their duty on coastguard business. He had several instances before him of painful hardship. The gratuity given to the widows and children was very small, and something more was necessary. He asked for justice, and he wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman had to say to his demands? Was it desired that they should be again driven into a Committee to sit on these things? The proper tribunal was a Departmental Committee of the Admiralty. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not pass by his words as of no importance. There was a great deal behind them. He pressed especially on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the question of docks at Gibraltar. He hoped to have an answer. There was still an hour and a half for the Army Estimates, which was quite enough. He did not wish to prolong the Debate, because it was just as well the right hon. Gentleman should have the Vote, but they had, as he said, time enough for the Army Votes, and he expected to hear the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I am sure the House always listens with the greatest pleasure to the speeches of the gallant Admiral, and to his suggestions; and that any observations he makes will always receive the attention they fully deserve from the Government. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated that we have just an hour and a half left for discussion of the Army Estimates, and, under the circumstances, I would hope that the
  310
  House will allow this Vote to be taken, so that we may proceed to those Estimates.
  MAJOR RASCH: Mr. Mellor——
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MAJOR RASCH: Mr. Mellor——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  NAVY EXCESSES, 1891–2.
  2. £62,088 10s. 8d. Navy (Excesses).
  Resolutions to be reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1893–4.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 154,442, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894."
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It has been a great gratification to me, Sir, to hear the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War spoke on Saturday of our defensive forces, and of the considerable advance that had been made in the improvement of the defences of the country. It is also very gratifying to notice that he dwelt in particular upon the great improvement that has been affected in regard to the recruiting service. I have more than once pointed out to the House that for a long time the great difficulty we had to contend with was the recruit; but I am glad to say that, owing mainly to the energies of the Inspector General of Recruiting, the aspect of recruiting has been now altogether changed, so that we are able to say not only that we can now get a suitable supply of recruits, but that the Militia has also largely increased in numbers, and that the Reserve is complete. I hope—and the hope is not unreasonable—that we have at length nearly arrived at a time when there may be some solid agreement between the two sides of the House as to the organisation

  311
  and the general constitution of our Army. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the opinion that oscillations of policy are most mischievous to the Army itself. For my own part, I am thoroughly prepared to cordially endorse, as a whole, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, for I believe that our Army system is gradually being placed on a basis upon which no oscillations of policy of any ordinary character are likely to disturb it. The first question dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman was the question with regard to the equalisation of the battalions at home and abroad. This is a subject to which it has often been my duty to direct the attention of the House of Commons. It would, no doubt, be very desirable, if it were possible, to secure complete equalisation of the battalions at home and abroad. It was one of the foundations of the system laid down by Lord Cardwell; and it has been one of the main difficulties of that system. Lord Cardwell laid down that there should be this equalisation, except in case of emergency. But when, with our great Empire, and with great and various interests in all parts of the world, could we expect to see ourselves altogether free from any case of emergency? The best way, I believe, of carrying out this object is to have added three or four battalions to the strength of the Army. But I would not press this on the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has not done it, and I did not do it when I had the chance, because I shrank from the responsibility of adding to the already great cost of the Army unless in case of absolute necessity. But in the absence of new battalions it is clear that the next best thing to do is what the right hon. Gentleman has done—that is, he has brought some battalions home from abroad. The right hon. Gentleman proposed first to bring home a battalion from Gibraltar. I approved of that step, for there was no foreign station from which we can better withdraw a battalion and where the garrison could be more easily reinforced than Gibraltar. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean alluded the other day to the question of reinforcing the garrison of Sierra Leone. That question was considered by the late Government, and they arrived at the conclusion that
  312
  they were not justified, taking the climate into consideration, in keeping a larger garrison at Sierra Leone than was absolutely necessary for taking care of the armaments of that station. The right hon. Gentleman further proposed to take a battalion from India. This is a subject that has often been discussed, and I believe that while we should not at all diminish our garrison in India, we might reasonably ask the Indian Government to limit the number of cadres of regiments, so as to allow one or two of them to be brought home. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the additional force in Egypt is going to be provided for, and whether it is intended that the increased cost shall be thrown on the Estimates in this country or on the Government of Egypt? To come to my second point, with regard to the field force of over 20,000 men that the right hon. Gentleman suggests should be always maintained in readiness to be sent abroad, I wish to know whether he means that that field force is in substitution of all other arrangements? At this moment we have two Army Corps—one ready to take the field on the shortest notice, and the other, I believe, able to take the field before the first could have left the country. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement the other day which we cannot, on our side of the House, quite understand—though, of course, owing to the necessities of the case, his statement had to be a very brief one. He said, as I understood him, that for the purposes of foreign expeditions the system of Army Corps was to be given up, but I did not understand him to say as regards home defence that the system is to be given up. I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. I succeeded to the system. The two Army Corps now in existence in this country for foreign service were established in some degree before I came into Office. I spent a good deal of time and money in making every preparation so that the Army Corps might be fit to take the field; and what I want to ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman really means that all those preparations are to be thrown away, or whether he simply means that he wants to put the necessities of foreign campaigns upon a system that would be more likely to deal with the

  313
  difficulties that would arise in the case of small wars abroad, without giving up the power of sending abroad larger forces, if necessary. I do net want to anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's answer in the negative. If it were not so it would be difficult to defend the large amount of expenditure in this country on the Army. My desire is that there shall be no diminution whatever in the amount of force available for service abroad, and that there shall be no diminution in the amount of preparation now being made to enable that force to take the field. The right hon. Gentleman has said he thinks it is not very likely that any Army Corps will be sent abroad to take part in operations against great Armies on the Continent. That may be so. I will not discuss that matter now, though if it were worth while to dwell on it there is a good deal to be said with regard to it, but I may at least call attention to other demands that may be made on the Army. We might have to send to India a much larger force than 20,000 men, or we might require a force in excess of that to which the right hon. Gentleman has called our attention; therefore, I am entitled to ask whether the arrangement he proposes will be the best preparation for the necessities of our small wars, whilst enabling us to send abroad as large a force, properly equipped, as we have hitherto been prepared to send to a foreign country. And now I come to my third point—a matter to which attention must be given, if not now, at any rate, at a very early date, and that is the relation of the War Office to the Treasury. The question was referred to the Commission, presided over by Lord Hartington, and of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member; and for my part I attach quite as much importance to that matter as I do to any branch of the inquiry of the Commission. Unfortunately, owing to circumstances into which I need not now enter, the Commission made no inquiry into that matter at all. I am one of those—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is—who think that the present system of Treasury control is eminently unsatisfactory. I believe that it may effect some savings in pence, but that in the expenditure of pounds it has no effect at all. The present system has the greatest possible effect in preventing any adequate
  314
  decentralisation from headquarters, it destroys the responsibility of military officers for the money they spend in different parts of the country, and prevents the effective application of the money granted by Parliament for the purposes of the Army. I do not limit myself to the Treasury control, but I want to say a word as to the control exercised by the Controller and Auditor General. I hope the Committee will not suppose that I dispute the necessity of an effective audit. On the contrary, I think there can be no doubt that every Department, and most of all the great spending Departments like the War Office, ought to have the most effective audit that can be devised by the House for the purpose of checking expenditure; but I am not sure whether the War Office requires an internal and an external audit, which cost a large sum of money, and in many respects go over the same ground. I think that the Controller and Auditor General is a grievous check upon the administration of the Army. It is all very well to say that the Controller and Auditor General does not interfere with the Administration of the Army. I could give the Committee numerous instances in which, in my opinion, the Controller and Auditor General has grievously interfered. There are many respects in which the Secretary of State is not free to act even with the sanction of the Treasury, and of all his colleagues. He must hold his hand because the Controller and Auditor General steps in and says it cannot be done. That is a system behind the age. Do not interfere with the War Office in the administration of their funds. They know how to administer them, and a person outside the War Office cannot be a judge as to whether this service or that service is a proper one to which to apply funds. I am, therefore, for giving control in these matters to the War Office, although, no doubt, there should be a proper audit to see that funds are not misapplied. I attach importance to both these points, but I do not expect an answer in regard to the Controller and Auditor General from the right hon. Gentleman at this moment. I trust, however, that he will apply his mind to this question and find some method of giving control to the War Office, and of providing an efficient audit which is not open to those objec-

  315
  tions of which every one in the War Office is sensible. As we have such a limited time for the discussion of this subject, I do not propose to detain the Committee any longer, but I must say I think it rather unusual that, after the Statement of the Minister responsible for the War Office has been made as to the policy of his Department for the coming year, only between half-past 10 and 12 o'clock at night should be given for the discussion of the subject. I do not know how much more time we shall get before the passing of the Appropriation Bill, but I think we have a right to claim that an opportunity will be given in May or June for making what is only fair comment on the military policy of the year.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid, this was the time for those of them who took great interest in the military policy of the country to offer criticisms upon the statement made the other evening by the Secretary of State for War in his able and comprehensive speech. He would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the fact that the increase in the Estimates of £171,000 was mainly if not entirely due to an increase of the righting forces of the country. Those of them who were interested in the taxpayer would see that they got something for their money when they came to examine these Votes in detail. The fact was that the increase of £171,000 had to be reduced by a falling off in the appropriation in aid of £66,000, but taking the large Vote for men they would find that there was an increase of £83,000 due to the fact of the battalions being full through the large number of recruits that had been obtained. Then there was an increase of £25,000 in the matter of clothing, and above and beyond all this, owing to the system inaugurated by Lord Cardwell, they had now in the country a Reserve of between 76,000 and 80,000 men. The hon. Member opposite had alluded to the increase which had taken place in the number of recruits, and he had hardly attributed that increase to its real cause. It was mainly owing to the long period of agricultural and commercial depression. No doubt industrial difficulty made military opportunity, and they had to recognise that General Fielding and his staff of Recruiting Inspectors had taken full advantage of that opportunity, and had added large
  316
  numbers of recruits to our fighting strength. He should also like to congratulate the Department that in the official posters the advantages offered by the Service were brought much nearer to the real facts than they were in former days. The recruit was told exactly what he would get, and the promises made to him were carried out. As to the deduction of 7d. a day in the soldier's pay when he went into hospital, he could not but think that the circumstances attending each man's illness should be taken into account. He thought the deduction from pay should be heavier in the case of the man who went into hospital in consequence of disease contracted through his own excesses than in the case of the man suffering from illness that was really not of his own contracting. Another point touched upon was the drilling of the Reserves. This force comprised between 76,000 and 80,000 of the best troops in the country—men in the prime of life and well seasoned, who had been seven or eight years with the colours and were only 25 or 26 years of age, and without whom no battalion could be sent on foreign service. Yet these men were never officially inspected, and no one knew anything about their military efficiency or physical condition. They were instructed in the use of the magazine rifle, but no pains were taken to test their military efficiency. When he was at the War Office two plans were considered. One was submitted by Lord Wolseley, who proposed that these men should go for a certain period with the Militia battalion of their own district, but the difficulty was that if they did so they would stand a very good chance of losing their employment. He (Sir A. Hayter) was of opinion that as these men were entitled to pay during Reserve service they ought to be obliged to join a Volunteer battalion and attend 12 drills every year. The Volunteers were able to attend a few drills in the course of the year without sacrificing their employment, and surely the Reserve men could do the same, and it would be found in the case of the Reserve men that these drills would enable them soon to pick up their military efficiency. Both in Germany and France care was taken to keep the Reserves in touch with their drill, and we could not do a wiser thing in this country. It must not be forgotten that

  317
  under a military system such as ours a great deal would depend on the Reserves in time of emergency. He was of opinion that lance corporals should receive additional pay for the additional duties they had to discharge. As to the unfortunate circumstances in connection with the 1st Life Guards, while probably no one would desire to discuss them, he thought it high time that a stop was put to the practice of allowing Colonels of the Household Cavalry to dismiss men without trial.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but they do not possess that power.
  SIR A. HAYTER: Then under whose power were these men dismissed? As he understood it they were submitted to no trial and no kind of inquiry. However, after the hon. and gallant Member's statement he would withdraw the remark he had made.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYcomplained that the Secretary for War expected to vote £6,000,000 for the Army after a short discussion of barely an hour and a half. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Army Estimates could be put down on another day the discussion would not be prolonged, whilst hon. Members who wished to make some remarks and could not find an opportunity to-night would be able to express their views. He thought that by that arrangement the right hon. Gentleman would save the time of the House both now and hereafter. He congratulated the Secretary for War upon the able statement he had made the other day, but, with several other Members, was unable to agree with all the remarks he had made. He could not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to purchase officers. The right hon. Gentleman said that some cases had been too persistently advocated, but as a matter of fact in many cases justice had only been obtained through persistency. The late Secretary for War had done a great deal for the Army, and he (General Goldsworthy) hoped that so long as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) occupied his present post he would follow in the lines laid down by his predecessor. He could not admit that the organization of the Army was anything like what it should be. It was
  318
  only necessary to read the Report of Lord Hartington's Commission to see what had been done and what was wanted. Complaints would be continually coming from civilians who studied this matter from a practical point of view when they saw that the Army and Navy were managed in such an unbusiness-like way—the management of the Army, however, being worse than that of the Navy. As to the quartermasters he thought they had been bady treated. The War Office might, he thought, very fairly arrange to put these men in a better position than they were occupying at present, especially by giving the honorary rank which carried a pension to widows. He had received several communications on this subject, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give attention to it. He hoped, too, the Government were serious in announcing that it was their intention to do away with the stoppages from the soldier's pay. It was altogether unbusiness-like to put before men on joining the Army statements that were not absolutely true. He trusted that that system would be abandoned, and that free rations would be given to the men. He would give the Government notice that on the Government of Ireland Bill he should deem it his duty to call the attention of the House to the position Her Majesty's troops would occupy so as to give the House the opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon.
  MR. PARKER SMITHwas glad to hear that it was proposed largely to increase the amount of money to be devoted to the Crimea and Mutiny pensions. He regretted, however, that the condition of destitution was to be enforced. It was a condition which deeply wounded many of the most deserving and most qualified men under the pension scheme. The men who had fought for us in the last two great struggles that we had been engaged in deserved recognition from the country, not merely on the ground that by hanging about the streets destitute and wretched they brought discredit on the Army, but for the substantial reason that they had performed a great work for the country. Then, as to the Cameron Highlanders—the old 79th—he must say he regretted the tone of the right hon. Gentleman, believing it calculated to give offence to

  319
  people whom he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no wish to offend. No doubt out of the House a great deal of nonsense was talked about the matter, and no doubt it had vexed the sensible soul of the right hon. Gentleman. But it was a matter of esprit de corps at stake, and that person was a very bad controller of men who disregarded sentiment, and took a course which gave umbrage to people. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Camerons' tartan was a Macdonald tartan. Surely this was the very pedantry of antiquarianism. When the regiment was formed it was felt that the Cameron tartan was too bright for use as a uniform, and therefore the tartan adopted was one invented by the mother of the man who formed the regiment in 1793. That tartan had been through the Peninsula, had been at Waterloo, through the Crimea, through the Mutiny, in Egypt, and up the Nile. If the achievements of the regiment had not sanctified the tartan and made it as genuine a tartan as any in Scotland, he did not know what would be required for such a purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had scoffed at kilts. Most people were aware that kilts were not habitually worn in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but at the same time time Scotchmen had a strong feeling as to the value of kilts as a military uniform. The right hon. Gentleman had congratulated the officers of the regiment upon having taken no part in the agitation which had been going on in Scotland. He (Mr. Smith) had no authority to speak for the officers, but he knew it was not the unanimous opinion that there was no hope of raising a second battalion, and very little hope of being able to maintain the present battalion. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had really taken the opinion on the question. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in the year 1891–92, a very large number of recruits had had to be raised in England, and had spoken as if the proceedings of that year were a fair sample of what went on every year. The fact was, that in that year a very sudden increase in the numbers of the regiment was necessary. A number of men who had been enlisted for the Nile Campaign had just left the Service, and the regiment had to be brought up from its home strength to its foreign strength. The right hon.
  320
  Gentleman, therefore, had not given a fair example of what happened every year. 364 recruits were raised in Scotland that very year, and a great many of the men raised in England were obviously Scotchmen by birth. It appeared from a memorandum given by Lochiel, the chief of the clan, on behalf of the regiment, that after the influx of the men from England, the composition of the regiment was as follows:—576 Scotchmen and 434 Englishmen. In July, 1891, before the influx of the Englishmen, the regiment consisted of 770 men, of whom 623 had been born in Scotland and fewer than 150 in England. The Government were apparently fond of a suspensory policy. They wanted to suspend the Church of Scotland and the Church of Wales, and apparently the Secretary for War wanted to suspend the Camerons also. The right hon. Gentleman seemed still to have it in his mind to make the Camerons a battalion of the Scots Guards. He (Mr. Smith) was speaking with an old Cameron the other day about this suggestion, and he expressed the utmost indignation that it should even be proposed that the Camerons should be made "a third battalion of anything." If a larger portion of Scotland were thrown open for recruiting, there was no doubt that the Camerons would be able not only to maintain their position, but to support a second battalion also. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the adoption of this proposal meant only the addition of 5 per cent. to the number of regiments who recruited in Scotland. Why should not all the Scottish regiments be recruited in Scotland, and the weakest be left to go to the wall? It was most unfair, as well as most detrimental, to the regiment to leave it with a kind of sword of Damocles hanging over its head by a hair. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman put the regiment into a position to continue under the new circumstances the glorious career it had had for centuries?
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid, a great deal of satisfaction had been expressed by the Secretary for War with regard to the recruiting of the past year, but the reason why the recruits had come up in such numbers was no doubt to be found in the great depression

  321
  of the agricultural and other industries. As a Member who represented more soldiers than did anyone else in the House, he frequently heard complaints as to the stoppages that were made in the men's pay. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that Lord Wantage's Committee recommended that the private soldier of the Infantry should receive 1s. a day free from compulsory stoppages, not due to his own negligence or to misconduct. That recommendation had never been acted upon. The Committee also recommended that the private soldier should have a messing allowance of 3d. a day to be expended regimentally en extra messing. He recognised that a great improvement had taken place through the introduction of better cooking in the Army, and had never heard any complaints of the actual dinners. Soldiers, however, did complain that they did not get the allowances which they thought they ought to receive, so that they might be saved from the necessity of having to buy food out of their own small pay. It would be an immense advantage to the soldiers, and an immense advantage to recruiting, if these complaints were put an end to. Another complaint frequently made was that soldiers who were sent to Gibraltar for five years were only allowed one furlough during the whole of that period, and he would suggest that they should be permitted to return to England at their own expense twice during the five years. Gibraltar was nothing but a barren rock, and the men were not allowed to cross over to Africa as their officers did, or even to go into Spain.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No one regrets more than I do the very short amount of time allowed us to-night for the continuation of this discussion. As I agree with those who think that such time can hardly be looked upon as sufficient, I will gladly accept the offer which I understand is made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Votes which are necessary shall be allowed to be taken to-night on the understanding that at a later period of the Session—say in the month of June—an opportunity will be afforded, perhaps on the Provision Vote, of renewing the discussion and raising any points which may have been omitted to-night.
  An hon. MEMBER: Can any subject be discussed on that Vote?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The course I suggest has been frequently taken with the consent of the House, and has been found a convenient way of getting over a difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) asked me whether the Field Force is to be in substitution of the two Army Corps, of which mention has been made in previous years. That is not my intention. What is intended is that there shall still be the two Army Corps maintained in the same condition of readiness as at present; but that a force of 20,000 men, with their equipments, should be ready for immediate embarkation. It is believed that this will be a more handy body of men for the purposes for which any expeditionary force might be required, and it will not interfere in reality with the First Army Corps, prepared for the defence of this country. The right hon. Gentleman asked me as to the payment of the augmented force at present in Egypt. That is a question I cannot yet answer. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to a question of great importance on which I entirely agree with him, respecting the relations between the War Office and the Treasury. He complained that this important point was not dealt with by the Commission known as Lord Harrington's Commission. I was myself a member of that Commission. We made a Report as to the Army and Navy, but I suppose we had by that time become so tired of the subject that we did not prosecute our inquiries further. I do not know whose fault it was, and I do not think we were consulted individually in the matter, but I join in the regret the right hon. Gentleman has expressed—that the subject was not dealt with. I give every credit to the Treasury, and recognise the great ability with which the officials of the Treasury conduct their duties, but I agree that it is undoubtedly the case that They sometimes leave unchecked large expenditure while they fasten upon some small item with a tenacity that the importance of the subject does not really justify. I do not think the present system conduces to economy, and I should be glad if any wise and judicious mode could be discovered of altering the relations between the two Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir

  323
  A. Hayter) brought forward the question of the drill of the Reserve. We are all anxious that the Reserve men should be drilled if any system can be adopted which does not interfere with their employment in civil life, nor act as a deterrent against their obtaining employment, but that is, of course, the difficulty. My hon. Friend suggests that they should drill with the Volunteers. I do not know whether that would satisfy military requirements, and a very high military authority, who shares the desire that the Reserve should be trained if possible, has recently written on this subject—
  "In the event of invasion, I presume we should have the Reserve in the ranks for at least a fortnight before we had to go into action;"
  and he adds—
  "I believe a period such as that will be sufficient, in the case of men who have served for seven or more years in the ranks, to bring them up to their old standard of efficient training."
  As to the recent events in the 1st Life Guards, that would be a large topic on which to enter at this time of night, and I am not disposed to do so. I would simply say that the non-commissioned officers who were discharged for having failed to do their duty were discharged not under the special power which the hon. Gentleman has referred to, but under the general powers given to the Military Authorities by the Royal Warrant. The men were found to have failed in their duty in that they either did not know the state of things in the regiment or did not communicate their knowledge to their officers. On that ground it was considered desirable that for the benefit of the Public Service they should be discharged. My hon. Friend the Member for the Partick Division (Mr. Parker Smith) has brought up again the question of the Cameron Highlanders. I never expected to convince him on that question, but I wish to disabuse his mind of one idea. My hon. Friend suggests that I yielded to sentiment in not prosecuting the proposal that the Camerons should be merged in the Scots Guards. I did not. There was a proposal on foot that the Brigade of Guards should be increased by two battalions, and I thought that the Camerons might be disposed of in a dignified manner by constituting them one of those battalions. But the idea of having two additional bat-
  324
  talions of the Guards having been abandoned, that particular destination of the Cameron Highlanders necessarily dropped. The future is, therefore, left open for later consideration, and I shall be glad to receive any suggestions on the subject. The hon. Member for Basingstoke said the recommendation of Lord Wantage's Committee respecting stoppages from soldiers' pay had not been acted upon. I am not prepared to carry out that recommendation of the Committee, as the expense of doing so would be very great indeed. I quite agree, however, that a net rate of pay would be more convenient in every way, and that no statement should be made to the recruit which at all conceals from him the fact that at present the stoppage is made. As to the suggestion that soldiers stationed at Gibraltar should have an additional furlough, I find that my military advisers have a very strong objection to the relaxation of the Rules of the Service on the subject, and of course in such a matter as that I am bound to act on their advice. I venture to appeal to the Committee to allow the Vote to be taken on the understanding that the Debate may be resumed at a later period of the Session.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had a little misapprehended what had been said upon the Opposition side of the House with reference to postponing further discussion. His right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) had contended that it was impossible for the Vote to be taken without a discussion. He had no desire to throw difficulties in the way of taking the Vote, but it was obvious that there were considerable objections to taking a Vote of such magnitude after such a brief discussion as had just taken place. There were a very large number of subjects which had been put forward, and to which no reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. The objection he had to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches was that, although they were couched in the most agreeable language, they conveyed no answer to the questions put to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the question of the two Army Corps, the right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he had prepared a force of some-

  325
  thing like 20,000 men, and had asked whether anyone would think of sending an Army Corps to the Continent to engage in a Continental war. Well, that was a very serious subject. The right hon. Gentleman's statement had been received on his own side with loud cheers; but he (Mr. Brodrick) ventured to say that they were inconsiderate cheers. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether in the last 10 years there had been no occasion when the sending of one or two Army Corps to the Continent was in the minds of those who were responsible for the position now held by the right hon. Gentleman? A great deal of satisfaction had been expressed at the successful way in which recruiting had gone on during the past year. No doubt the Army was full; but it was well that the Committee should realise how it was full. It was full because there had been Be many "special enlistment," or enlistments of men who were under height and of insufficient chest measurement. Whereas in 1890 there were 6,000 such enlistments, in 1891 there were 10,000, and in 1893 there were 13,000, or one-third of the whole. As the Army was full, might the Committee hope that special enlistments had come to an end? Having attended the Chelsea Hospital Board regularly for several years, he had noticed that there were a large number of cases of old soldiers who fell out of the ranks from illness or some other disability. There was a great deal of information which it was desirable the House should have on these subjects, and he trusted that it would be given before the Vote was taken. If they parted with it now until June or July they parted with it for a year with the necessary securities. They could only judge by results, and with the results which they had before them he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War to deal with the question and inform them how far he considered that the special enlistment had been satisfactory? With regard to the Army Reserve, of which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had made a strong point, they had received very little information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the steps taken to secure employment for the men. The late Government had done all in their power to obtain employment for the Reserves—in the Post Office and in the Metropolitan
  326
  Police. What steps had the right hon. Gentleman taken to further this object? Had he also endeavoured to strengthen the sympathies of the Railway Companies in the matter, and, if so, with what success? They had not heard from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Railway Companies had been able to carry out the engagements they had entered into. It must be obvious to the House it would be impossible to ask companies and private manufacturers to do for the Government what the Government was unwilling to do for itself. When his right hon. Friend lately at the head of the Post Office undertook to deal with the question, a great step was made in advance, and they were anxious to see a still further advance made. He made bold to say that the appointment of valets and butlers to places which should be given to Army Reserve men was still going on. People were being hired from outside as servants—not, perhaps, in the Naval or Military Departments, but in other Departments of the State—and he was convinced that without an Order in Council or pressure from this House these posts would not be reserved for the soldiers of the Army Reserve. He would, therefore, like to have from the right hon. Gentleman some stronger expression of an intention to pursue the course followed by the late Secretary for War than had as yet been given. One word as to economy. The noble Lord who introduced the Amendment on going into Committee of Supply laid great stress upon the necessity of economy. There was not much heard about the subject in the House. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington called special attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not assisted him in that respect. He was himself rather astonished, after the strong speeches which had been delivered on the question, not to have heard a reply on the subject. I had expected that, at any rate, reference would have been made to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Sir G. Chesney). It was to be regretted that no answer had been returned to the hon. and gallant Member's recommendation, based on his long experience in India, that there should be a reduction in the large number of Staff officers employed at home. The right hon.

  327
  Gentleman had spoken four times in the Debate, but never on one occasion had he alluded to the possibility of his adopting the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. It was obvious that these questions demanded his attention. Then, again, they had had a very insufficient reply from the right hon. Gentleman to the speech of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings). The right hon. Gentleman had altogether missed the point as to the difficulty with regard to Enfield and Sparkbrook. It was easy to put it to the Committee that £100,000 would be saved in the manufacture of the magazine rifles, but what would be the extra cost per rifle under the new arrangement? Would 10s. per rifle cover it? He did not think it would. He believed that in order to bring about an apparent reduction the right hon. Gentleman was going to incur an additional expenditure of £20,000. These were important points, and he apologised for bringing them forward at this late hour; but believing, as many hon. Members did, that the Government at this moment were pursuing a penny wise and pound foolish policy, obviously they could discuss that policy with greater advantage now than they would be able to discuss it in June or July. There were many other points he should have brought before the Committee if time had allowed. He could not now even develop properly the points on which it seemed to him necessary that the Secretary for War should make replies; but he had said as much as he could, in the hope that the Committee would see that it was not possible for them to take the Vote this evening. The Vote was for nearly £6,000,000, and they had only had an hour and twenty-five minutes to discuss it. He should have no sympathy with any attempt to retard the War Office Estimates, but he certainly thought that the advantage they had derived from such speeches as those of the Member for Edinburgh, the right hon. Baronet opposite, and the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, had been marred by the fact that the Secretary for War had been compelled to confine his reply to the narrowest limits and had appealed to the Committee to postpone discussion for three or four months. [Cries of "Divide!"] He had cut short the
  328
  observations he wished to make—[Cries of "Divide!"]—but he ventured to hope that the Secretary for War would not persist in his endeavour to get the Vote through that night.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have heard with extreme surprise the observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. They are in absolute contradiction to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for War, who suggested that the Vote should be taken to-night, on conditions they were accepted by us. [Cries of "No!"] Well, I may say the conditions which we imagined were assented in the early part of the evening to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Everybody knows that the consequences of our not taking this Vote to-night will be that Supply will be driven into next week—a circumstance which, as I say, will cause surprise and astonishment to everybody after what took place in the early part of the evening, and if Supply is driven into next week it will be with almost the certainty that the law will be broken. I attribute the whole responsibility for that to the conduct of the Opposition in not carrying out the understanding that was come to.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have heard with profound astonishment the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman at an early stage of the evening pressed upon us the necessity of our finishing Supply by to-morrow night for various reasons, the chief amongst which appeared to be the convenience of the Government. I pointed out to him the extreme difficulty, and almost impossibility, of concluding Supply by that time, but said that if it must be done he must make some definite statement with regard to the conduct of Public Business so as to meet the convenience of the House. No concession whatever has been made to the Opposition—no attempt to meet their convenience in the slightest degree. In these circumstances, it appeared to me, and it still appears to me, that it is our duty to see that the law is not broken, and that no Debate of a prolonged or an obstructive character shall occur. I put it to you, Sir, that, considering the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War was made at the end of a Saturday Sitting and not finished until half-past 8 o'clock, and that we

  329
  have only had from half-past 10—or, in other words, an hour and a-half—to-night in which to discuss the main statement with regard to the Army for the whole year, we have not in any way exceeded the fair limit of Debate. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman are, in my opinion, not only wholly unfounded as regards the good faith of the Opposition, but they are without any justification as regards the general conduct of Business.
  SIR E. TEMPLE SIR E. TEMPLE rose—
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SUPPLY [13TH MARCH]—REPORT.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th March],
  "That the Resolution [13th March], 'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions and Committees, including Special Inquiries,"
  be read a second time.

THE BRUSSELS MONETARY

  CONFERENCE.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH, who had given notice that he would move to reduce the Vote by £100 in respect of the expenses of the Brussels Monetary Conference, said that he wished to draw attention to a matter of some public importance in view of the possibility of the re-assembling of the Conference at Brussels. The question he wanted to put to the Government was this: Upon what authority certain members of the British Delegation at the Conference took upon themselves to speak in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? So far as he could understand, certain members of the British Delegation were placed in a different position from that which the other Delegates occupied, though the Instructions were perfectly plain and placed all the Delegates on the same footing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other night that he did not recognise any of the Delegates as official
  330
  Delegates. It was true that there was no mention whatever of official Delegates in the Instructions. The Instructions contemplated that the Delegates should have no restriction in expressing their individual opinions and giving their individual votes. But there was one very decided instruction, and that was that the Delegates were in no sense to commit the Government of Great Britain. He would be able to prove that certain Delegates did commit the Government very seriously, and did speak on behalf of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the position of the Delegates as being a novel position, He thought the justification of that novelty of the position was to be found in the fact that the Reference was somewhat novel. The Delegates were sent to Brussels to discover, if possible, some means for the use of silver in the currency. It was impossible for the Government to give definite instructions to the Delegates on such a ground as that, and the Instructions contemplated that the Delegates should have a free hand with the Delegates from other countries in considering the various proposals to be laid before the Conference, but without committing the Government in any way whatever. The Instructions stated that, in the event of the adoption of any plan or plans by the Conference, the Confer-once was to adjourn in order to enable the respective Governments to be consulted as to the adoption, rejection, or modification of these plans. He, therefore, held that it was contrary to the Instructions for any Delegate from Great Britain to express any opinion as to what the Government, qua Government, might do in any contingent circumstances. The Delegates were to give their individual opinions and individual votes, and, beyond that, their Instructions allowed them to do nothing. But Sir Rivers Wilson, who was an official of great experience, and who would not, in his opinion, have committed himself unless in the belief that he was justified and authorised to do what he did, made three declarations. The first of these was that it would be useless for the British Delegates to discuss one of the proposals recommended for the consideration of the Conference, on the ground that Great Britain would undoubtedly be unwilling to submit to the inconvenience of the

  331
  withdrawal of half-sovereigns unless the proposal were presented in conjunction with a plan conferring advantages which a preponderating majority of the Powers would recognise. What authority had Sir Rivers Wilson to express that opinion on behalf of Great Britain? But still more important was the declaration which Sir Rivers Wilson made against bimetallism. There was nothing objectionable in Sir Rivers Wilson stating that he and his colleague, Sir Charles Fremantle, were monometallists pure and simple, but he went on to say that no other system but the monometallic system would be possible in this country. He thought Sir Rivers Wilson in that had traversed the boundary line of the Instructions; but the matter was made perfectly clear by Sir Rivers Wilson, because on a subsequent day, when the question was raised by one of the Indian Delegates, Sir Rivers Wilson very frankly told the Conference that it was not his individual opinion, but the opinion of the British Government. In reply to criticisms, and a request to give an explanation how he came to make that declaration, he said—
  "I wish to state that it was purely out of respect for the Delegates, and to shorten as much as possible our labours, that I felt it my duty to make a very explicit declaration, and to state that my Government, as a Government, could not admit that the maintenance of our existing monetary system should be brought into question, or that the presence of British Delegates at a Conference where bimetallism is discussed should lead to the supposition that England would be ready to examine the possibility of a change in her monetary system. It was for that reason that my colleague, Sir Charles Fremantle, and myself thought that it was opportune to let it be known from the very beginning of our debates that our Government did not desire to take up the discussion of the question of bimetallism."
  Now, in that declaration Sir Rivers Wilson had acted entirely in opposition to the Instructions of the Delegates, for the Instructions said that they were to enter into a discussion on every proposal—one of which it was said would be bimetallism—with the greatest care. He therefore desired from the Government an explanation of how it came to pass that Sir Rivers Wilson was able to state that the Government did not desire to enter into a discussion of bimetallism. That declaration had had a great effect on the discussions of the Conference, and, indeed, altered the
  332
  whole policy of the Conference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that bimetallism was discussed by the Conference from beginning to end. That was not so. Before this declaration was made by Sir Rivers Wilson it had not been discussed—it had been referred to by two Delegates; but in both cases it was expressly said that bimetallism was a question that had been postponed to another day. There was another declaration made by Sir Rivers Wilson, and it was considered an important declaration by the Delegates from the other countries. It was made in reference to the adjournment of the Conference. It was a curious coincidence that the adjournment, instead of the closing of the Conference, was only opposed by the Delegates from England. Mr. Bertram Currie, and to some extent Sir Rivers Wilson—but no other Delegate—opposed the adjournment. Sir Rivers Wilson, in expressing a doubt as to whether it was desirable to adjourn the Conference, said—
  "It is no secret that the Government of Her Majesty entered upon this Conference with the greatest reserve, and it may appear to the Government unnecessary to renew the mission which it has entrusted to its Delegates."
  The Delegate of Russia rose immediately after, and said that he had heard with great surprise that declaration; that it should not be forgotten that Sir Rivers Wilson and the Director of the English Mint were high officials; and that the statement must throw cold water on the proceedings. He wanted to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a plain question, What authority had Sir Rivera Wilson for speaking in the name of the Government at the Brussels Conference? It was evident either that Sir Rivers Wilson exceeded his Instructions, or that the other Delegates were in a different position from him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he gave no other Instructions than those which appeared in the Blue Book. But would the right hon. Gentleman deny that there were communications? These communications may have been of a private character, but he was aware that there had been communications, because one of these communications had been handed to him, and he had got a copy of it. That communication was intended to be shown to the other Delegates. He

  333
  had reason to believe that there had been other communications which he had never seen. That might possibly explain why it was that Sir Rivers Wilson was able to speak on behalf of the Government, while the other Delegates were not. This was an important question, and should be cleared up. Many people in this country believed, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Conference might have done something if it had had fair play, but he had no hesitation in saying that Sir Rivers Wilson had taken away by his declarations any chance of progress being made by the Conference. If the same thing was done again at any future meeting of the Conference it would be equally fruitless; but if the Delegates were sent out with the same Instructions as before, and loyally carried them out, he believed there would be good results. In conclusion, the hon. Member said he would not move his Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, if I had known that the consequence of the Motion that Report of Supply should be taken after 12 o'clock would be to re-open the question of bimetallism I would not have moved it, because I could not have had the cruelty of inflicting that subject upon the House at this hour of the night. I have great respect for my hon. Friend opposite—if he will allow me to call him so—who took a useful part at the Conference at Brussels, for which the Government are grateful to him, but really the charge which has been brought against Sir Rivers Wilson is entirely unfounded. There were no official Delegates whatever. All the Delegates were sent to Brussels to ex-press their own opinion upon the subjects brought before them. Of the five Delegates, one expressed his opinion in favour of bimetallism, and the other four expressed their opinion against it. That was the whole issue. No one Delegate was charged with expressing the opinion of the present Government. Undoubtedly, the four Delegates in expressing their own opinion gave utterance to that which is the opinion of the present Government, and they were justified in doing so; and I am glad they did so, seeing that the Government are not in favour of bimetallism. Everything that Sir Rivers Wilson did at Brussels is entirely approved of by the Government. A great deal of confusion
  334
  has arisen from the new course of procedure that was adopted at this Conference. Delegates who were divided in opinion were sent to the Conference, and they could only quarrel amongs themselves, and puzzle all Europe as to what England desired. But I can promise the hon. Member that that will not happen again. If the Conference meets again the Delegates who go to it shall go with definite Instructions from the Government to express the opinion of the Government upon bimetallism. There must be no doubt as to what the opinion of the English Government is upon that subject. They will not go upon the former Instructions, but upon Instructions founded on the Resolution carried by a great majority in the House some weeks ago, and therefore they will speak in the name of the Government, and will express the opinion of the great majority of this House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution read a second time, and agreed to.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 167.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [16th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BARTLEY: I object.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I hope the hon. Member will allow the Second Reading to be taken. There is really nothing contentious in the Bill, which it is proposed to refer to a Select Committee.
  MR. BARTLEY: I have no objection to this Bill being read a second time if a pledge is given that the other Bill on the same subject are also read a second time and referred to the same Committee.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have more than once expressed on behalf of the Government their intention, if these Bills are read a second time, to refer them to the same Committee. I trust that on my repeating the pledge the hon. Member will withdraw his objection.
  MR. BROMLEY - DAVENPORT: Will the right

  335
  hon. Gentleman pledge himself for his supporters below the Gangway?
  MR. JACKSON: The Government have distinctly given an assurance that they are going to refer these Bills to the same Committee. I have no doubt that that will be carried out, and I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his objection.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 245.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that under the Bill as drafted they could not put up a cholera hospital in the district until cholera was actually in the district. Surely the time to put up the hospital was before the cholera came, and he therefore hoped the Government would accept an Amendment he drafted to Clause 1 to remedy that defect.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is too late. The Question has been put and carried.
  COLONEL NOLAN: With great respect, Sir Julian Goldsmid, it has not. I got up when you put the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." I intend to speak, and I am not going to cut short my remarks.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill" was put a week ago, and carried. No Amendment was then moved, and we cannot go back upon it now.
  COLONEL NOLAN: My recollection entirely differs from that. I have a clear and distinct recollection of what occurred on the last occasion, and I say that I got up sharp when the clause was put. If I cannot move my Amendment now I will ask the Government to consider it on Report, and give me a promise to have it inserted in the Bill in another place. My proposal is the most reasonable thing in the world, and is one that ought to be adopted.
  MR. J. MORLEY: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I would point out that the Bill now before the Committee is exactly the same as the Acts of 1883 and 1885; and although I will certainly undertake to consider my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendments on Report, I do not hold out any confident hopes that I shall be able to accept them.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, it was he who drew the Bills and got them passed in 1883 and 1885. Since then he had been in correspondence with the Local Government Board in Ireland, and had had considerable experience in the matter. It would be only a rough shed, and would cost about £30 or £40. There was no cholera in 1883 and 1885, but only a rumour. He would ask the Chief Secretary to take some pains about this matter. He was not going to a Division; all he wanted was to be allowed to alter some of the words of the clause; and as he had been stopped that night by the Forms of the House, he thought he should be able to raise the question on Report. He wondered at the reception he had met with, and that the Chief Secretary could not communicate with the Local Government Board, or somebody responsible in Ireland. If the Local Government Board did not think the proposal necessary, then the head of the Board ought to be asked for his resignation if somebody died. [Mr. J. MORLEY dissented.] He did not mean the political head of the Board, but the gentleman's name ought to be given in the House, so that if cholera did come it would be known. He wanted a promise that the matter would be considered, and he asked for an opportunity on Report.
  MR. J. MORLEY: As to the head of the Local Government Board, I am not the head. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, after the fullest consideration, those who are most responsible are of opinion that his Amendment is not an amendment.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Local Government Board in Ireland issued instructions, and there was responsibility upon the Sanitary Authorities. He had taken great trouble, and had found every difficulty in the way of getting sites. He had had experience not of the cholera, but in the way of making preparations. However, he had now discharged his

  337
  responsibility. He did not want to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; and as he thought he had brought the subject sufficiently forward, he did not propose to take any further steps.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, all demesne land in Ireland was enclosed, and it was not at all easy to obtain a site.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am told that there is an abundance of land in every case for a site for a cholera hospital, if wanted.
  Clauses 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the last time this Bill was in the House of Lords their Lordships were indignant that it had been sent up to them so often. They said it was a useless Bill, and that it should be made a perpetual Act, and not be sent up to them year after year. They might have cholera at any time when this Bill had lapsed, and he was very anxious about it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I quite share my hon. and gallant Friend's desire. This is a Bill which confers considerable powers upon the Local Government Board, and I think there are great objections to conferring those powers in perpetuity. They are powers which ought only to be conferred in the case of a crisis. Therefore, I must agree to the proposal that this Bill should only last for a year, and that it should not apply except in case of emergency.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 134.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Sir Julian Gold-smid, I move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. There are a great many Amendments to this Bill, which will require discussion, and although I, on the part of the Government, have the greatest sympathy with its object, yet I do not think it can be allowed to proceed to-night.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  SIR R. E. WEBSTER: I do not know whether I might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make some little progress with the Bill. There is a feeling in the House that some of the Amendments do not require much discussion. I should be glad to postpone some of the Amendments, but there happen to be reasons why I cannot assist the House upon this Bill after this week.
  MR. ASQUITH: I want to consult my right hon. Friend's convenience, but there are some Amendments that require consideration, and I must, therefore, insist on my Motion.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he desired also to put down some Amendments to the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.—(No. 176.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 3, to leave out from the word "of" to the word "requiring" in line 5, and insert the words "such lands."—(Sir Walter Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. A. C. MORTONwas proceeding to move an Amendment for Mr. Kimber, after the word "animals," to insert "properly," when——
  MR. BARTLEY: Sir Julian Goldsmid, I must protest against this way of carrying Bills. I move that you report Progress. Nobody knows what this is about.
  MR. BRUNNERhoped the hon. Member would not stop a Bill which had met with approval from every quarter.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid the clause seemed to make nonsense of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move the Amendment to which he referred? It is an Amendment to an Amendment, I understand. It is after the word "animals" in the Amendment to insert the word "properly."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir Julian Goldsmid, is it in the discretion of the Chair to refuse a Motion for Progress?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Another hon. Member was speaking at the time, and it is not usual to allow two hon. Members to speak at the same time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  MR. A. C. MORTONhoped the Motion would be withdrawn.
  MR. BARTLEY: In common courtesy the Minister ought to be here.
  MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman is represented by the Secretary to the Local Government Board.
  MR. BARTLEY: The hon. Member, I beg leave to state, did not offer any explanation.
  MR. LONG: May I be allowed to say that I believe this Bill is a useful measure, which proposes to deal with a somewhat difficult, and in some cases dangerous, question. These Amendments are only verbal Amendments, and though no doubt their effect will be somewhat serious, this is I think the utmost we can get. We have got so far with he Amendments, we might be allowed o proceed.
  MR. BARTLEY: The last Amendment is a very sweeping one.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  It being One of the clock, the Motion to report Progress lapsed, and the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  MILITARY LANDS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Woodall, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Secretary of State under "The Military Lands Act, 1892," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Woodall and Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 262.]

  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arnold Morley, Bill to make further provision for the Conveyance of Her Majesty's Mails, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arnold Morley and Sir John Hibbert.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 263.]

  BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL.—(No. 45.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Building Societies (No. 2) Bill.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 102.)
  Read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Building Societies (No. 2) Bill.
  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 158.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 134.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (WALES) BILL.—(No. 2.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.
  It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at two minutes after One o'clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Lord Ffrench—Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Martin Joseph Ffrench Baron Ffrench to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL. [H.L.]

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYpresented a Bill to provide for greater freedom for religious instruction in Board schools. He said this was an important measure, inasmuch as there were in England, to which the Bill referred, alone 4,747 Board Schools educating about 1,500,000 children. Many of them gave no religious instruction whatever. Statistics were very difficult to obtain, as constant confusion arose between the term School Boards and Board schools, but at least 91 Boards would not allow any religious instruction to be given. Many again allowed a certain amount of Bible reading without note or comment, while others permitted the use of prayers and hymns without any Bible reading; but, altogether, a considerable proportion of these schools gave practically no religious instruction of any kind. Others gave a certain kind of teaching after the method of the London and Manchester School Boards, which might be in some cases very good as far as it went, but was very inadequate to meet the requirements of parents really in earnest as to the future religious belief of their children. This Bill was meant to give greater security to parents of children attending the public elementary schools provided by School Boards that their children should receive religious instruction at the hands of persons in whom they had confidence.
  162
  The method of carrying out that object provided by the Bill was very simple, and one which the circumstances of this country seemed to call for. If our country were like Germany, possessing only four or five religious confessions, it would be easy enough to deal with this question; but, in fact, we had nearly one religious denomination for every day in the year, and, therefore, the only way of dealing with the subject at all satisfactorily as between these different denominations was to allow the parents of a sufficient number of children to apply for separate religious instruction, and to put upon the School Boards and the Department together the duty of seeing that that did not become too great a strain upon the staff and management, and that the work was not caused to be done inefficiently. The persons engaged in doing it were, according to the Bill, to be nominated by the parents, but they might be, and in most cases probably would be, already members of the school staff. The result would be to very much then what was good in the present system of religious teaching in Board schools, and where it was bad, or inefficient, to enable the deficiency to be easily remedied.
  Bill to provide for greater freedom of religious instruction in Board schools—Presented (The Lord Bishop of Salisbury); read l a ; and to be printed, (No. 52.)

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 24.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, any of your Lord-ships who have looked at this Bill which has been before you for some time will be quite aware that it is not intended in any way to interfere with or to depreciate the value of the right of private patronage. The right of private presentation to benefices formed part of the natural history of the Church of England—it is a usage which has grown up during centuries, and within certain limits it has proved to be beneficial in its working. The right, when properly exercised, undoubtedly gives the private patrons, who are usually

  163
  persons of importance in the parish, an interest in the choice of a thoroughly suitable clergyman; it gives them also an interest in the work of the Church at large, and it is beneficial in that it is a natural and practical means of securing that the diversity of schools of religious thought which exist among us shall have proper and adequate representation. How completely it is part of the English Church is visible in the fact that nearly one-half of the livings of England are in private patronage, and that the value of such livings is greater than that of those which are in public patronage. It is an indication of the interest taken in private patronage that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have received above £2,500,000 from private donors for the purpose of improving such livings. Therefore, it is not my intention in the Kill to disturb in the least any right of private patronage. One of the rights of private patronage undoubtedly is that of transferring the right of appointment for a consideration. Well, I am not concerned to defend that right, but it is important we should observe that it has always been protected by law. That subject, however, belongs to a field entirely outside of this Bill, or any discussion of it. It is plain in a moment that there are certain instances in which it is advantageous: for instance, where an impoverished landowner has to part with the whole of his property, it would be a loss to the parish that he should be obliged to retain the advowson. Public patronage, we may say, practically speaking, has never been sold within living memory, but in a limited number of cases private patronage has been sold over and over again; there is one case in my own diocese in which a living of £2,000 a year has been sold three times in 10 years. I do not then intend by this Bill to attempt to meddle with the principle of transfer for consideration any more than with private patronage itself: but only to deal with those real and glaring evils of the system which are universally admitted to exist. They are evils not inherent in the least in private patronage or in transfer for consideration, and they are not allowed by law. It is very important we should observe that these real evils are all against the law. One of the leading agents in these matters stated
  164
  to the last Royal Commission that nearly all of his transaction were illegal. These illegalities are the means by which wrongful transfer are effected; they are evasions, defiance of the law; they are subterfuges; and the Bill proceeds upon the idea that the law ought to stop whatever defiance or evasion of itself it is able to stop. Futile it is in general to pass laws which overstrain or outshoot the public conscience. Active steps have been taken again and again during the last 20 years to put a stop to these evasions and defiances of the law, and it is full time they were brought to a head If it were urged that they were not very numerous as regards the proportion of livings affected, though numerous in themselves, the comparative fewness of offences is no reason for not dealing with them. The Bill does not seek to make any revolution in the law of patronage, but to stem offences against the right use of patronage, and to provide securities where it is possible that the law as it now stands shall be observed. It is also intended to close loop-holes which the law has left open, but which are plainly against the spirit and intention of the law, The first evil we have to deal with is that of the purchase of next presentations for the benefit of the purchaser. That is distinctly against the law, and yet another of the witnesses who were called before the Royal Commission, who was himself concerned in this traffic, admitted that three-quarters of his transactions were for immediate possession by the purchaser. More than three-fourths of the offers advertised in a circular which I hold in my hand from a clerical agent are with the prospect of early possession, and this is achieved by various evasions. One very common practice is purchasing an advowson, which is lawful, then presenting oneself to it and again selling it, and not unfrequently selling it back upon a previous engagement to the person from whom it had just been bought. A more flagrant defiance of law than that it is scarcely possible to imagine, and yet that is done almost always with impunity. The law is right in enacting that a man shall not be allowed to buy a next presentation for the benefit of himself. It is against the very idea of patronage. The very idea of patronage is that another person

  165
  shall judge of a man's fitness for the work of the Church, and that he should judge it on grounds which it is perfectly easy to define. When a man buys an advowson and presents himself it is very often because he takes a fancy to the house and the garden attached to the living, and to the shooting and the fishing of the neighbourhood, and he puts himself in possession of those means and opportunities of sport, and having put himself in possession of that sport by a violation of the law he very often re-sells the living to some one else. I admit that a good man may under this system put himself into a living with the firm resolution of exercising his ministry most purely, but that is no reason why we should sanction evasion of the law. Even a good man who buys himself into a living in that way starts upon his ministry with a taint, and he never gets over the taint. Whatever other reasons his parishioners may have for thinking ill of him or lightly of his influence, are extremely aggravated by the fact that he is exercising the office of priest among them by purchase. The existing state of things leads, of course, to the establishment of shops for the sale of benefices. Livings become articles of commerce and are sold by auction to the highest bidder. The salesmen's lists set forth all the particulars and the attractions of the livings. Inducements of the lowest kind are offered to purchasers. One advertisement here reads—
  "Charming preferment for a man fond of sporting and a country life. Rectory-house cost £4,000. Price, with early possession, £2,000."
  Another advertisement states that "an attractive living" is "not far from a fashionable seaside resort." I hold in my hand a correspondence between an agent and a clergyman, in which the agent seeks to induce the clergyman, a rector with several incumbencies in his gift as rector, to dispose of the presentations to the agent. Another advertisement reads: "Population 1,500, but congregation small," actually gloating over the previous inefficiences of the place, and offering the results of them as an attraction to an idle man. In a letter, privately written to a clergyman by an agent, the nature of a living is mentioned, and it is stated of it—
  166
  "The price is £2,500, with interest until pos-session. The age of the incumbent is 76; but we hear this morning that he is very seriously ill. The doctor says that he cannot possibly last more than six months; so there is every prospect of a very early vacancy, so that we believe our client would be pepared to entertain a fair offer if made immediately. Are you disposed to make us one? Kindly reply by return."
  And this precious document is adorned with a mitre. A letter of that kind I think it will be agreed is nothing short of disgusting, and yet it is a kind of letter which is passing about continually. Upon the sale-lists to which I had referred, there appears this statement—"The rector will retire with one-third of his income; "and another—"The rector will exchange and give possession." Disgusting as the other instances were these examples show the cold-blooded nature of the transactions, by which so many people are to be defrauded. If a rector retires with one-third of his income, it means that he must first make a representation to the Bishop that his health is infirm. The Bishop will then appoint a Commission of Inquiry, and on the favourable Report of the Commission the rector will be allowed to retire with one-third of his income. Yet, in the case I have cited, the agent is actually anticipating all these proceedings by advertising that the rector will retire. In the other case, that of exchanging and giving possession, the same abuse occurrs. The advertisement reads as though there were no authorities to be consulted; they have it in their own hand. In the case of exchange, the law requires the consent of two Bishops to be obtained, but all limits are set aside by the contrivances of these people. It may not be possible to fight human nature so far as to make all contrivances of this kind impossible; but the purpose of the Bill is to make such contrivances as difficult as possible. Then besides the purchase of presentations with these attractions and inducements there is a second great evil, the mortgage of benefices for debts. If a clergyman mortgages his benefice for debts he has incurred he, of course, cripples the resources which the parish possesses for the proper discharge of spiritual functions. These debts are very commonly debts to the agent himself, who turns money-lender as well as salesman, and furnishes the

  167
  clergyman who has "a taste for sport and country pursuits" with the money necessary for the purchase of the desired living. I have in my hand a list of livings to be sold in England—about 40—where "part of the price," it is stated, "may remain on a mortgage of the advowson. "There are others where" interest will be paid by the vendor until a vacancy occurs." I need not enlarge upon these points. It is plainly a very corrupt and odious system. What I wish to emphasise is that not a single point of it is necessarily involved in the usage of private patronage. Not one of the actions I have mentioned is allowed by law. This unhealthy system and abuses have grown up, like an excrescence, a kind of fungoid growth, which it is the business of Parliament to try and remove. There are three remedies which have been proposed for dealing with this parasitic evil. The first step is to establish in every diocese a Board of Patronage, which would review every presentation and satisfy itself that it was given honestly and aboveboard, with none of these odious transactions about it. It is also an object of the scheme that, as fast as possible, by gift or by funds raised for the purpose, the Boards should acquire the patronage of as many livings as possible in the diocese. This proposal has been set aside by the framers of the present Bill, because we believe that Boards of Patronage would not be popular or workable institutions, and that funds and livings would not to any great extent be committed to them. Considering that the vast number of presentations are perfectly honourable and pure in every respect such a system would be very thankless, and sometimes without any result, an inquisitorial system. The second scheme proposed was the constitution of Boards of Fitness for certain areas, which should simply decide in cases of sale whether the purchaser was a proper person to purchase. On close consideration, however, it was held that to decide the fitness of purchasers there must be laid down very narrow and formal definitions, or else the Board, exercising its own judgment, must undertake a great deal of inquiry which would be painful and unpleasant to all concerned. Thirdly, an able attempt was made to define the classes of persons who might become purchasers—to say
  168
  what amount of interest a patron ought to have in the place which he presented; what constituted an interest, ownership, or business relationship. All these attempted definitions, however, proved unsatisfactory. The supporters of the Bill do not wish to make a revolution in the system of patronage. What we want is like a new street run through the low parts of a town; we merely wish to let in daylight and air into the dark places, and we believe this Bill will effect that purpose. It is first necessary to know who is the patron of any living. At present no one knows. There are authentic lists published and accepted of benefices with their occupants and patrons. But suppose a Bishop to be about to institute a clergyman in a living. The Bishop may acquaint himself with the statements in, the Clergy List and in the Calendar of his diocese as to the patron of the living; but at the last moment he may find himself confronted with a document stating that the new incumbent was presented by so-and-so, "the true and undoubted patron of the living," and that document has to be accepted at the moment. Little by little the difficulty would be successfully met if a system of registration of transfers of patronage were established. It is proposed in the Bill to institute such a plan of registration that the patron should not be considered to be the patron after a transfer of the patronage unless he has registered himself as the patron. Then, secondly, it is desirable that the law should explicitly declare to be illegal the evasions of the law which now exist, and that it should void benefices which have been obtained by evading the law. A man comes and asks the protection of the law to insure his possession of his living; it is only fair to require that he should make a declaration stating that he has not just broken the law. At present there is a declaration required, but it is almost useless, because a man simply declares that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, nothing which has taken place in connection with his appointment to a living was simoniacal. The word "simony" is a very vague word; it does not certainly retain its original meaning; the definition of it has passed the ingenuity of great lawyers, and a man may rely upon definitions which would enable him to make a declaration

  169
  such as the Bill is intended to guard against. The first point, therefore, is registration; the second is that the law shall explicitly state what is illegal; and the third is the security of the declaration of the man himself that he has done nothing that is illegal. The fourth point is that the law ought to state specifically what are the disqualifications against admissions to livings, and it ought to forbid the Bishop to accept a man who would not be accepted for a clerkship, a tutorship, or a butlership. A man would not be accepted for positions of that kind if he were labouring under actual debt of such a nature as is described in Clause 4, or if he were labouring under an infirmity which would prevent the discharge of his duties. Further, it ought to be a disqualification that a man is of bad character, and that his character would stand in his way if he were seeking any other position. It also seems to me just that before a man is appointed to a living the parishioners should have the right to state their objections to the Bishop. It is, therefore, only right that the parishioners should have his name before them for three or four weeks, and that if they made frivolous or spiteful objections the Bishop might dismiss them. There is another object in connection with the traffic in livings which ought to be effected, and that is the abolition of the kind of benefices which are called donatives. Ad native is simply at first sight a benefice to which, owing to its old history, through its having in the main been connected with some monastery, a patron is enabled to present a man without seeking institution from the Bishop. That seems an innocent proceeding, but it comes to this, that a man has not to present letters of orders to the Bishop, nor has he to present a testimonial, and it is not shown how he has behaved himself in his previous cures. There is, indeed, no certain proof that he is a clergyman at all, as he has to present no letters of orders. Then, again, he does not make any promise of could obedience to the Bishop, and is not subject to the Bishop's interference. Another characteristic of these donatives is that they are capable of being sold during vacancy. Now, these peculiarities bring them under the category of livings which are mischievous. Agents themselves
  170
  acquire donatives, and they use them in this way. An incumbent applies for leave to resign his living and another person is waiting to be presented to it. The proper authorities suspect that there is a simoniacal transaction, and believe that the incumbent in possession intends to resign his benefice for a payment or for some other benefit. When the offer is made to resign the Bishop has power to decline to accept the resignation, but if he does so the agent has now nothing to do but to present the simoniacal seller to one of his own donatives. When that is done his original benefice is ipso facto immediately vacated, and a way is opened to the purchaser to go in, and both law and authority are completely defied. It is not too strong a statement which was made to the Commission, "that the donative is the most powerful instrument of corruption which a man could have in his possession." By means of it he could ride through and over everything. There are only 100 of these donatives, and they are all, with the exception of eight, very small. Under the Bill they are all converted into presentative benefices; nobody will be hurt, and the only difference will be that the patron has the additional security of the letters of orders and everything else, and that the clergyman appointed is subject to the law. There is yet one other point. We believe that certain persons ought to be obliged to vacate their livings. We believe that a man who is labouring under great and hopeless debt should vacate his living, because there is nothing which more destroys a man's efficiency than his being known to be a debtor, with all the miseries and in capabilities which attend upon that state. Then, again, it ought not to be possible that the parishioners should, year after year, and sometimes for 20 or 30 years, be shepherded by a person labouring under hopeless infirmity. The Bill provides that if a man, labouring under hopeless infirmity, does not resign of himself and take advantage of the Incumbents' Resignation Act, 1871, to do so, it should be possible, upon proper representations, for that Act to be applied to him with this further humane provision, in order that he should not be wholly at the mercy of the Commission, to be issued by the Bishop, as to what his pension from the living should be; the

  171
  Bill provides that the pension shall in no case be less than one-fourth of the annual income of the benefice. In the preparation of the Bill I have taken counsel with those who are best acquainted with both the civil and the ecclesiastical law, and they have given me most careful and generous assistance, for which I thank them most sincerely. The Bill is not intended to make a heroic revolution in the system of patronage, but it has been devised to remedy chiefs and illegalities against which the world, both religious and irreligious, cries out, and cries out most justly. My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid he should not like their Lordships to pass the Second Reading of the Bill without any Member of the House expressing the sense of obligation which most of them, at all events, felt towards the most rev. Prelate for his persevering endeavours to deal with this very important, and also difficult, subject. The House would agree with him in recognising the rule as universal, and without exception, that to property of all kinds some duties attached. They might be duties of imperfect, or duties of perfect, obligation—duties some of which no means could be found to enforce, excepting an appeal to the moral sense and judgment of the community; but if there were any kind of property the connection of which with duty was most obvious and most imperative, it was the property which the law allowed in rights of appointment to offices of public importance. That would apply to a lay office, but not eminently to a spiritual office, because for that it was necessary to appoint a person who should not only be free from obvious legal, moral, or physical disqualifications, but also a fit and proper person, as far as human judgment could go, to be a spiritual guide and help to a greater or less number of people. Even in the smallest parishes the souls of the people were as precious as in any others. Without exception, the good of the people should be regarded above all things in such a matter. The right of lay patronage was
  172
  very valuable, and, upon the whole, as far as he could judge, it had been generally administered in a conscientious spirit. The law recognised such rights of property, not as paramount, but as subordinate and subsidiary to the interests of those whose spiritual care was the ultimate object of that patronage. This was not a convenient time to go into the details of the Bill, but they bore very strong evidences of an endeavour to reconcile as far as possible those rights of property in private patrons with the higher and greater rights of those who were interested in the proper exercise of such patronage. Some provisions of the Bill went, no doubt, beyond the existing law,, but only upon the principle and with the purpose of cutting off means of defeating the just objects of the law, and preventing gross and scandalous abuses. Whatever limitations might be placed upon the exercise of private rights of patronage which could be shown to be either necessary or conducive to the curing of those abuses were perfectly justifiable. The Bill also provided for the avoidance of benefices when the duties could not be properly discharged,, and made other subsidiary provisions which would he dealt with at a later stage. This Bill, he had no hesitation in saying, was a well considered improvement upon former measures which had received the sanction of their Lordships' House, and was in all respects worthy of their full sympathy and liberal support.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I cannot let this Bill be read a second time without rising to thank the most rev. Prelate for the very great care he has evidently bestowed on the framing of the Bill, and for bringing it forward once more in its new shape for the consent of your Lordships' House. I am not going to enter into all the evils which the most rev. Prelate has described. I cannot imagine anyone entertaining a doubt as to the question raised that this measure is not only for the good of the Church, but for the good of the nation, and that an end should be put absolutely to these practices. There are many persons who think that it would a wise step to stop the sale of advowsons altogether. Undoubtedly that is quite a different subject, and one which is very much more difficult to deal with. I am entirely in

  173
  favour of the right of private patronage continuing to exist. It is the sale of the next presentation which practically works all the mischief. He quoted this remark from a judgment of Lord Chief Justice Eyre—
  "An advowson is a temporal right, not indeed jus habendi; but jus disponendi. The right itself is a valuable right and properly the object of sale, but the exercise of this right is a public trust, and, therefore, ought to be void of any pecuniary consideration, either in the patron, or in the presentee."
  I believe those words fortify the speech of the most rev. Prelate, and are exactly to the point of the Bill. What gives me a particular satisfaction in the matter is that it is now 23 years ago since I had the honour of passing a Bill for stopping the sale of next presentations through the other House of Parliament. That Bill was read by your Lordships' House a second time, and then I am sorry to say it went no further. These evils have gone on since then in many a hundred parishes, owing to that Bill not having passed, and therefore I am thankful to the most rev. Prelate for the persistency with which he has pressed this most valuable Bill upon your Lordships' consideration, and I sincerely trust it will at once become law.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he concurred in the expression of thanks to the most rev. Prelate. He would merely mention that about half a century ago he had joined with his father in divesting themselves of what they considered the very objectionable possession of a donative preferment by a deed giving a small regular endowment to a living and putting the incumbent under episcopal jurisdiction. Not the least valuable part of the proposed measure seemed to him to be the abolition of the donatives.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I do not think there can be two opinions that the abuses which the Bill seeks to check are most serious and mischievous. The right of presenting to a benefice is one that ought to be regarded as a sacred trust, and in my judgment it is impossible to imagine one involving greater responsibility. On the choice which a patron makes, and on the character of the person presented, depends very often the happiness of the parish. For years almost their only opportunity of religious instruction often
  174
  depends on the person presented, and considering the consequences of presenting an unfit person it is, I think, in the highest degree obligatory on your Lordships to sec; that, however much the right of private patronage may be regarded as a right of property, it, ought to be regarded still more as a trust. There is something repugnant in the idea of the sale of a sacred trust. I do not mean to say that there are not cases in which it may be perfectly innocently done and without mischief, as, for example, where an estate changes hands; but, speaking generally, I think the notion of traffic in this sacred trust is abhorrent to the feelings of everybody. It is selling as a right that which ought to be regarded as a trust; it is the sale, not merely of the right of the patron, but of the rights of the parishioners, whose interests are prejudiced and affected and who have no voice in the transaction. I should, therefore, have been better pleased if the measure had gone further than it does in abolishing the sale of patronage. The vast majority of patrons of livings like, no doubt, to have the disposal of a living to the persons presented, but I do not think that they look at the right of patronage as so much property which they can dispose of for so much money in the market. Therefore, I do not think myself there would have been any great sense of interference with the right of property as ordinarily understood, considering that it has grown up rather in the nature of an abuse if it had been dealt with even with a less tender hand than it has been in the Bill. The Bill contains proposals which go in the right direction, and the Government will not oppose the measure because it might in their judgment have gone further. So far as this part of the Bill is concerned,. I support it as being likely to go a considerable way in checking some of the more outrageous abuses in connection with patronage. But there are other lines on which the Bill proposes to enact reforms. What can be more disreputable than the spectacle of a man hopelessly embarrassed, loaded with debt, unable to pay his way and yet retaining his position year after year as the vicar of a parish? Such a state of things is a discredit to religion and a great disadvantage to the parishioners. It is quite impossible under such circumstances

  175
  that a man can with energy, zeal, and diligence discharge the important duties which he ought to discharge. I do not say that there are not exceptional cases, and that there may be some cases which are the result of misfortune. But I am speaking of the many cases where there is no reasonable excuse, and where there ought to be power to interfere to a greater extent than is the case at present. In many cases persons are presented for institution in whose cases there is no absolute disqualification according to the law as it stands, but whose institution it is known would be greatly detrimental to the parish. It is only right that there should be proper safeguards, and that the Bishop should not be compelled to force upon a parish one who would not be a desirable spiritual pastor. The Bill also prevents repeated sales of the same benefice; and, although its provisions may in a sense interfere with the patron's rights, I am quite sure that the limitations proposed will be felt by all right-minded and right-feeling patrons to be in the general interest of the public and for the good of the Church.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2 a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 25.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, this measure is a very short one, and has been brought up from the other House of Parliament. At the present moment if a Public Library is wanted a very cumbrous process of voting papers has to be gone through from all the inhabitants. That is a very expensive operation, and takes time. In other matters of this kind the system of voting papers has been done away with. In 1890 the proposal which I made was carried with regard to the Public Health Amendment Act; in 1891 the same proposal was carried with regard to the Museums and Gymnasiums Act; and all I want to do by this Bill is to enable the Urban Sanitary Authority by resolution and under certain safeguards which are contained
  176
  in the Bill, but with which I will not trouble your Lordships at present, to substitute that authority for the voting papers in existence now. Last year the whole of the Acts regarding Public Libraries were consolidated. A Committee sat in the other House of Parliament and went into the whole matter very carefully, and I am told that the Committee are entirely in favour of this amendment of the law, only as the Reference to them was to consolidate and not to amend, they would not allow an amendment to be put into the Bill of 1892. This measure has received the support of persons of all political views in the other House of Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and that it will speedily become law.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Viscount Cross.)
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid the Local Government Board offered no objection to the proposals in this Bill, but possibly when it reached the Committee stage he might he instructed to move one or two Amendments, of which he would give the noble Viscount notice.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 4.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ON SLOW*THE EARL OF ON SLOW, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, although of bore a prosaic title, it might be more properly called a Bill providing for the marking of imported meat. The question excited great interest at present in this country and in various parts of the world; and this Bill was in furtherance of a principle which the Legislature had already adopted in several Acts in connection with imported articles. It was said they could not make people sober by Act of Parliament, but it was not said that they could not make people honest by Act of Parliament. They could see, at all events, that people were not made dishonest by Act of Parliament. It was, he believed, a matter of common notoriety that large quantities of meat were

  177
  sold in this country as the product of a locality far from that in which they were actually produced. It was a most excellent motto to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, but it was not legitimate to buy an inferior article and sell it as a superior article. That was not the forethought of commercial enterprise but the knavery of the common cheat which this Bill would provide against. He could quote many instances of this particular form of fraud. In the case referred to by Mr. Nelson, a large importer of meat from the Argentine Republic, it was undoubtedly, as he said, a fraud to substitute Colonial meat for English meat. There was also the case mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture in the Lower House of Parliament in New Zealand of the Australian gentleman who went into a butcher's shop in London where his own frozen meat was being sold, and having told the butcher that it was Australian frozen mutton, the butcher threatened to send for a policeman and give him into custody for daring to say so, and all the time this gentleman knew that the sheep were his own. He had not the slightest intention of imputing fraud to those engaged in the wholesale trade. In July, 1891, when Scotch mutton was at the highest point it reached during that year—namely, 5s. 8d.—New Zealand mutton was fetching 3s. and River Plate mutton 2s. 2d. per stone. In July, 1892, Scotch mutton had again reached its highest level of the year. It was then at 5s. 4d. Buyers were at this time paying 2s. 9d. for New Zealand mutton, and 2s. 3d. for mutton from the River Plate. Over the whole of the former year, 1891, Scotch mutton averaged 4s. ll¼d. per stone, while the average of New Zealand mutton was 2s. 11d., and of River Plate mutton 2s. 4d. In the year 1892, buyers paid on an average 4s. 9½d. for Scotch mutton, 2s. 10¾d. for New Zealand, and 2s. 2¾d. for River Plate mutton per stone. That showed that a considerable difference existed in the wholesale value of these various qualities of meat. The growth and present extent of the import trade were significant. In 1880, only 400 carcases were brought over and sold from Australia; in 1887, from the same place 88,000 were sent to us, besides 750,000 from New Zealand, and over
  178
  500,000 from the River Plate. In 1892, those figures had still further increased. In that year we received 500,000 carcases from Australia, 1,500,000 from New Zealand, and over 500,000 from the River Plate. This importation of frozen meat had so affected that of live sheep on the hoof that it might be said to have annihilated it, and to have taken its place. In the year 1883, when we imported only 200,000 frozen carcases, there were sent to Great Britain over 1,000,000 head of live stock. In the year 1892, when over 3,000,000 of frozen carcases were received from abroad, the number of live sheep imported into Great Britain had dropped to only 85,000. The importations of beef were chiefly from America. Of the total supply of beef as meat consumed in the British Isles, Australia furnishes us with the insignificant proportion of one-third per cent., while the contribution of New Zealand is even less important, being at the rate of one-fourth per cent. It is estimated 15,500,000 cwt. of beef grown at home are consumed annually in Great Britain, while 5,500,000 cwt. of our consumption are imported. In October last, the President of the Board of Agriculture, replying to a deputation of persons interested in the Deptford cattle trade, on the subject of the importation of foreign cattle, quoted some interesting figures. A calculation that he had made, he said, showed that in 1891 the total meat consumption of the country was 2,139,000 tons of food, and out of that 1,478,000 tons were produced at home, 489,000 tons of dead meat were imported from abroad, and only 172,000 tons of live imports wore brought into this country. So that, while the produce of this country in round numbers amounted to something like 70 per cent. of the whole consumption, there was 22 per cent. of imported dead meat, and only 8 per cent. were living animals brought into this country. Their Lordships would thus see that not only was the trade in imported dead meat very extensive, but the range in prices between meat from different countries loft open the door for the perpetration of considerable fraud by the substitution of one for the other. As to the possibility of marking moat, it was largely practised not only in this country, but in the United States, and on the Continent of Europe. The Hebrew race would only

  179
  eat meat killed in the manner directed by their religion, and in order that a Jew might be able to recognise Kosher meat, it was stamped with a die, and by making a hole in the bone and passing through it a little metal tag, upon which a leaden seal was placed bearing the butcher's mark. In the United States a system of marking meat had been carried out since 1891, which had proved quite efficacious, the process adopted being much the same as that of the Jews, a leaden seal being attached to the meat and stamped by the Board of Agriculture. The marking of meat was, however, most completely carried out in Denmark, and he was indebted to the courtesy of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for procuring information for him from Copenhagen on the subject, which he would ask should be laid on the Table of the House. In Copenhagen, the practice was to stamp several parts of each carcase, showing whether it was first or second class meat, the former being marked in blue, the second in black, in such a way that it could not be got out, without leaving evidence that the meat had been tampered with. He proposed to adopt a combination of both those methods, stamping all carcases in several places, and passing through the bone a tag with a leaden seal immediately below the fleshy part of the leg. If the loss of time in doing this were made an objection, he would point out the rapidity with which letters were stamped in the Post Office, and that already carcases were sent to this country sewn up in bags, an operation which must take a considerable time. But he was satisfied seeing the increased prices obtained, that no objection would be raised on account of the increased trouble involved. This was not the first Bill for the purpose which had been introduced into their Lordships' House, for a measure was brought in some years ago by the late Lord Leamington, though it was very different from this. That Bill, he confessed, had filled him with amazement as a friend of our Colonial Empire, for it was proposed that all meat sent from our Colonies should be termed "foreign meat." He opposed that Bill for another reason: that it would not have distinguished between certain kinds of meat. In the New Zealand House of Assembly a motion was made to procure that a
  180
  system of marking should be initiated by the New Zealand Government. The Minister for Agriculture, himself a practical sheep farmer both in this country and in New Zealand, said—
  "Any legislation that we may pass here, or any brand that we may put on our mutton, will have no effect, and the only way to meet the difficulty will be to have legislation introduced in the Imperial Parliament to deal with the matter. … It is not much use representing the matter to the British Authorities, but the Government will do all they possibly can. We intend to again communicate with the Agent-General. But we have no power to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government to induce them to pass the law. … The matter must be left to the British Government in England."
  The Australasian, a Melbourne weekly newspaper, which probably had the largest circulation of any in those Colonies, among the class who were chiefly interested in the production of wool and mutton, had appointed a "special commissioner" to examine into the whole question of the export of meat to England, and, in the course of his Report, he said—
  "How to break down the imposition and fraud that seem so inextricably associated with the sale of the meat in Great Britain is the crux of this question at the present time, and certain it, is that nothing less than a great co-operative effort on the part of the producers to secure due protection of their interests in the English market, or an official grading of the meat can possibly grapple with the evil."
  Again, at a great banquet given to inaugurate the commencement of a trade in frozen beef from Queensland, Mr. Weddel, the agent for the new Company in England, replying to the toast of "Prosperity to that Company," said—
  "A great deal of correspondence has appeared in the papers lately on the subject of branding Colonial mutton with the country of origin. To this we could not have the slightest objection; on the contrary, we would welcome any such scheme as being the best advertisement we could have of our wares. We know we have a thoroughly good article to sell; we have no reason to be ashamed of it, and have no desire to sell it for other than what it is."
  These views were not confined to persons engaged in the Colonial Trade for Mr. Ward, a large importer of meat from the River Plate, to Liverpool, in an interview" with a newspaper representative, alluding to this Bill, was reported to have said this—
  "People are saying that the measure which is being brought forward is intended to ruin the foreign meat trade; but we would hail with

  181
  delight such a measure as is proposed. We have so much confidence in our trade that we can allow it to stand on its merits."
  In November, 1890, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, under the presidency of the noble Lord, the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, resolved—
  "That it is desirable to label all imported meat when sold in this country."
  The present Bill was not introduced in the interests of any class in particular, as was sometimes suggested to be the case with measures when introduced into their Lordhips' House. It was brought forward in the interests of the artisans and labourers; of clerks, whose incomes were, as was well known so meagre; in the interests of small shopkeepers and tradesmen, who, if they could buy at a cheaper price, might be able to have meat every day in the week, instead of only two or three times; in the interests of young married couples, who frequently saw their families increasing more rapidly than their incomes; and, finally, in the interests of large public institutions supported by charitable funds. In one depot, in Liverpool, he was told that 50 purchases averaged no more than 2½d., while in another the average of 100 purchases was only 2¼d. He would like to ask, on the other hand, who were likely to be injured by the Bill. Certainly not the consumers or their Colonial friends; still less the English farmer. In fact there was but one person who could be injured, and he was a person with whom neither their Lordships nor the public would have any sympathy—the fraudulent butcher, who ground the faces of the poor. He did not ask the House to pass this Bill as a matter of special favour to the British farmer, all he asked their Lordships to do was to give a fair field to our Colonial stock-raisers, to see that our commercial men were shielded from fraud in the purchase of an important article of food, and to discourage imposition in trade. He moved the Second Heading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read, 2a—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, that he did not propose to follow his noble Friend into all the statistics or considerations he had touched upon. He would address himself to the Bill his noble Friend had explained so pleasantly and clearly. This
  182
  Bill was one of several similar proposals, already in print, dealing with the identification and marking of imported meat. There were three Bills of this nature in print in the House of Commons, and there were kindred measures drafted relating to marking, with the view to identification and showing the origin of fruit and cheese. Now, what was the justification and object of these measures, as stated by the promoters? He conceived it to be this, and it was so stated to their Lordships by his noble Friend, the prevention of misrepresentation by the retailers, who were supposed in these cases, upon which Parliament was invited to legislate, to be getting a better price for foreign and colonial meat than they ought, by selling-it at the price of home-fed stuff, and so not only imposing upon the consumer, but also adversely affecting prices to the detriment of home-fed meat and our own graziers. If this was really going on, it was a very bad business. But was it the case? The noble Lord said it was a matter of common notoriety; but matters of common notoriety did not always stand the test of particular investigation. For himself, and he thought their Lordships also, he would have to be convinced by more evidence than they had at command at present, before they subscribed to en actments which must impose novel and troublesome obligations all round. But, even granting that all this was going on, he was under the impression that his noble Friend's Bill was inadequate for his object. He did not profess to be a Parliamentary linguist, but it seemed to him that Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill did not deal with the grievance. The carcase was the noble Earl's special care and not the pieces of meat cut from it. It was the small retailer they wanted to get at, but there was nothing in these clauses to protect the artisan or clerk from the operations of the small retailer, if the latter were inclined to be fraudulent. Carcases, indeed were to be marked, but not the smaller portions of meat which the small consumers presumably purchased from the small retailer. This Bill proceeded upon the lines of the law in Denmark, but the law in Denmark, as he understood it, was directed against meat unfit for human food, rather than against misrepresentation as to native origin. Moreover, the cases of

  183
  London and Copenhagen were not identical. There was a public slaughterhouse in Copenhagen; there was no such institution in London. This fact alone would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the House to adapt the provisions of the law in Denmark to our own requirements. Failing a public slaughter-house, the submitting of all meat to public Inspectors was the alternative, which must involve a complicated, and might involve a harassing, machinery. This question was a large one, not to be lightly undertaken, and it appeared to him that, upon three fundamental points, fuller investigation and more light were essential. Those points he took to be—first, the necessity for this legislation; secondly, the practicability of this legislation; thirdly, perhaps the most important of all, the effect of such legislation upon our international commercial relations. In view of these considerations he must ask his noble Friend to withdraw the Bill, but not without giving him a quid pro quo. Upon his part he would undertake, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that a Select Committee of their Lordships' House should be appointed forthwith to investigate and report upon the whole question of the marking of imported meats and other produce, such as fruit and cheese. Margarine, and the working of the Margarine Acts, had been alluded to by the noble Lord, but, although the Government would consider the advisability of including those matters in the Reference of the Committee, he could give no undertaking as to margarine. He believed this would be the best course, and that it would commend itself to general approval, and command the confidence of the interests involved. The question of the marking of meat might have been included in the Reference of the House of Commons' Committee, to which he had alluded the other day, upon the general condition of agriculture. That Committee had had a sad fate; it had been blocked—and blocked by the action of a right hon. Gentleman in whose breast the patriotic fire of agriculture was supposed to burn with peculiar brightness, but he did not suppose that in that House it would suffer a similar fate. It seemed advisable, therefore, to appoint a Committee of their Lordships to deal with this question of marking imported produce, and he
  184
  hoped his noble Friend would accede to his proposal and withdraw his Bill upon the undertaking he had given.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that he did not know whether he quite followed the noble Lord in the proposal he made. He was not quite clear whether it was proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into all agricultural matters in lieu of that in the House of Commons, or to inquire more into matters connected with the importation of goods. In any case, however, he admitted that the subject was surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and the proposal of the noble Lord would no doubt tend to elucidate the matter, which was one of considerable interest to a large portion of the community. In reply to the noble Lord's appeal, he gladly withdrew the Bill on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would propose a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. The noble Lord said something about margarine. He was given to understand that the working of those Acts was not all that was desired by those at whose instance they were passed, and bethought, if possible, the working of those Acts should be referred to the same Committee.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

BILLS OF SALE BILL [H.L.]—(NO. 7.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  Amendments made, in Clause 1, page 3, line 4, before ("or to") insert ("or to the grant of an easement"); line 5, after ("land") insert—
  "Or by way of indemnity against any such annual sum or against any liability to perform any covenant, or to do any thing.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the last occasion on which this Bill was in Committee I stated that in consequence of the representations I had received on the one side and the other, leading to the conclusion that there was a great difference of opinion with reference to the expediency of bringing within the scope of this Act sale and hire agreements of a character well-known to your Lordships, I had determined to withdraw that provision from the Bill.

  185
  Owing, I imagine, to some little noise, I made the statement at a time noble Lords were leaving the House at the close of a previous discussion, this announcement did not find it way into the public Press. I am vividly aware of the fact because the communications I had previously received I continue to receive attacking the provision in the Bill, based upon the supposition that the clause still remains in it. I, therefore, repeat the announcement, that the provision relating to the hire and sale agreements is no longer in the Bill. The Bill is now almost entirely of the character of a consolidation Bill with a few amendments of the law, to which I do not think there is likely to be any opposition.
  Clause 1, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This proposed Amendment deals with a matter to which my attention has been called. I think there can be little doubt when the Bill of Sale Act was passed in 1878, the intention was that trade fixtures should not be dealt with by an unregistered instrument any more than other trade effects, and accordingly there was a provision in the Bill that fixtures as defined in the Bill which wore trade fixtures, except fixed machinery, motive power, and so on, should be regarded as goods within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Act, and that those goods should not be assigned by a bill of sale except subject to the provisions contained as to registration. It has been held that where there is a mortgage of premises, for example, containing such trade fixtures as are defined in the Act, that inasmuch as they pass as incident to the freehold they are not properly to be described as assigned by the conveyance, and that it is the land which vests the machinery in the person to whom it is conveyed by mortgage. I am satisfied that was not the intention of the Legislature in passing the Act of 1878, and that the decision, the propriety of which I do not comment upon, defeats the intention which the Legislature had. My attention has been called to this matter by those interested, and I propose to put in words now to make that clear, and to carry out what I am satisfied was the intention of the Act of 1878—namely, that the Act should apply to this trade machinery as defined by this Act whether charged separately
  186
  or in connection with any land or buildings.
  Amendment moved, Clause 2, page 3, line 11, after ("Act") insert ("whether assigned or charged separately or together with any interest in any land or building.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My attention has been called to the fact that where the registration of a bill of sale is renewed, between the original granting of the bill of sale and the renewal, or between one renewal and another, there may be changes in residence, occupation, or place of abode as stated at the time of the original registration. Of course the re-registration, supposing those changes have taken place, becomes much less efficient in regard to notice, because they may appear to relate to a bill of sale of a party who is residing at a different place altogether when the bill comes to be registered. Therefore, I propose that there shall be a statement of the change.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 8, page 5, line 9, after ("therein") insert—
  "And, to the best of the deponent's knowledge and belief, any change in any such name, residence, occupation, or place since the date of last registration."
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think my noble and learned Friend has done very wisely to insert those words. I think it is a very useful change.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.
  Amendments moved, Clause 14, page 6, line 20, after ("affidavit") insert ("or an abstract in the prescribed form of the bill of sale, and a copy of the affidavit"); line 23, after ("copy") insert ("or abstract").
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 15 to 19 agreed to.
  Amendments moved, in Clause 20, page 8, line 9, after ("if") insert ("a receiving order is made against the grantor or"); after line 18 add—
  "Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the law relating to goods in the possession, order, or disposition of a bankrupt."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.
  House resumed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as this Bill has already been through Standing Committee last Session, and no change has been made in it except those I have called attention to, it seems hardly necessary it should go through the Committee again. I therefore move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
  Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended." (No. 37.)

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.] (No. 18.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This measure has been so often before your Lordships' House that I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any detailed statement or arguments in support of it. It is, to put it shortly, a Bill to enable accused persons in criminal cases, or the husband or wife of an accused person respectively, if they so desire, to give evidence and be heard as witnesses. The measure has several times passed your Lordships' House, and I trust it may pass into law, for I am quite sure it embodies a most useful reform. There is hardly a week that one does not read complaints of persons who are not able to depose on oath to the facts as they allege them to be, and I am quite sure this will tend to the better administration of justice in this country, and will be an advantage to the accused persons who desire to give evidence, or the husband or wife of such person.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: As my noble and learned Friend has pointed out, this is a matter which has been before your Lordships' House in several previous Sessions. I think the last occasion on which it was here was last year, It then passed through your Lordships' House with the approval, I think, of all those of your Lordships acquainted with legal procedure and methods. It went down from your Lordships' House in a different shape, that is it extended to Ireland. For every reason it was desirable to so extend it. We have there the same law, the same criminal system, the same Common Law. There is not a single argument in its favour here which would not apply, I venture to think, with far greater force to Ireland. But I am aware of the difficulties of transit which occurred with reference to this Bill. Some of the Irish Members, with whom I do not agree in politics, took the view that it was not desirable to extend it to Ireland. I do not go into the reasons which led them to that opinion, stating only the fact that with reference to that a controversy arose in Parliament, and an opinion was strongly expressed by Members of the House of Commons, with whom I agree, representing Irish constituencies, that they would not permit the Bill to pass if Ireland were omitted from it. It is quite obvious that with that state of opinion in the other House it is very difficult to suggest any method by which an easy transit could be secured for this change in the law. I, myself, hold very strongly the opinion I have expressed, though I feel the objection of those who desire the change for England that it is a little hard that England should be deprived of this change because there is a difference of opinion in Ireland. But I am confident that anyone acquainted with the methods and mechanisms of the House of Commons will know that if the Bill goes down in its present shape unaccompanied by any such change, or purporting to carry out a similar change in Ireland, it will have a very slender chance of passing Not at all in a controversial spirit, but only dealing with difficulties which are obvious to any one, I should suggest to my noble and learned Friend to consider, and I should be glad myself to consider, some method by which the difficulties I have

  189
  referred to might be met, so that this Bill may be presented in a shape to meet those difficulties, or else that it may be accompanied by another measure which would meet the objections I have referred to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be most happy to consider any method by which the difficulty alluded to by my noble and learned Friend can be got over. The truth is that this measure, which has been most strongly desired for England for five or six years past—it must be as long as that ago since the Bill first passed this House—has not passed into law because there is a great difference of opinion among Irish Members as to the expediency of its application to Ireland. It is a little hard, and I will go further and say I do not think it is altogether right, that in a matter of this sort, which is regarded by Members representing England as of great importance, and as affording to accused persons the means of defending themselves, should not have been for five years past the law in England because of this difference of opinion with regard to Ireland. Surely the best course would be to let it pass into law for England, and if it works well it will be more likely to appease those opposed to it as extended to Ireland, and to induce them to consent to a measure of this description for Ireland also. But I should regret, and my noble and learned Friend will agree with me, that this Bill should become a hotly contentious one. Unless we can get rid in some way or other of this controversy, it is hopeless to expect to see this amendment of the law made. I cannot help thinking there must be some way out of it by which this Bill should pass into law as regards England, satisfying those who represent England in the matter, leaving open the question of its application to Ireland for afterwards.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS—STATE PENSIONS.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL, in moving for a Return in reference to State Pensions,
190
said that the Return was merely supplementary to one which had been granted in the House of Commons. It was quite open for a Member of the House of Commons to move for such a Return embracing both Houses of Parliament; but it had been thought it would be more courteous to let the Return with respect to the Members of the House of Lords be moved by a Member of that House.
Moved, That there be laid before the House—
"A Return showing the names of all present Members of this House who are in receipt of public money from the National Exchequer, whether in the form of salary, pay, pension, or allowance of any kind, or who have received commutation in respect thereof under the Commutation Acts, with separate columns showing the amounts they receive or have commuted, with the amount of the commutation money, and, the name of the office or nature of the service for which the money is or has been paid."—(The Lord Monkswell. )
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before this Motion is agreed to I should like to ask for some further information on the subject. I do not rise to oppose the Motion, but I think it would he interesting for us to know whether this is a matter which is within the province of the Local Government Board, and is therefore moved for on behalf of the Local Government Board by the noble Lord as representing that Department in this House—whether it is in any sense a Government Return, or whether, to put another hypothesis, it is moved for in the interests of the London County Council, of which the noble Lord is a member. I entirely concur with him that, as a matter of courtesy, a Return of this kind it is better should be moved for in this House. I have said already I do not propose to offer any opposition to it. I simply ask the question, because I think it would be interesting to know if any indication can be given to the House of the reasons why it is found desirable that this Return should be asked for and what use it will be put to when obtained.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that he had moved for a similar Return in 1888, and, as he was not then questioned, he had supposed that the present Return would be granted without comment. No member of the London County Council had said a word to him on the subject,

191
and he could not see why the noble Lord should suppose that the County Council was particularly anxious to get this Return. Previous to putting the Notice on the Paper he was assured by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he was in favour of its being moved for. If the noble Lord wanted to know more he could ask his friends in the other House to question the Secretary to the Treasury.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, that the information desired by Lord Monkswell was already obtainable, but the two Houses were not distinguished. The Motion simply placed upon certain clerks the duty of selecting out of the lists which existed the Members of the House of Lords. Why should a Return be made in that particular form rather than in the general form in which the information was now given?
THE EARL OF DUNDONALDasked whether in the Return the amount received from the Treasury by every officer in the Army would be stated, without the amounts which the necessity of his position compelled such officer to pay back. That would be to place before the country an unfair statement of the facts. Officers had to provide horses and servants and to pay subscriptions; and in his own case he had invested a large sum of money in the purchase of his commission. An appendix should be given showing the amounts that each recipient of salary from the country had to pay back.
EARL CADOGAN: I must say I think the answer which the noble Lord has given to my noble Friend is very unsatisfactory. There may be no objection to the Return, but the noble Lord who asked for it ought to state what was its object and how it was to be obtained. It seems to be a Return of a very inquisitorial character. The noble Lord has disclaimed speaking for the County Council, but he has not been quite so definite in disclaiming his agency as a Member of the Government. He told us he had asked the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury and was disposed to refer Members of this House to the Secretary to the Treasury for information, but surely, the noble Lord will not decline to inform us what use he means to make of this Return when he has got it.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had only been able to discover three reasons for asking for this Return, and none of them seemed to justify the expense to which it would put the country. First of all, these pensions were possibly asked for in order to tax the persons named in the Return on "betterment" principles, or the noble Lord might be intending to make use of the Return as ancillary to making payments to both Houses of Parliament, or he might be intending to pick up the mantle of Mr. Bradlaugh. It was difficult to see any other reason for asking for this Return.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that if the noble Lord was at a loss for a reason for his Motion he would suggest that he was moving in the interests of the Financial Reform Almanack.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The reason for moving for the Return is exceedingly simple. As stated by my noble Friend, it has been moved for and granted in the House of Commons. Out of courtesy to the House of Lords the Motion in the House of Commons was limited to the Members of that House in order that a separate Motion might be made in the House of Lords. I cannot understand the curiosity of noble Lords as to the intention with which the Return was moved. There is nothing at all uncommon in it. I am unable to say what particular object there may be in it, but I cannot see why particulars of pay and pensions should be objected to by those receiving them. If it had not been moved for in the other House no doubt it might have been invidious, but my noble Friend simply moved for it in this House because it was thought more courteous to your Lordships.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked whether the House was to understand the Return was moved in the interests of the Government, because, if so, the Government ought to know the reasons for moving for it. Another important point had been raised by the noble and gallant Lord (the Earl of Dundonald)—namely, of what was this Return to consist, and whether it was to take into account the money which had been paid back in one form and another by the recipients of pay or pensions. That noble and gallant Lord's expenses as Commanding Officer of one of the regi-

193
ments of Household Cavalry ought to be set against the pay he received. Under the circumstances, the House ought to be informed by the noble Lords opposite what it was they asked, and why they asked it.
LORD MONKS WELLsaid that as there seemed to be so much opposition to the Return, and as it could be moved equally well in the House of Commons, he was quite willing to withdraw the Motion.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, there was no cause for that remark; he had clearly said he did not wish to oppose the Return, and he had obtained from the Lord President of the Council the information he had asked for, and which he did not get at first.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, that there was no objection to the Return in itself, though it was unnecessary, and was imposing on a number of clerks a duty which was not called for, because the information was easily accessible.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope I have made it quite clear, and it must be understood that the Return is not moved on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Select Committee of Six Members to join with the Select Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in the Message of this House of Friday last, to consider all Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for greater freedom of religious instruction in Board Schools—Was presented by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury; read 1✶; and to be printed. (No. 33.)
COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) HILL [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate the Copyhold Acts—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 34.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) (No. 35.)
POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Thursday next.—(The Lord Playfair.) (No. 36.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION (NO. 1) BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed (No. 38); to be considered on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.