Sitting of 19 March 1894

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NEW WRIT ISSUED.
For the County of Essex (South or Romford Division), v. James Theobald, esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Akers~ Douglas.)
QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General to what extent advantage has been taken of "The Savings Bank Act, 1893," which increased the limits of investments in Post Office Savings Banks?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): I am glad to state that considerable advantage has been taken by Post Office Savings Bank depositors of the new Savings Bank Act which came into operation on the 21st December last. It appears that, in little more than two months, 29,400 depositors availed them-

  559
  selves of the extension of the annual limit for Savings Bank deposits, representing an aggregate additional sum of £423,639. Nine thousand six hundred and twelve of these persons deposited £50 each in lump sums. During the first two mouths of the present year, £5,878,173 was deposited, a sum which exceeded by no less than £1,017,840 the amount during the first two months of 1893. As regards Government Stock, investments in excess of the old annual limit were made during the first two months by 1,500 persons, the excess amounting to £67,904 Stock. Four hundred and forty-eight of these investments were of £200 each. In the same period 424 persons made investments in excess of the former total limit of £300, the excess amounting to £32,147 Stock. Twenty-nine persons increased their total holding to £500.

  IRISH VETERINARY INSPECTORS.
  DR. AMBROSE (Louth, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Veterinary Inspectors, either temporary or permanent, have been appointed in Ireland within the past 12 months; how many of these so appointed are Irishmen; and how many names are at present on the list of candidates seeking appointments as Privy Council Veterinary Inspectors?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): There were no permanent Veterinary Inspectors appointed in Ireland during the period stated, but 12 temporary Inspectors have been appointed. The Veterinary Department has no official information as to the nationality of the gentlemen appointed, though it is believed that 11 out of the 12 are Irishmen. The reply to the concluding paragraph of the question is, 21.

  LABOUR ON NEW SHIPS.
  MR. FORWOOD: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the amount expended on labour and contract work between the 1st of April, 1893, and the 31st of March, 1894, on each of the following ships: Magnificent, Majestic, Renown, Powerful, Terrible?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The information asked for is contained in the Programme of Works in Progress on Ships Building appearing in the Navy Estimates for 1894–5.

  MONAGHAN ASYLUM TEA CONTRACTS.
  MR. YOUNG (Cavan, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tea contracts for the Monaghan and Cavan District Asylum have been given for the last seven years to Mr. Robert Greveen, hotel keeper, Monaghan, who is not a tea merchant; whether he is aware that, in reply to annual advertisements for tenders, merchants sending samples rarely find them examined or tested, and, in consequence, many have ceased to take any trouble in the matter; whether he will take steps to secure open competition; and whether the Board of Control has any power over the disposal of such contracts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums inform me that the fact is as stated in the first paragraph, except that the trader named is a wholesale tea merchant. All contracts for the asylum are perfectly open, and are advertised in the usual manner in local newspapers; and, as regards the tea contract, I understand that all the samples sent in were examined by the Governors before the tender was accepted. The Board of Control has no responsibility in the matter of the acceptance of asylum contracts, which are dealt with by the Board of Governors.

  NEW BATTLESHIPS LAUNCHED IN 1893.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state for the information of the House the tonnage in battleships launched in 1893 for the Navies of the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the United States?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The tonnage of battleships launched in 1893 was as follows:—France, 29,929 tons; Russia, 12,490 tons; United States, 30,600 tons. No battleship was launched in this country in 1893.

  FLITWICK SCHOOL BOARD.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.): In the absence of the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has yet arrived at any decision with regard to the action of the Flitwick School Board in discontinuing the construction of the school buildings sanctioned by the last School Board of Flitwick and by the Education Department, and thereby imposing a heavy burden upon the rates of the parish; and whether he can communicate his decision to the House?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): I am glad to say that the Flitwick School Board have now come to an arrangement with the Department, and undertaken to carry out the plans agreed upon without any further delay.

  THE WEST INDIAN MAILS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from firms in the United Kingdom interested in the regular arrival and prompt delivery of the mails from the British West Indies and South America; whether the incoming mail when it arrives at Plymouth, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 4 a.m., is detained for several hours owing to the discontinuance of provision for a special train, thereby delaying the delivery of letters in England and Scotland for a whole business day; and whether he will take such steps, by providing a special train when necessary, as will carry out the requirements of the contract, and ensure the earliest possible delivery of the West Indian and South American mails in the United Kingdom?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Such a Memorial has been received and duly answered. When the mails in reaching Plymouth miss the night mail train to London, they have to be detained for some hours to go by the next ordinary train; and the use of a special train for them is not, in my opinion, warranted unless an interval for reply by the next outgoing mail is to be obtained by that means only. The delay does not amount to a whole business day. In London, Bir-
  562
  mingham, and other places it is only a few hours. In Scotland the letters, instead of being delivered late in the day after their arrival at Plymouth, are delivered the following morning. I am not aware of any provision in the Mail Contract requiring the use of special trains.

  QUEEN CHIKANGA'S CONSORT.
  MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances under which Fambisa, the husband of Queen Chi-kanga, was killed by the orders of Mr. Fort, the Chartered Company's Resident Magistrate at Umtali, on 8th January 1894?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The Secretary of State has called for a Report on the whole affair referred 1o in the question.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION IN CAMBERWELL.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEY (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been called to a report of the hearing of several summonses at the Lambeth Police Court on the 7th instant against parents for neglecting to educate their children, when one parent stated that she had taken her children to six schools in the neighbourhood, giving up a day's work for the purpose, and only obtained admission for one child, and that Mr. Williams, the District Superintendent, informed the Magistrate that there was great lack of school accommodation in Camberwell; and whether he will take measures to require the London School Board to provide the necessary accommodation?
  MR. ACLAND: My attention has not been called to the report in question. The parish of Camberwell forms part of the East Lambeth Division of the London School Board area. In the part of this Division which borders on West Lambeth there is pressure on the schools owing to a deficiency of school accommodation in the West Lambeth Division. The School Board have in their possession a site in Sub-division H of West Lambeth, and have been informed by the

  563
  Department that they should proceed at once with the erection of a school in that sub-division. The Board are also about to build another school in Holland Road, in Sub-division Z of West Lambeth. The site has been scheduled in the Bill, which will be introduced this Session. When these schools are opened the pressure on the neighbouring East Lambeth schools will be relieved. I am not aware of any other deficiency of school accommodation which affects the parish of Camberwell, but I have directed the Chief Inspector to report on the Division generally.

  ENGINE-ROOM COMPLEMENTS.
  MR. PENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any Reports against the reduction of engine-room complements carried out in 1892 have been received at the Admiralty?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Some adverse Reports have been received, and they have been considered by a Committee, who do not in consequence propose any modification of the general principle in accordance with which these complements were framed.

  PENSION ERRORS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a second error has been made of a sovereign in the pension of Warder Martin, of Portsmouth Prison; and if this is the same man who was last year called upon to refund a sum of money paid him by a mistake of the Treasury Department?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Yes; this is the same man who was last year called upon to refund a sum of money paid him through a Treasury mistake. As explained in my previous answer with regard to this case, this sum, amounting to £10 7s. 10d., is now being recouped by monthly deductions of 5s. 9d. from his pension spread over three years Martin's pension is payable at the end of each quarter, but by the universal rule he receives advances at the end of the first and second months of the quarter; the advance which was due to him last month, after a deduction of 5s. 9d. had
  564
  been made, was £2 19s. 3d.; but as through a mistake deductions of 5s. 2d. only had been made during the 10 preceding months a further deduction of 5s. 10d. had to be made to rectify the error. The sum thus due to Martin was £2 13s. 5d., and this sum he has received.

  INDIAN COTTON DUTIES.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if, in the event of the Government of India agreeing to charge an Excise Duty upon cotton goods manufactured in India, he will assent to a charge of a corresponding Import Duty upon cotton goods imported from the United Kingdom?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): If the Government of India should be able to propose a countervailing Excise Duty upon cotton goods manufactured in India it would, in my opinion, remove a serious objection to the imposition of an Import Duty; but at present I can only say that such a proposal, if it is received, will receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  REPORT ON TRADES UNIONS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Report on Trade Unions for the year 1892 is not yet out; whether he is aware that the Unions are rapidly issuing and sending out the Reports for 1893 before the Official Report of the Board of Trade has been published; and will he explain the cause of the delay?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Trade Union Report for 1892 is now partly in the Press, and will be ready shortly. It is impossible to avoid delay in the preparation of this Annual Report. The Returns on which it is based are not wholly received by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who lends them to the Board of Trade until the Autumn of the year following that to which they refer.

  BRADFORD BARRACKS.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can now state when the

  565
  repairs of Bradford Barracks will be proceeded with?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): A detailed examination of these barracks has just been made by the Commanding Royal Engineer and the Principal Medical Officer of the North-Western District, with the result that though the barracks are not of the most modern type there is very little to complain of. The buildings are substantial and in fair repair. The Hospital is not sufficiently warmed; but steps will be taken before next Winter to remedy this and some other small defects. During the recent coal strike these barracks were unavoidably overcrowded; but there is ample room for the three companies which ordinarily are stationed at Bradford.
  MR. CAINE: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.
  MR. WOODALL: I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the Report on which my answer is founded.

  WATERFORD DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick's): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Control of the Waterford District Lunatic Asylum appointed a clerk of works without consulting the Governors of the Institution; and whether such an appointment can be made the subject of re-consideration.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The appointment of a clerk of works to superintend the erection of the additions which are now being made to this asylum was, I am informed, a necessary appointment, and one which devolved upon the Board of Control. It is the practice of the Board to consult Boards of Governors in the cases of all such appointments: but the Board of Control explain that they did not think it necessary to do so in the present instance, as the same clerk was appointed who had been nominated by the Governors to superintend similar work on a former occasion and who had given satisfaction in the discharge of his duties.

  IRISH-SPEAKING MAGISTRATES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  566
  Ireland whether any of the Magistrates or Clerks of Petty Sessions in the Provinces of Connaught and Munster, and in the Counties of Donegal, Derry, Tyrone, Armagh, and Cavan, speak Irish, and how many; whether a procedure is adopted to secure that persons charged with offences have those charges and the evidence explained to them; have any civil proceedings been taken against or by Irish-speaking persons in recent times at Petty Sessions; how many persons speaking Irish only have been confined in gaols, lunatic asylums, and unions: how many are now confined therein; and how many of these officials speak Irish?
  MR. J. MORLEY: This question was only placed on the Paper on Saturday last, and it is quite impossible to reply to it at such short notice. To collect the information indicated in the question, it would be necessary to address inquiries to at least four Irish Departments—namely, the Local Government Board, the Prisons Board, Inspectors of Lunatics, and the Register of Petty Sessions Clerks, and, in all probability, the assistance of the Lord Chancellor and the Royal Irish Constabulary will have to be invoked. Besides, I would point out that the question does not define for what particular period the information is required. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will place himself in communication with me before repeating the question.
  MR. FIELD: Under the circumstances, I should desire to give the right hon. Gentleman a few days' notice.

  SERGEANT INSTRUCTORS OF VOLUNTEERS.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers appointed Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers continue to serve under their Army engagements, and are subject to all penalties and privileges involved under such engagements; and, if so, what is the reason that they are excluded from the privilege of obtaining return tickets at single fares when proceeding on furlough?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers have the same military status

  567
  as non-commissioned officers serving with Regular troops. The privilege of obtaining return tickets at single fares when proceeding on furlough is a concession entirely within the discretion of the Railway Companies to give or to withhold, and, as explained in my reply to the hon. Member for St. Helens on the 16th of last month, the Railway Companies have not felt themselves able to extend the privilege to non-commissioned officers of the Army serving as Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers.

  THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AT STRATTON.
  MR. OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of "Pridham v. Jennings," heard before the Magistrates at Stratton, North Cornwall, on Monday, the 12th instant, where the prisoner, accused of a trifling offence, elected to be tried summarily, and was so tried, pleading not guilty; the Bench disagreed, one Magistrate saying the accused ought to be discharged, and left the Bench followed by another Magistrate; the two remaining Magistrates committed the accused to take his trial at Bodmin Quarter Sessions, a long distance from Kilkhampton, where the accused and his witnesses live, and without railway communication; and did the Magistrates act within their powers by committing the accused after trying him with his consent under the summary jurisdiction procedure; and, if not, will he take steps in the matter?
  ME. ASQUITH: I am in communication with the Justices, but have not yet received any reply. Perhaps my hon. Friend would postpone this question until Thursday, by which time I hope to have the necessary information.

  CLOGHER VALLEY TRAMWAY.
  MR. M'GILLIGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the ratepayers of the district through which the Clogher Valley Tramway runs, in County Fermanagh, strongly opposed its construction, fearing it would not prove a remunerative undertaking; and whether, since their anticipations have been realised, and they in consequence suffer a large pecuniary loss by reason of the
  568
  baronial guarantee, any steps are likely to be taken to relieve them of the heavy tax imposed under "The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883"?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I am not aware of the circumstances stated in the first paragraph. I know of no method by which the burden on the ratepayers could be reduced except by a commutation, in some form, of the Treasury contribution to the guarantee. This would require legislation, and I am considering whether it would be possible to introduce a short Bill on the subject with a sufficient prospect of passing it into law.

  IRISH GUN LICENCES.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the case of Mr. John Lee, a farmer residing at Corraduff, in the Parish of Loughkean, County Tipperary, adjoining Birr, King's County, who was charged by a landlord for shooting game on his land; is he aware that, although on the hearing of the case the charge was dismissed, Mr. Lee was soon after deprived of his gun licence, which he held for a number of years; and whether he will cause full inquiry into the facts of the case, and as to the ground on which Mr. Lee was deprived of his licence?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is a fact that on the 1st February the licence held by this person was revoked by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant. The Order was not issued in consequence of the proceedings instituted against Mr. Lee at the suit of a landlord, and the District Inspector of Constabulary states he was not aware of these proceedings when the licence was revoked. As a matter of fact, the Police Reports, which were made prior to the revocation of the licence, contain no reference whatever to the prosecution of Lee for shooting game. But I intend to direct inquiry into the case.

  DOMINICA.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Special Commissioner on the affairs of Dominica has yet

  569
  been received; whether the Government has yet considered and come to any decision on the Report; and whether any probable date can be given for the presentation of the Report to Parliament?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Report has just been received. The Secretary of State has not had time yet to study it, and therefore no decision has been, or can be, taken immediately on the important matter to which it relates. Later on in the Session there is no doubt the Report can be laid, though not at present.

  THE WAR MINISTER AND THE PATRIOTIC FUND.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether be has any direct jurisdiction or control over the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, and whether it is through him that these Commissioners are responsible to Parliament; could he state the total amount subscribed by the public to the Balaclava Fund, the amount disbursed out of it to Balaclava veterans, the amount now remaining, the cost of management since 1890, and the number of Balaclava survivors in 1890 as well as now; could he undertake to lay before Parliament the accounts of the Fund, showing the expenditure and receipts, the names of the survivors, and the amounts they severally received, up to the date the balance was handed over to the Patriotic Commissioners, as well as a balance-sheet giving similar particulars during the time it has been administered by the Commissioners; and under whose authority was the balance transferred to the Patriotic Commissioners; was it that of the subscribers to the Fund?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Secretary of State for War has only such indirect control over the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund as arises from his Ministerial responsibility for advice tendered to Her Majesty, and from the fact that he is their mouthpiece in Parliament. The Balaclava Fund was a private subscription, as to which I cannot undertake any responsibility; and as to which the accounts were published at the time the money was raised. I am informed that the total sum subscribed was £6,804 12s. 6d. That the committee of the Fund paid £3,766 12s. to
  570
  Balaclava veterans; and transferred £2,949 19s. 6d. in February, 1892, to the Patriotic Fund, the small balance of £88 1s. having been absorbed in necessary expenses. The proceedings of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners to the end of 1892 are shown in their Report last presented, and the statement will be continued to the end of last year in their next Report to Her Majesty; but I am told that £2,800 remained available on December 31 last, out of which, as at present advised, the Commissioners pay the equivalent of 10 pensions of 7s. each a week; the number of men receiving now either that amount or smaller sums in aid of pension being 15. So far as is known the survivors do not exceed 74; but of that number some may be dead, whose deaths have not been reported. The Fund was transferred to the Commissioners by the original trustees as the best and most economical mode of applying the balance for the advantage of the beneficiaries.

  THE FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.): In the absence of the hon. Member for Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he now prepared to announce the names of gentlemen who will form the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ire-laud, the terms of the Reference, and the date of the issue of the Commission?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am still unable to give my hon. Friend the names of the Commissioners; but the matter is engaging my active consideration, and I hope to state the decision very shortly.

  BOARD OF IRISH LIGHTS.
  COLONEL WARING (Down, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the night of the 18th of November, 1893, the buoy on the Briggs Reef, in Belfast Lough, was driven by a north-easterly gale a considerable distance inshore of its proper position; whether this was notified to the Board of Irish Lights early on the morning of the 20th, in order that temporary measures might be taken to warn passing vessels of the danger; whether he is aware that no steps of the kind

  571
  were taken, and that, misled by the misplaced buoy, the Betsy ketch, on the afternoon of 21st November, struck upon the wreck of the Emily steamer (which was lost on this shoal in 1884), the crew escaping with great difficulty in their own boat; whether he is aware that the attention of the Irish Lights Board has been repeatedly called to the danger to which vessels navigating Belfast Lough, and more especially the fishermen of Bangor and Groomsport, and the lifeboat stationed at the latter place, are exposed by the existence of this iron wreck; whether, although the cost of its removal would be very small, they have hitherto refused to take any steps for that purpose; whether, as the owner of the Betsy is a poor man, wholly dependent on the earnings of his vessel, which was uninsured, and was lost through the negligence of this body, anything can be done to compensate him; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the Government will take steps to place upon the Board of Irish Lights some representatives of the shipping interest of the Port of Belfast, who will have regard to the safety of the lives and property of those navigating the Lough?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received from the Commissioners of Irish Lights the following statement:—
  "The buoy marking the Briggs Reef was reported to the Commissioners as being out of position, and when the weather permitted a steamer was sent to replace it. On the 24th November the commander of the Commissioners' steamer examined the position of the buoy, and found that the buoy had not drifted but simply stretched its mooring chain to the full length during the gale. The coastguard having reported the buoy as out of position, the Commissioners assumed it to be true and issued a cautionary 'notice to mariners,' and informed the Belfast Harbour Board; these steps were taken immediately the Report was received, and the Commissioners cannot admit that there was any delay, nor can they recognise any liability. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has, on a former occasion, represented to the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the wreck of the Emily on the Briggs Reef constituted a danger to the Groomsport Lifeboat; but the Commissioners were unable to acquiesce in the views of the Lifeboat Institution, and therefore have not advised that that wreck should be removed at the expense of the Mercantile Marine Fund. The Commissioners have received no other representations, nor is the wreck in navigable waters."
  I notice that a Bill has already been introduced by several hon. Members to amend the constitution of the Board of
  572
  Irish Lights, and until I see that Bill in print I am unable to say anything with regard to it.
  COLONEL WARING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact that the Betsy was outside Briggs buoy at the time she struck is consistent with the statement of the Irish Lights Board?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have read the statement given me by the Commissioners.
  COLONEL WARING: But is not that statement inconsistent with the fact I have mentioned?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I can add nothing to the answer.
  COLONEL WARING: Yes, but this unfortunate man has lost his property——
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Notice should be given of any further question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Are we to understand that the Commissioners of Irish Lights gave notice to mariners that the buoy was out of position before they had ascertained whether that was so, and at a time indeed when it was not so?
  MR. MUNDELLA: They gave the notice in consequence of the Report of the coastguard. As soon as possible they sent their steamer to it, and found that the buoy had not drifted, but had simply stretched its mooring chain to the utmost limit.
  MR. W. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the recommendations made to the Board of Trade by the Chambers of Commerce on the subject of re-constituting the Irish Lights Board?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The whole question of the position of the Irish Lights Commission is under the consideration of the Chief Secretary and myself.
  MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, and of various Irish local Chambers of Commerce, with regard to the present unrepresentative constitution of the Board of Commissioners of Irish Lights, and urging the desirability of a reform of it; and whether the Government have any intention of introducing a Bill to reform this Board; and, if not, whether they

  573
  will give facilities to private Members to bring in such a Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY:. I agree that the present constitution of the Board cannot be regarded as satisfactory. In saying that, however, I must not be taken as denying that there are many gentlemen on the Board who attend to the matters before them with great interest, great intelligence, and with administrative ability. I do not know that I shall be able to introduce a Bill at present, but the subject is receiving the attention of the Department concerned.
  MR. WOLFF: Will the Government give any facilities to a Private Bill dealing with the constitution of the Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Until I have seen the Private Bill I cannot answer the question.
  MR. SEXTON: One of my hon. Friends has given notice of a Bill, and as the Irish Members are practically unanimous on the subject, I hope the Bill will receive favourable consideration from the Government.
  MR. WOLFF: As it is not likely a Bill will be passed in a short time, can nothing be done to compel the Board to attend to duties which are now-neglected?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If any proper representation is made to the Board they will attend to it, I am sure.

  FINANCE IN THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  SIR J. GORST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a pledge given in reference to the military expenditure of the Straits Settlements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons on 25th June, 1891, that if the revenues of the Colony should decrease so that they were less able to bear this contribution than they now are, the Government would feel inclined to review the situation; whether the revenue of the Colony has decreased from 4,409,927 dollars in 1889 to 8,817,890 in 1894; whether, in the same period, the military contribution has increased from 577,633 dollars to 842,100; and whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to review the situation?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The question of the contribution has been under the consideration of the three Departments concerned. A Report has been drawn up by the Colonial Military Contribution Committee, but has not yet been submitted to the Departments. This, however, will shortly be done, and it is hoped that a decision will soon be arrived at. None of the facts and conditions affecting the question will be lost sight of.

  THE "BOTHNIA."
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the tonnage of the transport Bothnia, her speed, maximum number of adult, persons she accommodates, and the average cost per bead of their conveyance between the United Kingdom and India, including hire, coals, canal dues, and other charges payable by the Admiralty in respect thereof; also the average cost per head for similar voyages on Her Majesty's Indian troopships since they have been built, including crews' wages, victualling, coals, canal dues, repairs, maintenance, and other expenses incident to their employment, but excluding any allowance for interest on capital cost, depreciation, or risk of loss; also their average tonnage, speed, and maximum number of persons carried in each?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Bothnia is a ship of 4,535 tons gross measurement: her maximum speed is 13i knots, and she carries on Indian service 1,127 adults. The average cost per head cannot be accurately stated until the accounts are closed, but approximately it will be £7 18s. 4d. The rate of hire was arranged at a time when rates were very low, and the case is so exceptional that no fair comparison of the cost of hired and Government troopships can be founded on it. The average cost of the Indian troopships since the commencement of the service has been £12 0s. 1d. per adult carried. But the employment of four ships making three voyages each, instead of, as formerly, five ships making fewer voyages, has reduced the cost of Indian troopships to £9 9s. 1d. per adult. The Indian troopships have,a maximum speed of 12 knots, but they are worked at a speed of 11 knots. Their gross tonnage averages 4,487 tons, and their maximum accommodation is 1,385 adults.

  575
  There are, of course, advantages in Government troopships which are a set-off against the difference of cost.

  IRONCLADS AT SEA.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the total number of days H.M.S. Amphion, Camperdown, Dreadnought, Edinburgh, Royal Sovereign, and Rodney were each out of harbour and at sea during the 12 months ending the 30th September last, and the total number of knots they traversed, with their aggregate complement of men and officers?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The figures asked for would take some time to read to the House, with certain necessary observations upon them. I propose to hand them to my right hon. Friend for his information.

  VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN PHOENIX PARK, DUBLIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state why the Irish Board of Works have withdrawn permits for carts and vans through the Phoenix Park; what is the explanation of the passage in their Circular which requires that, pending such arrangements as it may be found desirable to make, tradesmen's carts, vans, &c, will be allowed to pass through the Parkgate Street and Castleknock Gates on the drivers satisfying the gatekeepers, by the production of a voucher, that they require to deliver goods in the Park or in places conveniently served from Castleknock Gate; and that the use by carters of all except the Parkgate Street and Castleknock Gates will be discontinued; who is responsible for, and who took the initiative in, securing the proposed exclusion; how long has this right been exercised; if he is aware that its withdrawal would be a great inconvenience to the market gardeners and shopkeepers in the vicinity of the strawberry beds who supply Dublin with fruit and vegetables; and whether he is aware that the Board of Works, while thus restricting an old public right, lately allowed a road to be broken through the Park wall and a special entrance given direct from the new barracks into the Park for the sole use of the military?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Restrictions have alone been imposed for the prevention of heavy traffic through the side entrances to the Park, it having been found that a very serious abuse had arisen in consequence of the bad condition in which the roads along the north and south of the Park have been left by the County Authorities, owing to which traders' vans, wagons, &c, were using the Park roads exclusively. The object of the Circular was to discover how much of the traffic was absolutely necessary—i.e., for houses or public institutions in the Park, or for the district conveniently served from Castleknock Gate, and how much was due to the use of the Park roads as a mere matter of convenience and of necessity. The Board of Works, as statutory custodians of the Park, took the steps referred to in the general interest of the public frequenting the Park as a pleasure resort. The system of passes was in force for many years, but it would be difficult to ascertain exactly for how many. I will communicate with the Board of Works as to the extent of the alleged inconvenience to market gardeners in the vicinity of the strawberry beds, with a view to seeing whether any relaxation of the Rule now laid down is called for by the necessities of the case. Subject to the observance of the primary object of the Park as a pleasure ground, the garrison is allowed to use a portion of the Park for military purposes, and the Board of Works have recently allowed a gate to be opened into the new Marlborough Barracks for the convenience of the Military Authorities, and to reduce the inconvenience to the public of the occupation of the public and Park roads by regiments proceeding to the 15 acres.
  MR. SEXTON: As this pass system was instituted at the instance of the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin, will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to again consulting that body?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I see no objection.

  THE FEATHERSTONE RIOTS.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to state the result of his consideration of the claims to compensation arising out of the Featherstone Riots, and give

  577
  the names of those who are to receive such compensation, and the amounts and date when the same is likely to be paid? The hon. Member also asked as to the accuracy of the statements in the papers on the subject.
  MR. ASQUITH: The papers have not accurately stated the facts. I have been for some weeks in communication with my hon. Friend the Member for the Osgoldcross Division, and with his assistance (to which I am much indebted for the necessary local information) I have arranged the amount and the apportionment of the allowances which I intimated some time ago that the Government hoped to be able to make. I shall be happy to supply my hon. Friend privately with the details. The general result of the arrangement is that £100 will be paid to the families of each of the two men who were killed, and a further sum of £200 will be distributed among nine other men, who were more or less seriously wounded, and as to whom it has been established to my satisfaction that they took no part in the riotous proceedings which led to and justified the action of the soldiers.

  LOANS TO IRISH LEASEHOLDERS.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether tenant farmers in Ireland holding by lease, who desire to obtain a loan from the Board of Public Works for the improvement of their holdings, are required to register their leases and lodge them at the Office of Public Works; and, if so, when this rule came into operation?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Tenants holding by lease must satisfy the Board of Works, on application for loans from the Board of Public Works, of the registration of their leases when the latter are within the Registration of Deeds Act, 6 Anne, c. 2. Such leases require to be registered in order to give them validity, and to render loans made upon them secure. The leases have in all eases to be submitted to the solicitors of the Board of Works with a, view to the examination of the title—a requirement insisted on by all lenders on the security of leaseholds. The Rule of the Board respecting registration and lodgment of lease has always been in force as regards loans to lessees under the Land
  578
  Improvement Act, 10 Vict. c. 32, and has since 1884 been enforced on applications for loans by tenants under the Land Law Act of 1881.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a tenant farmer in Ireland whose tenure is leasehold, and who has a valuable interest in his holding, can obtain a loan for its improvement to an extent of five times the Poor Law valuation of the holding?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that a tenant farmer in Ireland whose tenure is leasehold can obtain a loan under the Land Improvement Act, 10 Vict. c. 32, to the extent of seven times the Poor Law valuation of his holding if he has an unexpired term of 40 years. If he holds for two lives or for an unexpired term of 25 years he can obtain a loan to the same extent, provided he furnishes satisfactory collateral security for its repayment. In the absence of such collateral security no loan can be made to him under the Land Improvement Act. A leaseholder whose tenure is less than two lives or 25 years unexpired can borrow under the Land Law Act of 1881, to the extent of five times the valuation, if he offers satisfactory collateral security, or if his landlord postpones the rent to the Board's loan, or if the rent of the holding is virtually nominal.

  DOVER PIER DUES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the transfer of the Admiralty Pier at Dover to the control of the Dover Harbour Board pier dues have been levied, as was not formerly the case, on the Belgian Mail Packets using that pier, and that a sum of £1,305 3s. 4d., for which no provision had been made in the Estimates, thus became payable from the Post Office to the Dover Harbour Board, involving the creation of a now charge upon a Vote of Parliament; and whether, in settling the conditions of the transfer of this pier from Her Majesty's Government to the Local Authorities, the circumstance was taken into consideration that this would involve giving power to those authorities to levy this large annual charge upon the Post Office Packet Service?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Belgian Mail Packets are Government vessels, and as long as the pier at Dover was under the control of a Government Department that Department made no charge for dues to vessels belonging to another Government. After the transfer in March, 1892, the pier became part of Dover Harbour, and the Harbour Board decided, in pursuance of their Acts of Parliament, to charge these vessels with dues; treating them as essentially commercial vessels and engaged in carrying passengers and goods for profit in the same manner as the Calais Mail Packets belonging to the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company. This circumstance does not appear to have formed part of the conditions of the transfer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any answer to the last paragraph of the question. Was the probability of this charge taken into consideration?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have said it does not appear to have formed part of the conditions made in March, 1892.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, it did not form part of the conditions, but was it taken into consideration that charges of this kind would be levied?
  MR. MUNDELLA: As it formed no part of the conditions it evidently was not considered.

  THE MATCH GIRLS' STRIKE AT BOW.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Mead, the Magistrate of the Thames Police Court, when trying on 14th March one of the girls at present on strike at the works of Messrs. Bell, match makers, at Bow, for window breaking, addressed one of the witnesses in the case to the effect that unless she was careful she would find herself in his Court; that it was disgraceful and scandalous that she should have interfered with other girls trying to earn an honest living; that she had no business at Messrs. Bells' gate; that she would neither work herself nor let others work; that she had tried to intimidate girls on their way to work, and that he would not allow it; and that if she were brought before him he would deal severely with her; and, if such
  580
  words were used, what action he proposes to take in reference to a Magistrate who so addresses a witness with reference to whom or to whose action there was no evidence and no question before the Court; and whether the Magistrate's statement that the witness had no business at Messrs. Bells' gate is in accordance with the law as it relates to what is known as picketing?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have been informed by the Magistrate that the witness in question, upon being asked in cross-examination what her object was in going to the factory, stated that it was to "hoot and holloa." At the end of her evidence he thought it only fair to point out to her that such conduct was wrong, and might bring her into trouble and cause her to be charged at the Police Court. He further explained that she and her friends had a perfect right to refuse to work for any individual, but that she had no right to try and intimidate others from doing the work which she thought proper to refuse to do. He said, further, that if cases of intimidation and violence were brought before him he should have to deal severely with them. He informed me that no question of legal "picketing" was raised, and that he did not in any way condemn that practice.
  MR. MACDONALD: Did the learned Magistrate tell the girl she had no right to stand in the gate?
  MR. ASQUITH: He told her she had no right to stand therefor the purpose of hooting and holloaing.

  STAFF OFFICERS' PAY AT THE AUTUMN MANŒUVRES.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he explain why Staff Officers and Umpires employed at the Autumn Manaeuvres last year received no allowance or travelling expenses; and is he aware that, in consequence, many officers who would have been valuable and who were anxious to avail themselves of this practical training could not afford to do so?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that in some cases the General Officers who were responsible for the expenditure of the money allowed for manœuvres, and who had a laudable desire to make it go as far as possible,

  581
  made arrangements whereby certain officers, not on full pay, undertook the discharge of Staff duties, with acting Staff pay of 15s. a day, receiving tent accommodation and forage for their horses. I am not sure that the arrangement is free from objection, and I will look into the matter.

  THE IRISH CHURCH SURPLUS.
  MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at what amount the Irish Church surplus now stands; what are the charges to which the fund is now subject; and what is the total amount of such charges?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As explained in an answer to the hon. Member for North Paddington on May 11, 1893 (Parliamentary Debates, vol. xii., p. 633), it is not possible to give a simple answer as to the amount of surplus on the Irish Church Fund. Figures and observations as to the receipts and expenditure upon the Irish Church Account in 1892–3 will be found on page 17 of the last Report of the Irish Land Commission [C. 7056], and on pages 1 to 9 of the audited accounts of the Church temporalities for the same year (House of Commons, No. 503 of 1893–4). A statement of the charges (capital liabilities) will be found on p. 10 of the last-named account. An estimate for 1893–4 will be found on page 80 [C. 7056], upon which it may be observed that the anticipated deficit of £49,000 will be more than covered by the proceeds of sales. Perhaps the most convenient course would be that the hon. and learned Member should refer to these Papers, and ask for further information upon any point which may still not be clear to him.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether, in view of the forthcoming legislation, the right hon. Gentleman will suggest to the Land Commission to make an estimate of the present value of this fund and of the receipts and charges?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think it is desirable that some statement should be made in view of any demand which may arise.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we then to understand that evicted tenants will be paid out of the funds of the Church?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member is not to understand anything beyond what I have stated.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS BILL.
  MR. CLANCY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he hopes to lay before the House the provisions of the Bill for the restoration of the Evicted Tenants in Ireland; and whether that Bill will be the first of the Government measures proceeded with?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not able to state the precise date. It will not be the first of the Government measures to be proceeded with. The first will be the Electoral and Registration Reform Bill.

  IRISH MANUSCRIPTS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what grants were made by Parliament for the publication of Irish manuscripts in the year 1892–3; to whom were they made; and how have they been applied?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Under the Stationery Office Vote £200 was voted for 1892–3, payable to a committee for superintending the editing of the Brehon laws. Nothing, however, was spent in that year. Under Vote 6 of Class IV. of the Civil Service Estimates for 1892–3 there was voted £400 for researches into and publication of Celtic manuscripts included in the grant to the Royal Irish Academy. The Royal Irish Academy also spent in that year £267 for transcription, editing, and publication of the Annals of Ulster, which was recouped to them by a Vote of the same amount in 1893–4. There had been no Vote for this purpose in 1892–3.

  THE IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that result fees are allowed for pupils in national schools under fifth class, and that pupils in Irish speaking districts remain in school after attaining fourth class, whether the Commissioners of Education are prepared to allow result fees for passes in Irish to pupils in all classes; whether tablets are used in national schools for instructing in Irish; whether the Com-

  583
  missioners of Education are prepared to reduce the price of Irish books; and whether the Inspectors in Irish speaking districts speak Irish, and how many?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the existing arrangement limiting the award of results fees for proficiency in the Irish language to pupils in the fifth and sixth classes was only determined after mature consideration, and that at present they see no sufficient reason for altering the arrangement. Tablets are not used for instructing in Irish, but the primer of the rudiments of the language is supplied at the low price of 1½d. per copy. The Commissioners are not prepared to reduce the price of these books, which are now sold at first cost price. The Commissioners are not aware of the number of Inspectors who can speak Irish, but two of them are qualified to do so, having passed an examination in the language when candidates for Inspectorships.

  THE COLLISION WITH PORTUGUESE TROOPS ON THE ZAMBESI.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House any information respecting the reported collision between British and Portuguese forces on the Zambesi?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him whether or not the Treaty gives such rights to each contracting party as are reasonable and necessary; whether it provides for the reference of disputes to arbitration; and whether there was a difficulty pending at the time the right was asserted by force?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I should be glad to have notice of questions as to the provisions of the Treaty. I have not the Treaty here, and it is not desirable I should inaccurately quote it. We have not yet heard definitely what has happened to give rise to this report of a collision on the Zambesi. Instructions have, however, been sent both by Her Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government to prevent a recurrence of anything
  584
  of the kind, if a collision has already taken place.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Is Mr. Johnston at present in Nyassaland, or is he on his way home?
  SIR E. GREY: Mr. Johnston is coming home soon. I am not sure whether he has left.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Are we to understand that no definite details have been received at the Foreign Office?
  SIR E. GREY: There have been various rumours that a collision has occurred, and certain information has been received which seems to make it probable that something has happened, but we have had no authentic or firsthand account of what has taken place.

  THE MANICA PLATEAU.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress the negotiations with the Portuguese Government have made in regard to the delimitation of the Manica Plateau?
  SIR E. GREY: The Portuguese Government have been informed that the principle of arbitration is accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

  THE LUNACY LAWS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in a case of the "Commissioners in Lunacy v. Sherrard" recently tried at the Central Criminal Court, Mr. Justice Grantham stated that, in order to get a conviction for keeping two lunatics in an unlicensed house, it must be proved that the two persons detained were not only of unsound mind, but that they were treated by the defendant as persons of unsound mind; and whether any change of the law is proposed in order to guard against the danger of the confinement of persons of unsound mind in unlicensed houses?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed that Mr. Justice Grantham did direct the jury in the terms stated in the question. In so doing he followed the ruling of the late Mr. Justice Stephen in "The Queen v. Bishop," which was upheld in the Court of Crown Cases Reserved. I am not aware that in practice the law has been found defective, but if any case of abuse is brought before me I will

  585
  consider whether amendment is desirable and practicable.

  RESERVE ARMY STORES.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state to the House whether the reserve stores of guns and rifles, small arms, clothing, and accoutrements have been increased or reduced in amount during the past 12 months; and, in either case, to what extent?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The reserve of guns remains the same as last year. Those of small arms and accoutrements have increased to a considerable extent. As to the reserve of clothing, there is an increase in absolute amount, but it is fair to add that the Army Reserve has increased in strength. Returns will be furnished at the end of the present financial year showing exactly how we stand in regard to reserve stock. These will receive our careful consideration, and steps will be taken, should any be necessary, to place the reserve clothing on a thoroughly sound footing.

  THE LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN.
  ME. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to enable a comparison to be made between the old and the present system of remuneration to the Law Officers of the Crown, he will consent to a Return showing the effect of the Treasury Minute of December, 1892, in respect of fees received by each of the Law Officers during the year 1898, on account of contentious business, complimentary briefs, fees from persons unconnected with the Public Service for business other than contentious done by them as Law Officers, and special fees named in the Minute; whether the arrangement named in the Minute, in consideration of which the new system was sanctioned limiting the business in which a Law Officer may appear as counsel for a private client to cases in the House of Lords and before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, has been strictly observed in all cases, or, if not, in what cases has it been departed from, and what were the reasons for such departure; whether the abolition of the right to appear for a private client is
  586
  limited to appearance in Court, or includes also Chamber practice; whether the abolition of that right has been modified by any regulation as to old or standing retainers; and, if so, what is the modification, and will he lay the terms of it upon the Table; and whether it is true that one of the Law Officers has been retained in the case of "Sutherland v. Sutherland," or in the Salt Union case?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,): I have been requested by the Attorney General to give the following answer:—I There are no longer any complimentary briefs to the Law Officers, and no fees from persons unconnected with the Public Service for business other than contentions are paid to them. No special fees have been paid to the existing Law Officers. The figures asked for were given on January 12, in answer to a question by the hon. Member, and there appears to be no reason for a Return. 2. The arrangement referred to has been strictly observed. 3. The arrangement in question is not understood to forbid giving opinions in Chambers. 4. It excepts retainers delivered before acceptance of office. 5. The answer to the last question is, yes; but in each of the cases a retaining fee had been given before the acceptance of office, and with reference to the litigation referred to in the question.
  MR. HANBURY: Do they come strictly within the Treasury Minute?
  SIR W. HARCOURT:I suppose so.
  MR. HANBURY: Is that so?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have given all the information I possess.
  MR. HANBURY: Did I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the retainer in the Sutherland case was given before the Attorney General took office? If so, is he aware that the late Duke of Sutherland died since the Government came into office?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have given the information as I have it before me in the absence of the Attorney General. No cross-examination will extract from me knowledge which I do not possess.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I said I would mention to-day what the intentions of the Government were with reference to

  587
  the Business of the House. On Thursday the 29th instant we propose to take the Civil Service Estimates first, and after them the First Readings of the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill and the Conciliation (Labour Disputes) Bill. On Monday, April 2, we propose to take the Motion for the appointment of the Scotch Grand Committee, the First Reading of the Scotch Local Government Bill, and the First Reading of the Factories Bill. On Thursday, the 5th of April, we propose to take the First Reading of the Electoral and Registration Reform Bills.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): With regard to the Business for Thursday, the 29th, do the Government propose to adjourn the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates before 12 o'clock, or do they only propose to take the First Readings the right hon. Gentleman mentioned if the particular class of Votes taken comes to an end before midnight?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I believe they are Bills which will not meet with opposition on the First Reading, and we shall hope to get them both. I do not think there is any body of gentlemen on either side of the House who will oppose the First Readings.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in assuming that there is not the slightest chance of their being opposed, but,: at the same time, we shall desire to have statements made on the introduction of the Bills, and there may possibly be some discussion on those statements. We should like to know, therefore, whether the Government intend to adjourn the business of Supply at some comparatively early hour of the evening, so as to give us time to discuss the statements.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think that would be quite reasonable.
  MR. TOMLINSON: When will the Railway Rates Bill be brought forward?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: At present I do not think I can say anything with regard to other Bills.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  The Right Hon. Herbert John Gladstone, for the Borough of Leeds (West Division.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have come to the following Resolution—namely—
  "That it is desirable that all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

  CROWN LANDS BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Crown Lands Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
PRIVILEGE.

  PRIVILEGE (INTERVENTION OF PEERS AT PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.)
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking the Clerk at the Table to read the third of the Election Sessional Orders passed at the beginning of the Session.
  The Clerk at the Table read the Sessional Order as follows:—
  "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer, or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a Candidate, or by himself, or any others be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on that Order I propose to submit to the House the following Motion:—
  "That this House resolves that the Earl of Rosebery—
  [Ministerial laughter]—
  "a Peer of Parliament, First Lord of the Treasury, President of the Council, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Midlothian, has by his speech on the 17th March in Edinburgh, infringed the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom by concerning himself in the election of a Member to serve for the Borough of Leith for the Commons in Parliament."
  My Motion was greeted with a Ministerial laugh. As I have great concern

  589
  for the dignity of the Ministerial Bench J would advise that the laugh be deferred. I fear not that in bringing forward this Motion I am not doing a perfectly Parliamentary act—an act that is within the rights of Parliament—and in bringing it forward? am putting to the House the question: "Is this Sessional Order a reality or a sham?" I do not mean to put the matter so far on this occasion as to assert or argue that the House of Commons could act practically or definitely on any Breach of Privilege proved against Peers, but I do not ask the House to agree that it can and will enter a protest, and a protest with effect, against the interference of Peers in elections. Now I ask whether this Sessional Order operates or not? I adduce from that that it is the operation of this Rule which brings about that wholesome and regular practice which prevents the interference of Peers at General Elections, and which makes that Rule, which Peers have invariably adhered to, that they must have nothing to do with an election after a Writ has been issued. I ask also, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer this question and say whether there was any interference by Lord Rosebery in the Leith election. First of all, I would ask what was the absolute necessity of fixing the meeting in Edinburgh on the 17th of March? Could it not have been delayed till after the Leith election? Then I would ask, as a second question, Can any reasonable man suppose that Lord Rosebery could make a strong Party speech in Edinburgh which would not influence Leith? Remember, Leith is the port of Edinburgh, and is situated in the County of Midlothian, of which county Lord Rosebery is Lord Lieutenant, and it is impossible that a speech of that Party character could be delivered in Edinburgh which would not affect the Parliamentary constituency of Leith. I will digress for a moment to notice an allegation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answering a question last week. He said that Lord Beaconsfield had taken some action during an election in the County of Buckingham. Now, I have been to the trouble of ascertaining the facts of what really took place from authentic records, and I find that Lord Beaconsfield certainly did speak the day before the Bucks election, and that he
  590
  spoke at Aylesbury—that was, I think, in the beginning of the month of August, and the election was not until the 20th of September. The speech was delivered at an agricultural dinner, which, it is well known, Lord Beaconsfield constantly attended. His speech on that occasion consisted largely of reminiscences of the County of Bucks; but be also went into the Eastern Question, and I do not think it could be argued that the farmers of Bucks would be very much impressed by the details of the Eastern Question as it was at that time. At that time there were three Members for Bucks, which then enjoyed the distinction which I am glad no longer exists of a minority Member. So far as I can see from the records, Lord Beaconsfield made no allusion to the coming election. Parliament was not sitting when that speech was made, nor, so far as I can learn, did Ministers think it necessary when Parliament met to bring forward the question but their not having done so is, I submit, not a reason which can damage this Motion. I now pass on from these facts of history to the Edinburgh speech. Lord Rosebery has many distinctions—he is a Peer of Parliament, First Minister of the Crown, President of the Council, and also Lord Lieutenant of Midlothian, where his influence is admittedly greater than in any other place. Can anyone reasonably suppose that if Lord Salisbury, who is Lord Lieutenant of Hertfordshire, were to go down into any one of the four divisions of that county and make a strong Party speech, if an election were pending, such a speech would have no influence at all upon the coming election? Or do you suppose that if the Duke of Devonshire were to go down to Derbyshire and make a speech in that county, if an election were going on in any other part of the county, the same could not be said? There is, fortunately, no precedent in modern times of any Peer interfering in election matters or assisting their Party by making speeches in the neighbourhood of boroughs where elections are pending or actually going on. What would have been said by the present majority of the House of Commons if any Unionist, Peer had done what Lord Rosebery did on Saturday last? I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian himself would have spoken in

  591
  Midlothian if an election had been going on in one of the other divisions. He would have known too well that it was not the custom for Ministers to interfere in bye-elections. Lord Rosebery arrogates this right to himself alone among the Peers. He takes upon himself the right to go down to an election and make a strong Party speech in Edinburgh, which is not only near to Leith, but to Berwickshire, and where the influence of his speech must have extended also to the Border Burghs. I will read you what Lord Rosebery said to excuse himself. He said as follows:—
  "I see it also reported that I have come here on an illegal visit, for the purpose of influencing the election for the Leith Burghs. I have a very great respect for the Leith Burghs, and I have a very great respect for their Representative, but I am bound to say that this visit to Edinburgh was planned before I knew that there would be an election for the Leith Burghs, and before I knew that their Representative would do me the honour of forming part of the present Government. I believe that I am strictly within the limits of my right in speaking within the City and County of Edinburgh at any time that I may think lit when there is no election for the city and county in progress. What are the disabilities of a Peer to be? I am denounced as being a lonely oligarch in an inaccessible House; but I begin to ask myself if I am not a sort of State prisoner, whose movements are watched, and who before he takes a ticket for any particular place must consider within himself whether an election for the House of Commons is being held within a certain radius of the railway station. All that is nonsense, and the Unionists know it to be nonsense."
  So you see Lord Rosebery said, "But this is all nonsense, and the Unionists know it to be nonsense." But he ought to have known when he went down to Edinburgh that the election was pending. The Writ was moved for on the first day that Parliament met—namely, on March 12. And do you mean to say that Lord Rosebery did not know that his Friend Mr. Munro-Ferguson had been appointed to a post under his own Government? At any rate, the Cabinet was formed on March 9, and it is reasonable to suppose that the course of affairs was known two or three days before that date. I cannot believe such ignorance on the part of the noble Lord, and I make this proposition—this Sessional Order has been passed for many years regularly. Some of you say that it is obsolete, and the necessity for it passed away with the old days. This Sessional Order has been passed
  592
  this Session with the assent of Her Majesty's Government, and therefore I bold that they are responsible for it, and I hold, further, that it lies with them not to be a party to turn that Order into ridicule. In order to show how close is the connection between Edinburgh County and Leith Burghs, I must refer for a moment to what passed in connection with the Fishery Bill for Scotland. For the purposes of that Bill the Secretary for Scotland treated Edinburgh as part of the County of Midlothian, and the Solicitor General for Scotland stated, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh, that for the purposes of this Bill the City of Edinburgh was included in the County of Midlothian. The progress of the connection between Leith and Edinburgh, therefore, seems to have become a great deal closer; and if a Parliamentary Division like Leith is joined on to the County of Edinburgh for the purpose of rating under this Bill I say that there is a very strong connection between them. I pass now from that question, and I ask the House to consider what will be the result if it abolishes this Rule; and I particularly address my observations with great respect to those who are stronger Liberals than those who sit on the Front Bench. This Rule is the only foundation, the only barrier for the exclusion of Peers' influence from Parliamentary elections. If you abolish it the Peers might take part in any Parliamentary election, and in all the details of it. At a General Election they might be put on the committees of candidates, and they might also make their agents canvass for any candidate. They might attend any public meeting, or show themselves on the platform of any public meeting. They might take the most complete and most perfect part, as great a part as any Member of this House, in an election of Parliamentary candidates if this Order is made a dead letter, abolished, or treated as you are now treating it—with contempt. You may say that you will abolish the House of Lords, but that would not be the work of a day or of a year. I desire also to ask that if a Dissolution takes place on the question of the House of Lords having thrown out a Bill by their own opposition what will be the result? The whole force of the Peers, with all their speaking resources

  593
  —which are by no means to be despised—and all their other resources, will sweep over the country and argue their own case; and 3'ou will find, considering the enormous disproportion between Unionist Peers and Radical Peers, that it will make an enormous addition to the Unionist forces. You may contradict it, but I defy you to show that there is any law of any kind, if this Rule is abrogated, to prevent them; and I do not think that you could pass any such law. After abrogating your own powers you could not turn right round and say that the powers should again be instituted by law. I have been speaking seriously on this subject, and it is not, I submit, a subject for laughter, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think at the beginning. It is a very serious matter, which the House of Commons must decide—that is to say, whether they will treat this Rule as an obsolete Order or whether they will treat it as an Older operating with great benefit to the privileges of the Members of the House of Commons. It is certain that it it disappears from the Order Book at the beginning of a Session, your Parliament will be exposed to new election influences which you have never had experience of for generations. I submit, therefore, that though Lord Rosebery cannot be summoned to the Bar of the House, I insist upon the Constitutional and electoral value and importance of this Sessional Order; and with these remarks I move the Motion which J have submitted.
  MR. HANBURYseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House resolves that the Earl of Rosebery, a Lord of Parliament, First Lord of the Treasury, President of the Council, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Midlothian, has by his speech on the 17th March in Edinburgh, infringed the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom by concerning himself in the election of a Member to serve for the burgh of Leith for the Commons in Parliament."—(Lord R. Churchill.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must congratulate the Unionist Party upon the field they have chosen for their first attack in force upon Her Majesty's Government. This, apparently, is the ground which they are prepared to take, and I am not sorry that it should have assumed the particular form of an attack on the
  594
  House of Lords. The noble Lord has said that this particular Peer who has committed this high crime and misdemeanour is not to be summoned to the Bar of this House. I thought that that was the particular form of collision between the House of Commons and the House of Lords which the Unionist Party desired to bring about; but the noble Lord having stated that he is not going to take that course, I should like to know what course the House of Commons is about to take when they have declared that a Prime Minister being a Peer has infringed the liberties of the House of Commons?
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I said it was a protest on the part of the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: But a protest which comes to nothing is not only insignificant, but undignified; and for the House of Commons to make a declaration of that kind would be about the most contemptible position to take up that could be imagined and to ask the sanction of the House to be given to. I have no interest, and the Party on this side of the House have no interest, in maintaining the right of Peers to interfere in elections. Quite the contrary. At present there are about 500 Peers, who are constantly every week and every day interfering in elections.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: How?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In every way. On our side we have not one-tenth of the number of Peers who could interfere, and I do not think their resources are in proportion to those 500 who take such a large interest in election proceedings. I do not know; whether the noble Lord has ever beard of an institution called the Primrose League? I say that our interest is quite in the direction of fettering if we could the interference of Peers in elections. But let us see what is this Standing Order on which the noble Lord rests his case. First of all, it says, "No Peer or Prelate." I am glad to see that the Prelates are among them, because they should be careful on other days than week days, on which they might have influence upon any possible elections. I have known Prelates make addresses which certainly were intended to have, and probably had, a good deal of influence on elections on particular ques-

  595
  tions which were at issue. What is forbidden to a Peer?—
  "To concern himself in an election of Members to serve for the Commons House of Parliament."
  What does "concern himself in an election" for any Member of Parliament mean? The noble Lord has said that there has been no recent example of such an interference, and that the House of Commons would certainly, if there had been, have interfered in consequence. There was a Motion made against the interference of Peers in Parliamentary elections on July 11, 1887; and that Motion was founded on this statement, which appeared in The Times—
  "There seems to be a plentiful supply of carriages on either side, though the Conservatives have the preponderance;"
  and among them it was stated that there were several lent to Mr. Aird by Lord Salisbury, Lord Randolph Churchill——
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I was not a Peer, and I had not a carriage in use.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The noble Lord is acquitted, and he shall not be charged with infringing the liberties of this House. But Lord Salisbury, Lord Rothschild, and other noblemen and gentlemen connected with the Conservative and Unionist Party were mentioned; and on that statement a Motion was founded calling attention to the fact that Peers were concerning themselves with an election. I am not quite sure that the lending of carriages might not have a more potent effect on an election than speeches. I have known many people carried to the poll by carriages, but very few have been carried there by speeches. That Motion was very properly treated by Mr. W. II. Smith, the then Leader of the House, as a matter which the House ought to recognise as immaterial and as absurd, and the Member for Paddington, whose constituency was as near to that one as Leith is to Edinl urgh——
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I was sitting for it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Do not be in a hurry. The noble Lord treated the Motion as a proposition which was absurd, and laid down an interpretation of the Sessional Order which was, I think, very reasonable. He said—
  596
  "It was not for interference of this kind; it was for the action of Peers in forcing their nominees on the House of Commons, and, be-fore the days of the ballot, in using their territorial influence to force people dependent on them to support their nominees. That was the action of the Peers against which the House of Commons had always protested, and I feel confident that the hon. Members for Northampton and Cockermouth will not seriously argue for a moment that for all legitimate electoral purposes, such as taking an interest in Parliamentary elections, and in supporting within reasonable bounds one side or the other, Peers ought to be prohibited from showing such public interest."
  There is the reading of the Sessional Order by the noble Lord.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I adhere to every word of it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It almost passes the bounds of the ridiculous when we come to the question of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant may make a speech in the county on election matters. There are some Lord Lieutenants who are scrupulous on that matter; but the particular instance which the noble Lord gave was a very unfortunate one, because the Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire came to make a speech against the unfortunate representative of the City of Derby, and, in order to promote the bringing forward of the candidate who was intended, but did not succeed, in turning him out. I will give the noble Lord such an example as will, I think, overthrow his theory as to the reading of the Sessional Order. Lord Lieutenants canvass their own counties in their own interest, and sit as Members of those counties. We have known many of them in this House.
  LORD P. CHURCHILL: That is a Commoner. Not if the Lord Lieutenant is a Peer.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Sessional Order says nothing about the Lord Lieutenant being a Peer. It is the Lord Lieutenant qua Lord Lieutenant; and I say it is the commonest thing in the world for a man who is Lord Lieutenant, and who is told that he is not to use the authority derived from his commission to influence the election of any Member, yet to use that authority in order to get himself elected. We remember Sir Robert Anstruther in this House, we remember Lord Kensington, we remember Mr. Biddulph, all of whom were Lord Lieutenants of the counties for which they sat. Therefore, this point is

  597
  absurd, and if it were necessary to add anything to its absurdity it would be to state that Lord Rosebery is not Lord Lieutenant in the place where he spoke. I am not going to argue upon technical points. We are arguing this question upon very much broader grounds. The noble Lord challenged me on the subject of Lord Beaconsfield's speech at Aylesbury.
  LORD R.CHURCHILL: It was an agricultural dinner.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What did it signify what the dinner was? It was in the principal town in the county, where the poll was to take place on the next day, and the noble Lord said the Eastern Question was immaterial, and that it was one in which the farmers would not take an interest. It was, however, the whole question of that election. It was immediately after the agitation had commenced, which was called the "Bulgarian atrocities." I well remember the last speech which that distinguished man made in this House. It was in answer to a speech which I had made, and he disappeared that night from the House of Commons and went to the House of Lords. It was on the 11th of August: and in September, when the Bulgarian atrocity agitation, as it was called, was at its full height, and when the whole country was in a state of ferment about it—that election turned on that question, and on no other—Lord Beaconsfield went to Aylesbury and made a very powerful and an effective speech, which I have not the slightest doubt greatly influenced, and probably decided, that election. Let us, therefore, have no cant in this matter.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: It is not cant.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It would be very extraordinary, and I should be extremely surprised, if the Leader of the Opposition is going back to Edinburgh to say that he endeavoured to persuade his Party to move a Vote of Censure upon Lord Rosebery going last Saturday to Edinburgh, and I should like to know whether he expects that that will advance the Conservative cause in Scotland? I say, Sir, that this is a trumpery proceeding—a proceeding petty and contemptible. I am only delighted if the Unionist Party are going to adopt tactics of this description. I propose myself to
  598
  meet that Motion as it was met by Mr. W. H. Smith when it was made on the subject of Lord Salisbury sending his carriages to carry voters to the poll. The noble Lord has said that Leith is so near to Edinburgh, and it is said that a Peer cannot make a speech in St. George's, Hanover Square, when there is an election going on at Greenwich, because Greenwich is in the neighbourhood of London. Is that the doctrine laid down? We shall, as I say, treat this matter as Mr. W. HI. Smith did, and I move to omit all the words after the word "that," in order to add "this House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day," so that we may transact some business which will be worthy of the House of Commons.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to end of the Question, in order to add the words "This House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by congratulating himself and his Party that we had chosen this subject for our first attack in force upon the Government of which he is a Member. It is perfectly true that we have not hitherto been occupied in attacking the Government. Our function hitherto has been in supporting them; and, so far as my recollection carries me back through the week since my right hon. Friend took Office, it appears to me that it is upon us, and upon us almost alone, that he has had to rely in the critical Parliamentary moments through which he has had to pass. It is a most ungrateful return for the services which we have rendered that he should make this sort of retort upon the Constitutional address of my noble Friend, and that he should make a speech which, though it began jocosely, ended in a storm of fiery indignation, the cause of which I could not very easily fathom. I think my noble Friend has been extremely well advised in bringing before the House of Commons a crucial and critical example by which we may for ever test the doctrine whether a

  599
  Peer may or may not take part in Parliamentary elections. If we decide to-night that the action of Lord Rose-bery in speaking at Edinburgh during the Leith election was not an action which comes within the fair meaning of the Sessional Order, well and good. Let it henceforth be known that every Peer may do everything he likes, may speak where he likes and when he likes, in regard to any election whatsoever, and that the Sessional Order which we still go through the form of passing at the beginning of each and every Session is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. That doctrine, which will be the result of the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman wants to bring us to-night, may be a good or a bad doctrine, but I maintain that at all events it is a new doctrine. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to bring forward two precedents on his own side. I will examine those precedents, and bring precedents from the other side. The first and most important precedent to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the precedent of Lord Beaconsfield in 1876, when be had been raised to the House of Lords, and when, in consequence of his accession to the Peerage, a vacancy was created in his county. Lord Beaconsfield did no doubt go down to speak at an agricultural dinner, as was his wont, while the election consequent upon the vacancy was going on; but was that speech a Party speech? Was it an attempt to interfere with or to influence the election which was going on? The right hon. Gentleman says it was such an interference.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I said it was a Party speech.
  MR.A. J. BALFOUR: He bases that statement upon the fact that the Bulgarian atrocity agitation was, as he says, at its height, and that no man could speak upon that question without trenching upon Party politics, and without influencing those who had to determine the issue of the election. The right hon. Gentleman's history is at fault. In 1876 the Bulgarian agitation was not at its height. It had begun, but it was not then a question which divided the two great Parties in the State. On the contrary, though the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had no doubt
  600
  even at that date taken a very strong line upon the subject, he was not the Leader of the Party, and those who were the Leaders of the Party had not at that time identified themselves with the right hon. Gentleman's views on foreign policy. I am not sure that if we examined the speeches the right hon. Gentleman made at that time we should find he had finally given in his adhesion to the movement which was afterwards headed, with such successful electoral results, by the late Prime Minister. I have not been able to personally verify the fact that I am now going to state to the House, but it has been given to me by a friend in whose accuracy I have perfect confidence. He informs me that at this very meeting the Liberal M.P. for Bucks was in the chair, and that Lord Carrington was present and spoke. "Hear, hear," says the right hon. Gentleman. Why, he knew it! The right hon. Gentleman knew this. [Sir W. HARCOURT: Both candidates were there.] I am sure if the House had known that the right hon. Gentleman knew that——
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Perhaps the light hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that Lord Beaconsfield alluded to the candidates and said, "I hope the best man will win."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman never makes a greater Party speech than that when he takes, part in a contested election, I am sure we shall be very well satisfied. It is perfectly evident from the facts I have given, from the people who were there, from the character of the speeches, and from the character of those who spoke, that the dinner was really what it professed to be —an agricultural dinner, not a Party meeting, and not one that could by any possibility he said to have been started in connection with Party politics. The next precedent the right hon. Gentleman alluded to was, that in 1886 some carriages of Peers were used at an election in the East of London. Whether it he right or not that carriages should be used in that way, at all events no objection has ever been raised that I know to that course. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "if yon don't object to carriages, why should you object to speeches? Surely, to carry voters to the poll in a couple of broughams would have

  601
  more effect on the result of the election than all the speeches of all the Prime Ministers in the world." I do not know what estimate is formed by gentlemen opposite of Lord Rosebery's oratory. I feel it is not my business to put any electoral valuation upon it. It would be quite out of place, quite out of order, to make any comments upon Saturday's speech—a very interesting attempt to explain the unexplainable, and possibly one which the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking could not have influenced a vote. Whether his estimate of the actual speech of Lord Rosebery be a sound estimate or not, my objection is not to the particular speech or the particular man, but it is to a man who is a Lord of Parliament, and not merely a Lord of Parliament, but the most important Lord of Parliament now living, inasmuch as he is the First Minister of the Crown, going down to make a speech in a town which the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deny cannot be, for electoral purposes, regarded as unconnected with the burgh in which a contest was going on at the time. The right hon. Gentleman has given his precedents and I have dealt with them. I will now give him a precedent on the other side. I am informed that the late Mr. Wardle, Member for Derbyshire, died on February 16, 1892. The present Duke of Devonshire had recently succeeded to the Peerage, and, long previous to Mr. Wardle's death, had fixed a date, that fell during the course of the contest for the vacant seat, as one on which he would receive an address in Derby. The receipt of an address in Derby did not necessarily carry with it a controversial speech, but so anxious was the Duke of Devonshire not to infringe what, until the right hon. Gentleman spoke to-night, we had been in the habit of supposing were our rights—the rights of the House of Commons—that he put off his meeting until a date when the election was over, and when no suspicion could possibly be entertained that he was using his special advantages for making a speech within the county of which he was lord lieutenant at a time when an election was proceeding. If you ask me whether I personally and individually attach very great value to, or am inclined to fight an arduous contest fur, these privileges which the right hon.
  602
  Gentleman wants to give up, I say it does not appear to me to be a matter of transcendent importance. I confess I watch with astonishment the action of the gentlemen who wish to extend the privileges of the Peerage. I have always supposed up to this time that hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to curtail, not to extend, the privileges of Peers, but I now gather that is not so. I learn from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he desires to see the whole House of Lords taking an active part in the contests in the various parts of the country with which they are connected. If the right hon. Gentleman desires that, it is not for us to object. The Peers are by their character and position men, in the majority of cases, who naturally have considerable interest in the places where they live. He has told us the majority of the Leers would be desirous of exercising their influence rather on our side than on his. If he wishes to make it easier for them to exercise their influence why should we interfere? This, I think, I ought to add. Lord Rosebery has now convinced us finally that the Sessional Order we pass every time we assemble must be acknowledged to be a farce. Many of us have long suspected it would not hold water; now the thing is conclusively demonstrated. I invite the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, to put a Motion on the Paper rescinding it, and if he does I shall consider that, at all events, he has acted a consistent and logical part—a part which, whether it be or be not for the dignity of the House, is for our interest as a Party. If there be a general consensus of opinion that it is desirable to increase the privileges of the House of Lords, and that we must withdraw from the position we have occupied—namely, that Peers must refrain from interfering in elections, we must abandon that doctrine, and henceforth it will be the right, and if the right then, undoubtedly, the duty, of every Lord of Parliament to do what he can to return to this House that candidate who happens to agree with him in general politics.
  SIR H.JAMES: I do not propose to enter upon the grounds on which this Motion has been made, but rather to discuss it in the spirit displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposi-

  603
  tion, and to ask the House whether there are not some very broad Constitutional grounds upon which we ought to come to the conclusion that this Sessional Order is obsolete, is unfounded, and should not be put forward as a claim of a privilege we do not possess. This House, no doubt, has some inherent privileges which can control all our actions within the House; it has also some privileges which can control persons out of it. We are a High Court of Parliament. We object to be libelled, and we have inherent power to punish the offenders who are guilty of contempt towards us. But we have no inherent privilege by which Ave can punish persons by mere Resolution of the House. The right and privilege with regard to contempt does not depend upon Resolution. No Resolution of the House enables us to summon anyone here unless we have a legal right and a right which will be sanctioned by a Court of Law. If we summon the editor of the paper who has libelled this House to the Bar, we can compel him to appear; and if he is brought to the Bar, a Court of Law would say we were justified in our action, because it was alleged he had been guilty of contempt. But such a Resolution as that we are dealing with now is simply inoperative, and there is no power of enforcing it. It is an empty Resolution. If a Member of the House of Peers refuses to come here we cannot bring him here. The old practice was that if we thought a Peer had offended we communicated with the Peers; we made complaint to the Peers to deal with their Member because he had infringed our rights. But it is simply a mere idle form we go through when we declare there has been a Breach of Privilege and yet not be able to enforce any punishment.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I said, "I would not summon him to the Bar."
  SIR H. JAMES: With groat respect to the noble Lord, let me say you cannot summon Lord Rosebery to the Bar or anywhere else. We have no remedy. All we can say is that, in our opinion, our Privileges have been broken. I think the House will see there is no substantial ground for saying that the interference of a Peer in an election constitutes a Breach of the Privileges of this House.
  604
  In olden times there was a statutory enactment that no great man or other should interfere with the freedom of election. Men with feudal power came to the Court-houses and terrorised their retainers. Against that interference Parliament protested. Then in later times, in 1631, when the Peers of Parliament held boroughs in their hands and wrote letters commanding the return of certain persons, came that protest upon which the Resolution of 1802 was founded, that Peers should not interfere in elections —that is, to the extent of dominating electors so as to prevent the due exercise of their power. Then Peers had such power; now they have not. Interference in elections is either due or undue interference or it is not. If there is undue interference you find your remedy under the law. A Prelate of the Roman Catholic Church lately unduly interfered in an election and the law set him right. The Resolution we pass every year is an obsolete and a meaningless Resolution, and the time will come—next Session, I hope—when the House of Commons will have to say whether the period has not arrived when we should cease altogether to go through this form of protesting without foundation and without having the power to give any effect to our protests. The Resolution does not add to the dignity of the House or to the protection of its Members.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that nothing gave him greater pleasure than to come forward in order to defend the natural and proper rights of Peers, and particularly those of Lord Rosebery. The noble Lord opposite had asked whether this Sessional Order was a reality or a sham. He thought that the noble Lord had realised that not only the Leader of the Opposition, but every other Member in that House, was convinced that the thing was an utter sham. There were many absurdities connected with the House of Commons which he should be glad to see swept away. For instance, at the opening of a Session the Beefeaters were seen walking about the Palace of Westminster with their lanterns, and people were told that under some ancient Order of the House which had not been repealed—because no one had taken the trouble of repealing it—they were looking to see if Guy

  605
  Fawkes was to be found upon the premises. The Order which was now under discussion was precisely as absurd and ridiculous as that directing the search for Guy Fawkes. Any Order of the House was absurd when they had no sort of power to give effect to it. The noble Lord had drawn a terrible picture of Peers sweeping through the country and carrying Conservative Members at every election by their resistless eloquence. He was not afraid of this sacred band of 500 Peers appearing on public platforms. What be was afraid of was of Peers using surreptitious influence. If the Peers came out into the open he should be delighted to see them on election platforms: but it was absurd for the noble Lord to contend that when a Peer appeared on a public platform everyone would fall down and worship him, and vote for his candidate.
  LOUD E. CHURCHILL: Does the hon. Gentleman deny my proposition?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What is it?
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: That proposition is, that Peers may appear on platforms if the Resolution is done away with.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he, for one, had not the slightest objection to the Peers appearing on every public platform in the country. He went further than that. Three Members of the Conservative Party bad brought in this Session Bills to enable Peers to sit in the House of Commons, and he himself had brought in a similar measure last year. He was in favour of Peers being allowed to sit in the Representative House provided they did not seek to pop out of one House into the other whenever it stated them, but undertook during their lives to give up their right to sit in the other House and to abide their chances of being elected to the Commons at the poll. He did not wish to impose fresh disqualifications upon the Peers, but merely to remove those which at present surrounded them. He wanted them to have the fullest rights that every other citizen of the country possessed—no less and no more.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer always reminded him of the Psalmist because of the vigour with which he attacked a man, turned
  606
  his way upside down, and broke him to pieces like a potter's vessel. These qualities bad been strikingly exhibited in his reply to the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Motion was contemptible—a Motion, be it observed, which affirmed one of the most solemn of the Sessional Orders passed at the beginning of each Session of the House. The right hon. Gentleman bad also said that sending carriages to elections was of more importance than Lord Rosebery's speech—in other words, that one Rosebery was not worth more than one or two broughams. He wondered what the admirers of the Prime Minister would say to that. The only explanation or defence that had been put forward for the appearance of Lord Rosebery at Edinburgh was that the meeting had been planned long before the election was expected. In that case the plan ought to have been altered, and Lord Rosebery ought to have pursued the same honourable course that the Duke of Devonshire had done, who, finding that an election was coming on at the time fixed for him to address a meeting, excused himself from attending the meeting on that ground. It was now said that the Sessional Order had no validity and ought not to exist. The Conservatives had heard that with pleasure. If the Sessional Order forbidding Peers to interfere at elections were dropped the Conservatives would gain ton to one by the change, for there were 10 Conservative Peers to one Liberal. Therefore, when the next Session arrived, the question would arise whether they should any longer continue this Sessional Order, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described as nothing less than a sham.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that his right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Bury had treated the matter as being of really no great importance, and in that he agreed with them. He, however, should wish to guard himself against going the lengths of the doctrine that bad been laid down by the right hon. Gentlemen. In former times, no doubt, there had existed a jealousy on the part of the House of Commons of Peers interfering in Parliamentary elections; and although Peers could not be summoned at the Bar of the House, and although a

  607
  Message to the House of Lords complaining of the conduct of their Members might be illusory, the House of Commons in days gone by had complete control of the matter in their own hands, because they determined, through their Election Committees, whether an election was a good or a bad one. There might be a question whether an Election Petition could not even now be presented against an election, in case of a Peer having exercised direct influence over an election. He regarded Lord Rosebery's speech at Edinburgh as perfectly immaterial; but if the noble Earl had gone into the Leith Burghs and had appeared upon the platform side by side with Mr. Munro-Ferguson during the election, and had made a speech, that would have been an interference with the election which, in the event of Mr. Munro-Ferguson being returned,a Committee of the House of Commons in the old days might have held justified them in setting aside the election. In these circumstances, the House ought not too hastily to give up the power which they possessed in this matter, for the Courts of Law, following the old Common Law doctrine of the ineligibility of Peers to interfere in elections, might void an election so affected.
  LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, he hailed with pleasure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, that there was a protection in the Common Law against the interference of Peers in elections. He did not intend to press his Motion.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, that mention had been made of the historic occasion on which Lord Beaconsfield addressed the Agricultural Association of Bucks. He happened to have been present at the dinner, and he would tell the House what occurred there. It was perfectly correct to say that the Member for the county, Mr. Lambert, was in the chair; but in his opening remarks he said it was the practice to exclude political matters on such occasions, and he hoped that that practice would be observed on that occasion. Lord Carrington replied to the toast of the House of Lords, and adhered most strictly to the rule excluding politics from the dirners of the Agricultural Society. Later on the toast of the Prime Minister was given, and Lord Beaconsfield replied. He said he would certainly not break the
  608
  rule by introducing politics, and he was sure the company did not wish him to break it. At that there was much cheering, and Lord Beaconsfield asked, did the cheering indicate that the company desired him to talk about politics, which was replied to by still louder cheering. Lord Beaconsfield then proceeded to deal with political topics; and if Lord Carrington's features were any evidence of his feelings, he certainly regarded Lord Beaconsfield's action as a breach of the ruling of the chairman.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the Government intend to do anything about the Standing Order?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the House passes to the Orders of the Day, that expresses the opinion of the House on the matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, it does not.
  Resolved, That this House do now proceed with the Orders of the Day.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYéS IN THE DOCKYARDS.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY (Devonport) rose to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Government do pay in the Royal Dockyards and other naval establishments wages equivalent to the Trades Union rates of wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade, either of the district or of districts, where the work performed is of analogous character."
    In moving that Amendment it would be necessary at the outset that he should refer to the Amendment which was moved on the corresponding occasion last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge That Amendment was accepted by the Government, and had it been ad-

    609
    ministered in the spirit in which they were led to think it would be, his Motion would not to-day have been necessary. That Amendment provided that—
    "No person should, in Her Majesty's naval establishments, be engaged at wages insufficient for a proper maintenance, and that the conditions of labour as regards hours, wages, insurance against accident, provision for old age, &c., should be such as to afford an example to private employers throughout the country."
    The Government, when accepting that Amendment, clearly defined their position, and he would quote from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War, who was the mouthpiece of the Government on that occasion. He said—
    "With regard to the question of setting an example, we mean the Government should show themselves to be amongst the best employers in the country,"
    and that—
    "They should be in the first flight of employers."
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
    "I accept in the fullest sense the principle that the terms of Government employment should be beyond reproach."
    Now, with regard to the question of hours, he had very little to say, as he understood the Government had practically decided to concede in the naval establishments, as well as in the military establishments, a 48 hours week; but it was with regard to wages he wished to address his remarks more especially. He understood the declaration of the Government, through the Secretary of State for War, to mean Trades Union wages. During the Debate several speakers defined, or expressed it as being their opinion, that that would be the necessary corollary. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Amendment also made it plain that that would be the natural result; and although some of them at the time took exception to the wording of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, yet, after the expression of the intention of the Government by the Secretary of State for War, they felt that there was no doubt as to what the effect would be. He would like to refer, in passing, to a few reasons which he thought would justify him in requiring that the Government should grant Trades Union rates of pay in their naval establishments. He did not know that he was correct in
    610
    assuming that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar, in the Motion which he moved, and which was unanimously accepted by the House in 1891, meant to convey that the Government should pay the Trades Union rate of wages, but it certainly laid down that the Government contractors should pay rates of wages which before then they had not been in the habit of paying. The London County Council, at the outset of its career, endeavoured to grapple with the question of wages, and they at first laid down that "fair wages" should be paid, But they soon found out that their contractors managed to evade the paying of just wages, and, therefore, they resorted to the expedient of making a definite condition in all their contracts that contractors should pay the Trades Union rate of wages. But they went further, for they drew up a schedule of rates which should prevail within a radius of 20 miles of Charing Cross. Every contractor who undertook work under the Council was bound to specify that he intended to maintain these rates, which were the Trades Union rates of pay. He had only to refer, to show the feeling throughout the country on this matter, to the resolutions which had been passed unanimously at the last two Trades Union Congresses; at the one held in Glasgow, and, more recently, the one at Belfast. There were other reasons. The first was that the Government itself was the largest employer of labour in the land, its employment amounting, approximately, to 250,000 employés, and it, therefore, should set a good example. Secondly, the Government was not subject to the competition of private employers. He was quite aware that it had to conserve the interests of the taxpayers, but it was not subject to that pressing competition, which might be some sort of excuse to a private employer for not giving the fullest and most liberal wages. Then there was another reason. The Government exercised, naturally, over its employés a greater amount of dominance than could a private employer, and where the dominance was greater so there should be the consideration also greater. Further than these reasons, the working classes were in favour of the Government setting a good example, and, as they were the largest taxpayers, that

    611
    should remove any hesitancy that the Government might feel in coming to a decision favourable to the terms of his Amendment. In due course, after the declaration of the Government, they had a scheme presented to them which was intended to fulfil the undertaking they gave on that occasion, and he would like to thank them for what they had done and the concessions they had made, but he was sorry not to be able to congratulate them on having carried out to the full the undertaking they gave a year ago on an occasion similar to the present. When the scheme was presented to them there was along Debate in the House on it, and the general consensus of opinion was that it did not satisfy the conditions of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment; and, whatever it might have done, it certainly did not satisfy those laid down by him as regarded wages. Several of the Members who took part in that Debate gave expression to the opinion that the only solution for the discontent that prevailed was to introduce Trade Union wages. That opinion was not confined to Members on this side of the House. He might mention amongst these Members the Member for Preston, who expressed himself in favour of Trades Union rates of wages, subject to notice being taken of the privileges which Government employés possessed.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, what he did say was that he was willing that the Trades Union system should be adopted, but that the Motion did not provide for the privileges of Government employés being taken into consideration.
    MR. KEARLEYpointed out that his Amendment provided for that. He only asked that these men should receive an equivalent of the Trades Union wages. But there wore other hon. Members on the other side who expressed themselves favourable to the Trades Union wages. Amongst them he, might mention the hon. Member for Belfast, who was so largely connected with the shipbuilding industry, and who was so great an authority on the subject. His hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty claimed that the various rates of pay had been fixed in accordance with local rates. He took exception to that, and he thought he succeeded in proving that in many cases no local comparison could be made, and that, moreover, where there
    612
    were Trades Union rates in a locality they were considerably higher than those paid inside the yards. His hon. Friend the Civil Lord claimed that the Government, with the assistance of a Departmental Committee, had fixed the rates of pay on the basis of local comparison, and that they had the advantage of the services of Mr. Burnett, the Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Kearley) had taken exception to the composition of that Committee; and he said that while Mr. Burnett was no doubt a sympathetic member in the interests of labour, the rest of the Committee was composed of Admiral Superintendents, Staff Captains, and Admiralty private secretaries, and was not a fair tribunal to make inquiries, but that it should have included certainly some representatives of this House and of the men themselves, so that they might have been able to clear up any of the points which must have been raised during the inquiry. At the end of the Debate the Civil Lord promised to receive any information or evidence that he (Mr. Kearley) might be able to lay before him. They laid information before him, but they had no evidence that that information had any influence on the decision of the Admiralty towards enabling them to arrive at what they desired—namely, the Trades Union rate of wages. It was in the interest of the Government that this continual agitation should be avoided. Its cessation would have the effect of a saving of Parliamentary time, and, in addition, it would serve the country very largely by making the workmen more contented. The service of the State would be more attractive, and the Government would then sweep into their employment the very cream of the workmen of the country. He would like to give some details of the rates of pay prevailing, in order to support his contention. It was arranged under the new scheme that the unskilled labourers should receive a minimum wage of 19s. per week. He would not dilate upon the probational periods which were complained of, as he understood they had been abolished. But, as regarded pay, it was decided that at the establishments at Woolwich and Deptford the rate of wages should be 20s. a week in consideration of the rent conditions there being altogether different from anything in other

    613
    parts of the country where the Government had establishments. He was not going to complain that the 20s. at Deptford and Woolwich was too much; but when they were told, as they were told, by the Civil Lord that this decision was made on account of the rent conditions prevailing there, he thought he was fully entitled to prove that the rent conditions which prevailed at Devonport were altogether worse than those which existed at Deptford and Woolwich. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forwood) smiled. He knew he was sceptical about this; but he would 1101 ask the Committee to take his bare word on the subject. He would read an extract from the Census Returns which were published quite recently. Under the heading of "Percentage of Population in Overcrowded Tenements" the Report pointed out the highest and lowest percentages respectively. In Gateshead the percentage was 40·7; Newcastle-on-Tyne, 35·8; Sunderland, 32·85; and fourth on the list of the towns of England came Plymouth with 26·27. Plymouth, of course, as the House was aware, included Devonport. At the very bottom of the list was Portsmouth with 1·74. The Report made special observations on the difference between two such apparently similar towns as Portsmouth and Plymouth, and said that possibly local knowledge might account for the difference. The explanation was the system of land tenure, which at Devonport was such that the bulk of the houses were let in weekly tenements, which were densely overcrowded, as many as 12 families living in a single house. The Census Returns went on to give the number of tenements of less than five rooms, and, according to this, the condition of Devonport was worse than London. In all England and Wales there were 47 per 1,000 dwellings of one room only. In London there were 184 per 1,000 of this class, while Plymouth had no less than 244 per 1,000, being the only large town in England with a higher ratio than London. This proved that the rent conditions in Devon-port wore such as entitled the men to, at all events, the same consideration as was given to the men at Woolwich and Deptford. Then he came to the local rate of wages as the standard. Deptford, as a matter of fact, was the geographical
    614
    centre of London, and he was informed that the employers in London paid 6d. per hour, while the London County Council paid a minimum rate of 24s. per week; therefore, if they were to be governed by local considerations, the rate at Deptford should be about 24s. per week, but it was Fixed by the Government at 20s. per week for unskilled labour. At Devonport the rate as fixed between the Master Builders Association and the labourers was 5d. per hour, which, at 54 hours per week, gave about 22s. 6d. per week. This reduced to dockyard hours—namely, 51 hours—would mean 21s. per week. Without going into detail, he might say that the recent Annual Report of the Medical Officer at Devonport as to overcrowding and the insanitary conditions which prevailed was very unpleasant reading. There was a large body of men engaged in the dockyards, who were described as skilled labourers, who were engaged at such work as rivetting, iron casting, drilling, &c, and who, if they were employed in private yards, would be classified by trades. The standard rate of wages for these men was 21s. a week, and there was introduced among them the objectionable probation period. For one year the men were probationers, and only received 20s. a week instead of 21s. It was stated that the rate of pay to skilled labourers rose by a graduated scale from 21s. to 27s. per week, but, if they examined the true facts, what did they find? They found that no less than 75 per cent. were in receipt of wages at the rate of 22s. per week and under. As an illustration of the way in which skilled labourers were treated, he held in his hand a specimen of the work performed by one of these so-called skilled labourers at Devonport, who was engaged in setting up from manuscript and machining the printed instructions put on ammunition cases. He not, only set up type from manuscript, but made ready the machines; and he (Mr. Kearley) did not know that he could give a more forcible argument than that as to the unfair rate of payment of these men employed under the term of "skilled labourers." The Trades Union rate of pay in the locality for this work was 30s. per week. In Loudon it was 38s. What he contended was that these men should enjoy a minimum rate of 6d. per hour.

    615
    Before going into the question of the mechanics' wages, he would once more refer to the question that had been debated at great length on many occasions in the House, and which, he was sure, interested many hon. Gentlemen, and that was the subject of classification in the dockyards. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor General (Sir E. Clarke) would bear his testimony as to the apprehensions of the men in regard to the amended scheme which had been set up by the Government, and which professed to abolish the detestable system of classification. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in dealing with the question of classification, had made some very strong remarks; and if he (Mr. Kearley) read a few of these to the House, he should be able to put before the Committee in a nutshell what classification was, and the feeling that existed in relation to it amongst the workmen. The hon. Member said—
    "I come now to the second great question with which we have to deal. I allude to the burning, and I may say blazing, question of classification. I do not know if hon. Members know what classification is. Classification means that members of a trade are sub-divided into classes, and receive different rates of wages, the selection and classification being' made by the dockyard officials on the grounds of economy, ability, and service. Mr. Forwood, in 1891, introduced the system into certain trades in which it was previously unknown, but the right hon. Gentleman could never have anticipated the effect which it would produce. The outcry against the system was instantaneous, and it had been continuous. The objections made are, that men employed on precisely the same work, and producing precisely the same results, get different rates of wages. They say it may be that a better man, producing better results, gets the lowest rate of wages, whilst an inferior man, producing inferior results, obtains the higher rate. The men say that the system opens the door to favouritism on the part of the Superintendents, and, of course, the mere suggestion of such a thing is most objectionable. They say there is no system of the kind in similar trades in private yards. In my opinion, there is a substantial justification for the line these men have taken. And over and above everything else you have this fact: that the men are prejudiced against the system of payment, and are utterly discontented with it. If you are going to have peace in the dockyards you must do away with the system of classification. However perfect the theoretical system may be, there is no good in forcing even the most perfect theoretical system down the throats of men. We have, therefore, decided to put an end to the system of classification."
    616
    That was a very good decision if it had been acted upon; but the Government had not only not abolished classification, they had revived it in many ways, and had allowed all the glaring inequalities to continue to exist. He would give them one illustration. The most powerful trade in the yard, numerically speaking, was that of shipwrights. Under the present system the established shipwrights had four rates of pay—31s., 32s., 32s. 6d., and 33s. Under the new scheme which came into operation in April, which professed to abolish classification, 32s. was put as the standard to which all men below it were to be raised. But new men coming in were not put on the establishment at 32s.—the standard rate—but for some reason which he could not fathom they were put on the establishment at 31s. 6d. per week. Thus there would be two rates of pay. But, in addition to this, there were many who would be in receipt of rates of pay higher than the standard, and it had been decided that those who were in the enjoyment of higher rates than the standard should continue to enjoy them. The result was, that there would be two more rates—one 32s. 6d. and the other 33s.; therefore, we had arrived at this result—that the upshot of the agitation was that the Government declared that they had abolished classification; but when the facts were analysed, it was found that there were four rates of pay, and so the outcome was practically the same. Precisely the same thing applied to the hired men, with the exception that whereas in their case there were at present four rates of pay, in the future there would continue to be three rates, and so all the old objections would remain in free force. What the men claimed was clearly expressed by his hon. Friend's statement—
    "That as they were members of the same trade they should be in the enjoyment of the same rates of pay."
    Every one of these men had served an apprenticeship of at least seven years, and every single man had had to pass, to the satisfaction of the Government officials, a practical examination and practical test with his tools before he was allowed to be enrolled at all in the Government service. Now he would say a few words with regard to the justice of the rates of pay. The Trades Union average for the past 10 years for shipwrights in Trades

    617
    Union yards where Government eon-tracts were executed, working 54 hours a week, was 37s. 6d., and those figures worked out at 51 hours, which were dockyard horns, at 35s. 6d. per week in the Government establishments. Instead of that, the average paid during the whole, of the 10 years to established shipwrights in Her Majesty's yards had been at the rate of 30s. 6d. a, week. And seeing the very large divergence between the rates of pay current in private yards, where precisely the same work was going on and where Government ships were being built by contract, he would point out it was scarcely a fair comparison to make between shipwrights in the Government employment and shipwrights in private yards, for this reason—that the men employed by Government had not to work in wood alone, but to adapt themselves to the new conditions, and work in iron as well as wood. In private yards the shipwright was a worker in wood alone, those men who were workers in iron being termed iron-shipbuilders, and having a much higher rate of pay. The same thing applied to shipjoiners. The Trades Union rates for shipjoiners throughout the country was substantially the same as shipwrights. But during the past 10 years the Government workmen had been in receipt of 29s. 6d. per week. He took occasion, a week or two ago, to make a trip round to several dockyards, and took the opportunity to inspect the quality of the work done by joiners in Government employment. He must say it was work of a very high character, and he failed to see why its value should not be recognised. He noticed that they were engaged in panelling expensive woods, and in carving in the Admiral's and Commander's saloons, also in turning out tables, chairs, sideboards, and other articles in an excellent manner. He had stronger arguments to urge, if necessary, against their existing rate of pay. His hon. Friend had urged that in all cases local rates of pay were always taken into consideration. He failed to sec why these men should not be entitled to receive a wage equivalent to that prevailing in private yards where precisely the same work was carried on, but the local rate of pay of joiners employed in the building trade in the neighbourhood of Devonport and Portsmouth was 7½d. per
    618
    hour. That was the Trades Union rate of pay for 54 hours per week. This would give at dockyard hours 31s. 6d. per week, but the Government men only received 29s. There were many trades where there were no local rates, and for these men he urged there should be a comparison drawn as to the rate of pay prevailing in the districts, where work of an analagous character was performed, so that they should have a rate equivalent to the work they did. But there were other trades strictly local in character which he would quote. The local Trades Union rate of pay for carpenters was 32s. per week, computed on a basis of 51 hours per week. The carpenters in the works department got a rate of pay ranging from 22s. to 27s. a week. Take masons, again—precisely the same thing applied. The Trades Union rate of wages for masons was 32s. per week. The rate of pay in the works department ranged from 22s. to 27s. per week. He might go on to mention many other trades, but he thought he had spoken enough to prove his contention that the rates of pay in the dockyards did not compare with the rates of pay prevailing in the localities, and that the rates of pay for men where there was no local comparison did not compare with the Trades Union rates in the shipbuilding yards where Government work was put out to contract. Now, he wanted to make one or two observations with regard to the systems which prevailed in Government dockyards. These systems would not be tolerated by any Trades Union body of men in private yards. In the first place, men were called upon to work on piece work, but it would be scarcely credited that these men had no knowledge whatever of the prices at which their work was assessed and valued. He had noticed in the Government statement that for the future this was to be abolished. It had been protested against year after year, but men were still forced to work on terms and scales of pay which were concealed from them altogether. He had stated all this to his hon. Friend, who said it should be altered at once. The hon. Member said that seven months ago, but it had not been altered yet. One would have thought that the Government would have taken immediate steps to have had this simple act of justice done to their

    619
    own employés. But he was satisfied by his hon. Friend's statement, that in the future there would be no further cause for complaint. Then there was the system of check measurement, which was this: men were compelled to work at piecework rates of speed, but were not paid at the piecework rates of pay. They were harassed by the measurer perpetually coming round and taking stock of their work, and, after all this, it frequently happened that at the end of the week, instead of keeping up their weekly standard rate of pay, they were what was called "chocked," and had to accept several shillings less than their standard rate of pay. He had become a convert to the view that piecework in Government establishments ought to be discontinued. [Cries of "Why?"] He would tell them why. At the present moment there were mechanics in many yards working at piecework. Of course, they put forth a supreme effort, encouraged by the prospect of earning more money, but the labourers, who by reason of the scanty pay they received could not have too much stamina, were on day pay. These day labourers, who had to wait upon these mechanics and could not feed themselves very highly on a wage of 19s. a week, were expected to work, if he might use the expression, "full steam ahead," but they were not entitled to receive any additional benefit for their enhanced energy. Then there was the question of systematic overtime. The latest statement which had been put before the House of Commons, if he might say so, was very ingeniously contrived in view of the charges which had recently taken place. It promised the rectification of many of these abuses of which they had complained. It said that—
    "Pressure is to be met, when practicable, by entering additional men, and by employing night shifts in preference to resorting to overtime."
    That decision had been arrived at at a very significant moment. Over and over again they had contended that the systematic overtime which had been worked for the past two or three years was discreditable to the Government and most hurtful to the health of the men. The constitutions of the men were being wrecked and shattered by the fearfully long hours they were working. And all the while those men
    620
    were being compelled to work time and a-half or time and three-quarters they had thousands of men in the country who were unemployed and were starving for the want of work, and yet the Government had not opened their doors to take in a sufficient number of workmen to perform the vast accumulation of work on hand. It was not a question of mere temporary pressure. It had been going on for the last two or three years, and from his knowledge of the dockyards he was perfectly well aware that the torpedo and machine shops would be compelled to continue working overtime unless better machinery were introduced and more men employed in the works. He therefore entered his protest against this system of overtime, and unless his hon. Friends would give some assurance that they really meant what they said in their statement, it would be found when next year came round that overtime was still existing as it had been for the last two or three years. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston had made a remark just now as to how he would regard Trades Union rates of pay, and had referred to the privileges of the Government employés. With regard to those privileges, 25 per cent. of the men were receiving pensions, and each man gave from his wages what was computed as being equivalent to half the amount of the pension provided by the Government. The "establishment," as it was called, was not brought into existence at the request of the men, hut because the Government wanted to make sure that in time of war or difficulty it would have a firm control over a certain set of men in its employment. But, whatever the advantages of Government employment were, he contended that they should be actuarially computed and their exact value ascertained. His Amendment simply asked that, after having taken into consideration the value of these privileges, then the Trades Union rates of wages should prevail. In addition to pensions, the men had four days' holiday—Good Friday, Christmas Day, Coronation Day, and Queen's Birthday—but they were not worth anything more than 6d. per week. Then, as to hurt pay, it was right to remind the House that until the last Employers Liability Bill was before the House the

    621
    Government employés were always excluded from the benefits of all preceding Acts. Naturally, then, it was necessary that some provision should be made to compensate those who suffered injury in the Government service. It was urged that the men in Government employment continued at work in the slips, being sheltered from the weather, whereas in I private yards men were subject to suspension on account of bad weather, and so on. But many ships were now being built outside the slips, and the men were exposed to all sorts of weather, He had seen men at work on the new ship the Majestic the other day under those conditions.
    MR. FORWOODsaid, with extra pay.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid, the men could hardly be expected to work without pay. That was why he said the argument was not fair that the men continued at work. Take the case of the building of a battleship. How long was it after the keel was laid until at least one deck was covered in? It was not right to urge that the men had continuous work irrespective of weather in the Government dockyards, but that men in private yards had not the same privilege. In conclusion, he desired to thank the House for the patient hearing they had accorded him. He was quite aware that it was not an attractive subject—[Admiral FIELD: Hear, hear!] —especially to naval Members, who had axes of their own to grind.
    ADMIRAL FIELDobjected to any imputation being made that naval officers had axes to grind.
    MR. KEARLEYhoped the Admiralty would see its way to accepting his Amendment. If it were accepted, a Committee should be appointed to ascertain how the rates paid in the Government dockyards compared with those in private yards where Government work of a precisely similar class was actually being carried out.
    MR. E. J. C.MORTONin seconding the Resolution, said, after the long and exhaustive speech which his hon. Friend had just delivered, he would not trouble the House long. He urged upon the Admiralty and upon the Government the extreme importance of carrying out their promise with regard
    622
    to notices being put up in the shops. Some of the minor trades in the yards were even worse paid than the others in proportion to the rates of wages paid in similar trades at, other works. For instance, riggers, according to the Government scale, were paid 25s. 6d. a week for establishment men and 27s. a week for hired men; whereas he could not find that anywhere else riggers were paid less than 80s. a week, even in Belfast, where he understood the rate of wages was lower than in any other city in the United Kingdom.
    MR. WOLFFsaid, the, hon. Member was entirely mistaken in saying that.
    MR. E. J. C. MORTONwas saying that, taking trades all round, the rates of wages in Belfast were lower than anywhere else. That would operate, of course, indirectly on the shipbuilding trade. In some of the ports wages were up to as high as 42s. per week. In another small trade, the sailmakers, the wages paid in the Government dockyards were 25s. 6d. for the establishment men and 27s. for the hired men, and again, in comparison, in private yards the rates ran up from 30s. to 40s. a week. Passing on to the minor skilled trades classed as skilled labourers, they had one grievance which his hon. Friend had not mentioned. These were described as separate trades, In particular, he would mention the hand - trimmers, who were paid, under the Government scale of wages, from 20s. to 22s. a week, whereas the lowest wages he could find paid them in private yards was 24s., running up to 39s. a week. That was an enormous difference, and was an instance of the result of minor trades being classified as skilled labourers in the Government dockyards. For shipwrights in the various shipbuilding districts where the hours were in some cases less than those worked in the Government dockyards the least wage paid was 36s., as against 33s. for the hired men in the latter. As regarded the ordinary labourers, he and his hon. Friends were met with the argument, in comparing rates of wages, that rents were higher in northern than in southern districts. But he believed it was the case that in the town of Devonport a room could not be obtained for less than 4s. 6d. a week.

    623
    That represented a condition of things as bad as could be found even in London, and was, of course, due to the abominable system of land tenure. In that regard, therefore, he could assure hon. Members that a grievance existed in that district as bad as could be found anywhere in Ireland or the East End of London. Dr. May, the Medical Officer of Health, said in his Report, speaking of the houses of the working classes, that the rents were far too high to admit of but one family occupying them, although so planned as to give proper accommodation for only one family; and he went on to mention cases of 10 families living in a single house, and even more than one in a single room; adding that such habitations were the plague-spots of a town, and were centres of disease. He further said that in many instances cases of infectious disease were found where the patients were kept in crowded rooms—cases which certainly should have been isolated. That was something to take into consideration with the fact that wages in the South of England were commonly lower than in the North. But the real reason for the existing low rate of wages among the ordinary Labourers employed in Government dockyards was that they were mostly pensioned men—they had earned those rewards for previous public service. He wished to press on the House what he regarded as a matter of extreme importance. It should be recognised that when am an was receiving a pension he had earned it by work already done; and that the rate of wages offered by the Government to those men in any subsequent employment ought not to be fixed upon any scale in which the pensions were taken into account. That was a matter of extreme importance to the inhabitants of whole districts, because the fact of men having received only 16s. 6d. a week as labourers and now only 19s.—the fact that that wage was so small was owing to the circumstance that the men were pensioners, and the fixing of a wage so small lowered the whole rate of wages in the district for that employment. He therefore trusted the Government would get out of the rut into which previous Governments had fallen in this matter, and would boldly say that in future they would not take pensions into account in fixing rates of wages.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
    "In the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Government do pay in the Royal dockyards and other Naval establishments wages equivalent to the trades unions' rates of wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade, either of the district or of districts, where the work performed is of analogous character,"—(Mr. Kearley,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,)said, before he dealt with the speeches of the hon. Members who had spoken or with the object of the Amendment, which was to issue a new instruction to the Admiralty with regard to labour in the dockyards, he would remind the House that the Admiralty were already acting upon two former instructions of the Government, and he was sure it was not the desire of the House that they should keep adding to the existing instructions unnecessarily. The House had passed two instructions recently, one last year and one in 1891; and the conclusion at which he should wish the House to arrive was that it was not desirable to multiply instructions needlessly. That of last year laid down that no one was to be engaged on wages insufficient for proper maintenance, and that the conditions as to wages and insurance against accidents were to be such as to prevent abuses arising. Every effort was to be made to secure the payment of such wages as were generally accepted as current in similar trades in the district.
    MR. KEARLEYasked when that Motion was accepted?
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that was the Motion of 1891, accepted before the present Administration came into Office. It was not applicable in terms to work done under the Admiralty. If his hon. Friend had proposed to make it so applicable he certainly would not have had a word to say against it, because they regarded that principle as binding upon them just as much as it could be on any other Department. The instruction of 1891 was directed against sweating and subletting. He

    625
    would formulate the rule followed at the Admiralty thus—and he had the authority of the First Lord for so formulating it. The Rule of the Admiralty was that the remuneration of their workmen should not be inferior, taking everything into consideration, to that of outside workmen in analogous employment, and that if it could be shown that in any trade men were receiving less than they ought to receive, it was the duty of the Department to supplement that wage. Allusion had been made to the Return, showing how far the Admiralty had gone under the existing instructions. The revised scheme provided for the ultimate abolition of classification, and it added last year the sum of £38,512 to the wages paid to dockyard men. His hon. Friend talked as if by doing this they considered they had exhausted their measures; but he protested against this being assumed to be a complete discharge of the obligations of the Department under the instructions. At the present moment there were before the Department 154 Petitions from all classes of workmen in the yards, raising probably every question that had now been mentioned in the House. In the consideration of these hon. Members might rest assured that all they had said would not be neglected. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment would not expect him to go into the various figures which he had placed before them that evening for the first time.
    MR. KEARLEYremarked that the hon. Gentleman had received a deputation the other day upon the question.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, the views of the deputation should be considered along with the views of the other petitioners. Much that the hon. Member had said would have been more á propos upon the Estimates. The Admiralty paid in the Royal Dockyards and other naval establishments wages equivalent to the current Trades Union rates. The Resolution as it stood was meaningless, and would have to be recast if it was to be, adopted. The hon. Member asked them to enforce what he called the Trades Union rates paid in analogous trade3 in the locality; hut the Mover had himself destroyed the possibility of adopting the local Trade Union rates of wages A Report by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade on the
    626
    rates of wages in the dockyard districts showed that in every case the mean rate was lower than that paid in the dockyards. Cabinetmakers, for example, had from 29s. to 42s. in the dockyards, and outside 30s. to 40s. for 54 hours a week, 50 hours forming a week in the dockyards. Moulders in the dockyards had from 32s. to 42s., and outside from 32s. to 38s., also for a 54 as against a 50 hours week. The Trades Union rate of wages was very well for County Councils or other large Local Bodies to adopt for their own locality; but it was a very different matter when establishments over the whole country had to be dealt with, ranging from Devonport to the Orkneys. His hon. Friend was proposing to introduce a new criterion and standard for dockyard wages, but had he satisfied himself that the dockyard men wanted that standard? Out of the 154 Petitions they had sent in, how many did he suppose asked for the Trades Union rate of wages? Only three. Some labourers at Sheerness asked also for Trades Union wages. He thought that the House, which had not yet lost its caution in dealing with public interests, would pause before adopting this Motion. The adoption of the Union rate might have the effect in some cases of actually lowering wages. No Trade Union could maintain a level of wages always; powerful as Trades Unions were they were subject to reduction in times of depression, as he could show if time permitted. Then, if they were going to introduce Union rates at all, he hoped the House would consider the proposal of the Member for Battersea. He was alluding to the proposal that all dockyard privileges and peculiarities should be swept away, and that a plain, straightforward, ordinary market wage on Trade Union lines should be given. [Cheers.] He was glad to find that received with favour on both sides of the House as the logical way of introducing the Trade Union criterion. He did not believe the House would do it by piecemeal. If they did it at all they would do it on broad lines, and he was sure they would first of all consult the men. There might be good reasons for the men preferring the present system, and there were good reasons, too, why it was of advantage to the Government, for it enabled them to keep together a great

    627
    Civil army upon which, not less than upon the military, the prosperity of the country depended. The hon. Member for Devonport seemed to make very light of the value of the permanence of dockyard employment. He regarded it as of incalculable value, of inestimable value. What the workman's family thought of was not so much the weekly rate but the annual income actually earned by him. Many questions had still to be considered. There was one great question of surpassing interest. Last year the War Office decided to introduce the eight hours day, or 48 hours week, in its various establishments. Last week the Secretary of State declared to the House the satisfactory results already assured, or likely to be obtained, from the new system. The Admiralty had watched the progress of this great experiment with the keenest interest and sympathy. The naval establishments were not in all respects similar to the arsenals, and their normal hours of labour were already below those of the arsenals, and in fact very little above the standard of the eight hours day. The Admiralty had considered the whole question on the light of the instruction received from the House of Commons, and had decided to introduce the normal 48 hours week in the naval establishments. Some little time would be required for the consideration of the proposed scheme. The conditions of the yards varied on several points, and it would be necessary to look carefully into the details. The Admiralty expected to be able to adopt a scheme on the lines of that established by the War Office, with such modifications as might be necessary to meet the special circumstances of the various dockyards. He trusted the House would be satisfied that they had interpreted its instructions at once accurately and liberally, and that it was not necessary or desirable to add another instruction at the present time.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, he entirely agreed with the Civil Lord of the Admiralty that the Amendment was a very narrow one; and if it had become the main question he should have endeavoured to have broadened its area with regard to the hours of labour in the dockyards. The announcement of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, however, had rendered superfluous both the Amendment and the addition to it which he had intended to propose.
    628
    He must say the announcement the hon. Member had made was perfectly satisfactory. He could not say he thought the Admiralty were under two instructions from the House, for the instruction of 1891, to which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty referred, was an instruction with reference to contractors only. It, was an instruction specially given in consequence of the revelations of the Sweating Commission, and it was a Resolution intended to prevent the Public Departments, in contracts they made outside, giving countenance in any way to under-paid labour. The Admiralty had adopted it as an instruction to themselves entirely of their own accord. The statement which the hon. Member read out was a statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the interpretation to be put on his own policy. It was a perfectly sound one, and as long as the Admiralty and the other Departments of the Government continued to act in a spirit of that kind the persons they employed had no just ground of complaint. The hon. Member had been able to add the concession which the Admiralty were prepared to make about the hours of labour in the dockyards. They must congratulate him on being the Minister of the Crown who had arrived at that extremely just, and, he thought, extremely satisfactory conclusion. The Government ought, in his humble opinion, to set an example to other employers of labour. Every week they found large employers reducing the hours of their men, and it was only right and desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take part in this movement, which was a general one throughout the country. In fact, they should lead the way it limiting the hours of labour to such as the men could work without injury to their health, and which gave them a sufficient amount of leisure. It was most satisfactory to hear the report the Secretary for War was able to give them as to the effect of this movement in the arsenals, and he was very glad indeed that the Board of Admiralty had found themselves able to carry the same principle into effect in the dockyards. It was quite possible that henceforth workmen who were employed regularly in the dockyards, for short and reasonable hours, when they found them selyes at the age which had hitherto been the age

    629
    of superannuation, and at which men had found themselves exhausted and unfit for work, would he strong enough to continue for a time in the Government service. He would suggest to the Civil Lord that when proposing that 48 hours should he worked in the dockyards, the Government should raise the age at which compulsory superannuation of the workmen should take place A man was now superannuated at the ago of 60, but it was quite conceivable that under the new Regulations, and when the hours of labour were shorter, a man on attaining the age of 60 might find himself in a very much stronger and more robust condition than he did at present. The arrangement he proposed, therefore, would be an extremely advantageous thing for the men themselves, who very often wanted to continue their employment after attaining the age of 60; and, from a public point of view, it would be a great advantage to have the service of able and experienced men for some time after reaching the age of 60. It would give a greater return to the State for all the advantages which had been enjoyed during the period of service. He did not approve the proposal which came from that (the Opposition) side of the House, to sweep away the privileges of the dockyards, which increased the attachment of the workmen to the service of the State. If those privileges were abolished—such as the superannuation allowances—and the employment were treated as a merely commercial bargain between employer and employed, the State, in his opinion, would not be served half as well or as economienlly as at present. A private employer bad not nearly as great a stake in the continuance of his employment as the nation had in the continuance of the work at the dockyards. A good deal of sacrifice might economically be made by a Public Department in order to secure in skilled trades a body of workers in whom perfect reliance could be placed, who could be depended upon to serve continuously and vigorously in cases of emergency, putting aside their own comfort and convenience. So long as the Government were attached to their servants in the dockyards by relations like those that now subsisted, be thought that any small expenditure beyond what might be called a commercial wage would be money extremely well laid out. On the whole, he thought the statement
    630
    of the Civil Lord extremely satisfactory, and he was sure the hon. Member (Mr. Kearley) would do well under the circumstances to withdraw the Motion.
    MR. BAKERsaid, he would not trespass on the time of the House for more than a few moments after the statements which had been made by the hon. Member for Devonport and by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. He was not at all unmindful of what had been done by the present Government with regard to improving the conditions of labour in Her Majesty's dockyards. he was aware that last year a sum of nearly £40,000 was given for this purpose, but he was still compelled to point out to the House and to the Admiralty especially what might possibly have been overlooked—namely, that there was a largo amount of dissatisfaction existing at the present time amongst the workmen in the dockyards on the ground which had been urged by the hon. Member for Devonport—namely, because at the present moment the rate of wages paid was far less than that which was laid down by the Unions as the standard rate through the country. It was quite true the men's Petitions did not all specifically mention the Union rate of wages. But if anyone would examine the Petitions they would find that while only three referred to the Union rate of wage specifically, nearly everyone was based on the complaint that the men were underpaid according to the Union rate of wage. With regard to the increase promised, be ventured to submit to the Admiralty that it would very much simplify their work if they were to adopt the Union rate of wage. As to the men. being dissatisfied with it, he was sure they would be content, because it was the basis on which their Petitions had been formulated. With regard to the temper of men in the Metropolis, they were not discontented to the extent that had been suggested. As to security for the nation and protection for themselves being swept away, and a hiring from year to year substituted for it without the certainty and continuity of employment they were now afforded, he could speak from his own observation, and say that that was not the feeling in the dockyards. If in large shipbuilding yards the Union rate of wages was paid in spite of establishment charges, and yards which had

    631
    not these charges could not pay the same rate of wages, there must be some mismanagement of dockyard labour. Great battleships had been built in the Government dockyards at a saving of £40,000 or £50,000 as compared with ships built by contract. So the Union rate of wages was not asked for as a gift, but as a return for labour honestly given. With regard to the advantages that were promised, he not only thanked the Admiralty for what they did for his constituents last year, but for what they had now promised. It had been given generously in a way that would be most acceptable. He also congratulated the Admiralty on the outlook which they had afforded of a higher and more satisfactory rate of wage being given in the future. He did not at all look at the question as establishing a rule which would act either prejudicially to the Government or to the men. If the men could obtain the higher rate of wage after reasonable reductions for the privileges they enjoyed and the bonuses and pensions they received—unless they died before they were entitled to the latter—they should continue on the scale now established in the dockyards. He hoped the spirit of this Resolution would be carried out, and that a fair rate of wages would be afforded to those who worked so well for the Government.
    MR. J. BURNSsaid, whatever might have been his views on this particular question, they had been strengthened by the announcement of the eight hours day for the Admiralty men. Before he stated what his views were he had a right to remind the House of what he predicted last year, and which many Members approved—namely, that unless the Trade Union rates, wages, and conditions were observed in the Government dockyards the Government would be confronted every year by long speeches from Members who were driven by political pressure, first, to waste the time of the House, and, secondly, to introduce ideas and inequitable conditions that could not be applied to everyone of the Government establishments throughout the country, and which were framed mainly with the desire of pleasing a particular locality which was strong enough to bully the local Member. He ventured the more unreservedly on this question,
    632
    because he was not the Representative of a dockyard constituency, and was, therefore, not bound to look to the interest of a particular group of the community; but he felt that he had a claim to speak on any subject directly affecting the labour question generally. From this point of view, he contended that the Amendment, referring as it did to the local condition of one particular trade only—namely, that, of shipwrights, and exclusively to naval establishments—was too narrow in its scope. It was, if he might so describe it, a one-eyed Amendment, and one which could not be looked at from the standpoint of national uniformity. It ignored the conditions in other Government Departments—besides confining its scope to one district alone, and it did not apply to the conditions of labour existing in private yards, which were the conditions formulated by the Trades Unions. If the House settled satisfactorily and permanently the question of wages, hours of labour, and conditions of labour, it must do so on a scientific basis, and from the point of view of national uniformity. On the one hand, the Amendment went too far if it was intended to retain under it the emoluments, pensions, and privileges of Government employment; and it did not go far enough if all the Trades Union conditions were to be conceded. What did the Amendment mean? It said that the wages should be equivalent to the Trades-Union rates of wages generally accepted as current in each trade. What did "equivalent" mean? It meant that the Superintendent of Devonport Dockyard should say that 34s. per week, plus holidays and extras, was equal to 37s. a week Trades Union wages in some or other districts. They would then have a conflict of opinion as to the interpretation of "equivalent," and as to "the wages current in each trade." he must say that nothing had caused greater friction between employers and workmen than the miscellaneous way in which the words "fair wages," "current wages," and "equivalents" had been interpreted. They were rapidly approaching the condition of things when the old pension system with privileges and emoluments must be swept away. The system was disappearing, and the sooner it disappeared altogether the better. If

    633
    the eight hours day would help its abolition, let them ask the Government to extend the eight hours to every Department, and when the eight hours system was universally applied and settled let the House appoint a Committee to see that the system of classification was really abolished. It was not fair while the eight hours system was a tentative experiment, and before other Departments had secured it, for the Member for Devonport to speak for one district irrespective of what, applied to the whole of the 70,000 or 80,000 in all Government Departments. The men could not have all the benefits of the Trades Union system plus the advantages, emoluments, and privileges of employments where the rate of wages was lower than the Union rate in consequence of these privileges. There were also many Civil servants and Local Government Bodies who would find it desirable to terminate the pension system and to secure the current Trade Union rate of wages, which it was hoped would be sufficient to enable the men to make arrangements for themselves to meet the requirements of old age. He objected to the employment of men under the conditions the Member for Devonport had described. This versatility of occupation did nor mean excellence of work. As things now stood shipwrights could go in and work for a, week on wood, then for a week on iron, and perhaps the next week on copper. Work turned out under such a régime could not be satisfactory either to the employer or the employed, and he felt confident that if it was examined into much of the weakness of the machinery of our ironclads must be attributed to a system that prevented that sub-division of work which meant good, reliable machinery, and the avoidance of disasters which would be sure to arise whenever a critical time came for the Navy if the present system continued. The programme which he should stand by would he "Hours first, classification second, and wages third." As sensible men they ought to deal with hours first, classification second, and wages third. If they dealt with the matter in that way they would get a better ship and better engines, and give greater satisfaction both to the Superintendent and the men. The best ship would be that on which gangs of specialist workmen were employed in their own particular work. At
    634
    Sheerness the most delicate and complex electrical engineering work was being made by apprentice shipwrights hut 12 mouths out of their time. It was simply absurd to think that those apprentices were competent men to place in charge of electrical machinery on board a large ironclad. He would not vote in that House for any reconsideration of the wages of shipwrights or engineers in Her Majesty's Dockyards until the question of the overlapping of work was settled, either by experts in the Department or by a Special Committee of expert engineers from the House. In the meantime the eight hours system had no right to be vitiated at its inception by mixing up with it the question of wages and other conditions that should he dealt with when the shorter day was generally applied. When this happened he intended to move that Trades Union wages should be paid. Till then the present Resolution should be enforced, and the experience gained on the shorter day would enable them to settle wages once and for all. It was because he wanted to be fair both to the Department and the men, because he wanted to see the best ironclad turned out that it was possible for human hands to turn out, that he asked the Government not to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport. He was for uniformity, discipline, good work, and Trade Union hours and wages. These the Amendment did not secure, and he should vote against it.
    SIR E. CLARKEsaid, he could not allow the speech of the hon. Member to pass without taking notice of it. The hon. Member had violently attacked the hon. Member for Devonport for venturing to put this matter before the House. He was not going to vote for the Motion, but he could not see why Dockyard Members alone of all Members of the House were not to be allowed to discuss matters of this kind; and he must enter his protest against such an idea. The hon. Member for Battersea contended that the most important question was the proper distribution of work among the different classes of artizans.
    MR. J. BURNS: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I said that, the Government having introduced a reduction of hours for the War Office and

    635
    Admiralty, it was only fair that the men who had not got the eight hours should be included before classification, overlapping of work, and revision of wages were entered upon.
    SIR E. CLARKEsaid, that was so; but the hon. Member went on to say that the distribution of work was a more important question than any. That might be a very important question, but he would point out that the work done in the Government Dockyards had been found equal to the best work done in private yards. If there had been improper employment of persons not qualified to do the work, it was a very odd thing that no fault was found with the work turned out. As far as his constituents were concerned, many of them had told him that they cared much less about the hours of labour than the wages. As a rule, the men had not felt the hours to be burdensome, and many told him that they desired rather to press the question of wages. So far as the Admiralty were concerned, the 48 hours week was announced for the dockyards, and though the change might take some time to work out, still it was going on, and therefore the hours question was out of the way. Why in the world should they not go on to discuss classification and wages? He should not have taken part in the Debate but for the speech of the hon. Member. He felt obliged to say that Members for the dockyards were entitled to speak in that House without the imputation being cast upon them that they had been bullied by their constituents.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he must protest against the imputation made by the hon. Member for Battersea that the Dockyard Members were actuated by unworthy motives. He would ask the hon. Member whether he never spoke for the gallery outside? The hon. Gentleman seemed to be surprised that important work was done by young hands at Sheerness. But he did not say there was any defect in the work. He thought it was highly satisfactory that the work could be carried out so well. Although he could not agree with the actual terms of the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Devonport, it was his intention to vote for it should a Division
    636
    be taken, because it was in favour of the views which he had always upheld—namely, the just claims of the dockyard workmen for additional payment. He wished entirely to dissociate himself from that part of the speech of the pro-poser of the Motion which referred to Trades Unions. He denied the right of Trades Unions to dictate what wages should be paid to workmen, and he thought that their action of late had shown that they were animated not with a desire to help the workmen, but with a wish to forward their own ends by what he could not but call tyranny and coercion. He thought, however, that, on the ground of abstract justice, the men for whom he was now speaking had a right to an increase of pay. The concessions that had been made by the Government regarding rates of pay, classification, and other matters had not given satisfaction. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Robertson) said that these concessions were still in course of being carried out, but the complaint of the men was that the promises made by the Government were not acted upon. All classes of men employed in the dockyards complained that they were not paid at the same rate as the men employed in private yards. They contended that if they made a fair deduction for the privileges of pensions and continuity of work they were still not paid at as high a rate as men in private employment. He believed that the dockyard men were willing to absolutely forego some of their privileges if they could be placed on the same level as the workmen of private firms. The men were very much disappointed that the hopes that had been held out to them, notably at election times, by gentlemen opposite respecting the abolition of the system of classification had not been justified. They said that the present system of classification of work was more objectionable than classification of men, and they pointed out that everywhere except in the Government dockyards all shipwrights were paid at a uniform rate. He thought his constituents would be grateful for the concession of a 48 hours week, although he was bound to say that he could not under any circumstances support an Eight Hours Bill, which he thought would be an unjust and tyrannical interference with the right of everyone to work as long as he pleased.

    637
    He wished to allude to the claims of the engineer officers in respect of pay.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That question cannot be dealt with on this Motion.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENbowed to this ruling, and proceeded to refer to the grievances of the engineer artificers. They formed, he said, a most important and useful body of men, and they were labouring under great grievances. Although the class was introduced in 1868, there had been up to this time, he believed, no increase of pay, and, what was more astonishing, the men were ineligible for promotion. Then there was the question of pensions. Men on the establishment were entitled at the age of 60 to a pension calculated on the number of years' service they had had; but if a man died just before attaining that age, all his pension fund, half of which he had contributed out of his wages, was forfeited, and nothing at all went to his widow. During the past month a very sad case had occurred at Sheerness, where a most excellent workman, who was forced to retire under the ago of 60, had died, with the result that unless the Government made a grant the widow would be absolutely deprived of any assistance. He called that a cruel and bitter injustice, and he was surprised that it should have been so long un-redressed. In the case of the hired man it was almost worse, He might be from 8 to 10 years working as a hired man before he got a place on the establishment, and it was not until he got on the establishment that he began to count time for pension. The hired man was entitled to a bonus at the end of his period of service instead of a pension, but that bonus he forfeited if he came on the establishment. It appeared to him most reasonable that the period of hired service should be counted for pension, and that the bonus should not be forfeited.
    An hon. MEMBER: Do they get higher wages as hired men?
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, no doubt they did, as they were denied the advantages possessed by the men of the establishment. But the point was that the men when they came on the establishment should be able to count the whole of their service for pension. He
    638
    hoped the Government would be able to pay some attention to the points he had ventured to bring before them.
    MR. EGERTON ALLEN (Pembroke, &c.)said, that as a Dockyard Member he was not at all ashamed to say in this House what he said in his constituency, that he would take every opportunity he could of bringing forward public questions relating to his constituents on every proper and reasonable occasion. he did not intend to take up the time of the House by bringing forward the grievances of individuals, but he would be wanting in his duty if he did not bring forward public grievances relating to the administration of the dockyards, concerning which this House was called upon to give a final decision between the Admiralty and their employés. Here they had an occasion, on moving the Deputy Speaker out of the Chair, where the pay and position of the Government employés in dockyards was directly before the House. Mo protested against being told by the Member for Battersea that he was driven by political pressure to waste the time of the House. The prime grievance of the Member for Battersea was the interference of the shipwrights in electrical workshops, but in the Return published by the Admiralty on Saturday one of the provisions made was that shipwrights were not to be employed in those shops. His was a grievance, therefore, which was provided for by the Admiralty themselves. But the matters which he wanted to bring before the House were matters which had not been provided for by the Admiralty, and which formed a just ground of complaint. If the Admiralty were only as good as their word they would have little to complain of. They spoke with a very soft voice when they had to meet the complaints of Dockyard Members, and they were told that everything that could be done should be done. Nothing could be sweeter and clearer than the declaration to-night of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but was it to be carried out? It was his duty to say, on behalf of his constituents, that the classification scheme which the country was told was to be abolished was not being abolished, and would not be abolished by the measures which the Admiralty had taken. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that it would

    639
    ultimately lead to abolition, but "ultimately" meant from 10 to 12 or 15 years hence, and during all that time the classification would subsist and exist as it had done in the past. It had given rise to grievances in the past, and would not be altered by the present scheme of the Admiralty. What length of life did the Admiralty suppose their new scheme was going to have? Was it going to have five, or, at the outside, 10 years? Did the House suppose that 10 years hence the Admiralty would find it unnecessary to alter the conditions of labour in the dockyards—the conditions of which classification had formed one in the past and would form one in the future? If the present objectionable system was not got rid of during the whole length of the life of the Admiralty scheme, what benefit was there in the smooth words of the Admiralty, that they had abolished classification? They had done nothing of the sort; and not only had they done nothing of the sort at present, but the abolition would not come in for so many years in the future that by the time it did come in they might fully expect a new scheme in operation. They had, moreover, started a brand-new system of classification by allocating certain extra pay for certain extra work, which had raised a storm of disapproval from the men in every dockyard. The men believed that it was intended to give local officials a loophole for choosing one man more than another for extra pay, and they all said, "We will willingly give it up, and let us have the money which the Admiralty propose to spend upon that part of their scheme in order to raise the all-round rates of wages." The amount of extra pay to be given to shipwrights for special work was upwards of £3,000, and the men said that it would be much better to spend the money in raising pro tan to the weekly wages of the shipwrights. It was no use the Admiralty attempting to bring in a new scheme for the benefit of the dockyards if the dockyards themselves did not consider that that scheme was of any benefit to them, and although they might be right in theory, in practice it would not work. There were other difficulties which the men found in the administration to which he was bound to
    640
    call attention. The Admiralty did not act fairly towards their men. he would adduce two instances. One was the case of men who acquired a certain position under the Admiralty Regulations in the years 1881, 1882, and 1883. That position was connected with the daughtsmen's work. They held that position till the year 1890; then a new scheme was brought forward by the Admiralty, and in 1891 the Admiralty superseded those men without the slightest reference, of course, to them, without in any way getting their consent to the supersession, and in 1891 they were clearly told they had lost their position. Now, no private employer would dare to alter a contract entered into by him with his men at his own will and pleasure without reference to, or without the consent of, his men. A County Court Judge would not for a moment allow an employer to do such a thing. If that was so, he challenged the Admiralty publicly in his place to deny that they had done what was unfair and unjust, and what no private employer would be able to do without making himself liable to an action. Another instance of unfair treatment was the way in which the Admiralty and Treasury between them worked what was called a system of acting pay. When a man was unable to do his work it was only proper that a person who did his work for him temporarily should be paid extra, supposing he did work which was paid higher than his ordinary work. And it was also right and fair that that extra pay should carry no fresh privilege with it beyond the extra pay for extra work and for a higher kind of work. But in certain circumstances this so-called acting pay was given not for temporary but for permanent work, and in those circumstances it should be treated as substantive, not as acting, pay. Men were wanted in larger numbers than were available for doing certain work in the dockyards; for instance, say that more Inspectors of Shipwrights were wanted than were in the yards, the Admiralty did not appoint more Inspectors of Shipwrights, but made so-called acting Inspectors of Shipwrights, who were not men who acted for others, but who were brought in on the strength of Inspectors of Shipwrights, they not being in sufficient numbers. These acting Inspectors worked some-

    641
    times for 12 and 14 years consecutively, and they ought to have all the advantages of their position. When a man was pensioned his pension was a certain proportion of the pay he had been earning. Acting pay, as it was called, was not pensionable; that was to say, was not taken into account when the amount of the pension came to be fixed, even when it was really substantive pay, under the circumstances above stated. He asserted that that was a monstrous and flagrant injustice. If a man's pay were increased for a short period, clearly he would not be entitled to be pensioned on that temporary increase. But if the increase had been going on for years as part of the regular needs of the establishment, it was clear that that acting pay was substantive pay, and ought to carry with it pensionable rights. Two or three years ago he brought this matter to the attention of the Admiralty—not once nor twice; in fact, he bad done so ever since he had had the honour to be a Member for a dockyard constituency, and he was informed that the Treasury had a Rule as to what class of pay was pensionable. That would be a very good Rule if acting pay and temporary pay was, as it professed to be under its name, of a temporary character, but it was not to be used to shut out men who for years had been receiving substantial pay which the Admiralty chose to call acting pay. The Treasury acted to the Admiralty like the hard man in the city acted to the benevolent member of the firm, who was not allowed to do what he wished on account of his partner. They were told the Treasury Rule was like the laws of the Medes and Persians—unalterable; but it seemed they might be evaded by the Admiralty. The Treasury Rule for acting pay did not apply to "charge" pay. Call it "charge" pay and it would be pensionable. That sounded reasonable, so far as the men were concerned; it did not matter to them whether it was called acting pay or "charge" pay so long as it was pensionable; but if the Admiralty considered the Treasury Rule unjustifiable and unfair, they should insist upon having it altered, or abolish such absurd nomenclature, and cease to call the men "acting" Inspectors when they really were permanent. However, the difficulty with the "charge" pay was this—that a
    642
    "charge" man's appointment was very much less permanent than an acting Inspector's appointment; therefore, if for the sake of getting pensionable pay the men allowed themselves to be called "charge" men, the officials could turn round and say they had no right to keep the work, and they would give it to someone else. Acting Inspectors could not have their work taken from them in this rough-and-ready way. It was right that the House and the country should know that the root grievance of the dockyard men against the Admiralty was the system by which the local officials had the lives and fortunes of the men in their own hands. The head of them was either an Admiral or Captain Superintendent, and all these officials were saturated with the idea of naval discipline. The men were told, if they made complaint, they were mutinous and insubordinate. A man who made a complaint to him was had up and reprimanded for having made it. It was like an employer who would call up and reprimand one of his workmen because he wrote to a Trades Union Secretary. He (Mr. Allen) acted as a Union Secretary for the men, and he was sorry to hear the Civil Lord of the Admiralty speak of these men as a large civil army. The grievances of the men were very much aggravated by the fact that these local authorities had the power in their own hands to reward subserviency in a way which was prejudicial to independence of character. And, what was more—and he did not suppose it would for a moment be denied—favour was shown in the matter of selection for different posts and appointments. From the point of view of the local authorities it was right that it should be shown; it kept men, as it were, in hand, but if was this as much as anything that led to all the grievances between the men and the Admiralty. The men had no other opportunity, except occasions of this sort when the House sat to consider the question of dockyard employment, of bringing their grievances forward. He had not brought forward to-night a single individual grievance, only those relating to the system of administration. The system of administration had to be decided by this House, and in this House the men submitted they ought to be heard through their Repre-

    643
    sentatives, without it being imputed to those Representatives that they were wasting the time of the House, and were merely actuated by tenderness for the safety of their seats if they ventured to bring forward the grievances under which their constituents laboured.
    MR. FORWOODsaid, he would have regard to the fact that they had before them much more important national questions than the one they were now discussing, and would, therefore, be as brief as possible in his remarks. They had heard a great deal of discussion that evening from the working men's point of view. Ho, for one, did not object to it; but they had never heard the employers' or the taxpayers' point, of view alluded to, and he thought the superior of the dockyard labourer, through the taxpayer, was entitled to be heard as well as the advocates of the workmen. There was one feature about the present controversy which, to his mind, was most unsatisfactory. It seemed to have become a perennial question, with no settlement—no ending to it. As the Estimates were brought before the House so year by year did these various points crop up—the same questions arose and the same discussions. He sympathised very much with a great deal in the Civil Lord's speech. He thought that the two years' experience which the hon. Member had had in connection with the dockyard work had made a serious impression on his mind, and that he was not so ready to concede everything asked as he was at the start of his official career. It was quite clear from what they had heard tonight that the present scheme was not regarded as a complete or final settlement, and that it would only be used as a lever for further agitation. In fact, they were told by the Civil Lord that already he had received something like 154 Petitions, to which he was going to give his careful attention. Many of these petitioners would make further requests for advances in wages and other modifications of the existing system. It had become a most serious matter for the House. It was now three or four years since the question of improving the position of the employés of the dockyards was brought prominently forward. For 17 years nothing had been done in connection with an advance in the wages of the
    644
    men. Four years ago it was his duty, on behalf of the late Board of Admiralty, to submit a proposal for an advance of wages, and that proposal increased the wages by a sum of £80,000 a year. The basis on which that advance was granted was taking the main rate of Trades Union wages at the different private yards in different parts of the country, and getting at the average between what those wages were in good times and what they were in bad times. He thought that was as fair a way as possible to approach the matter. The present Government came into Office, and he understood from the Civil Lord that in April last the scheme brought in for advancing the dockyard wages added something like £28,000 a year, and this year the advance would be £38,000. He did not quite understand whether the proposal to-day involved an advance in £38,000, in addition to the £28,000 advanced in April last.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: One Return includes the other.
    MR. FORWOODsaid, he understood, then, that the advance was £38,000, making, together with what the late Government did, an advance of £118,000 to the general wages of dockyard men. In addition to that direct advance, they were told to-day that the hours of labour had been reduced from 50 hours and 20 minutes per week to 48 hours per week. He should not be doing justice to the character of the workmen to suppose that in the 48 hours they were going to do as much work as they had hitherto done in 50 hours, and though the Civil Lord did not tell them so, be assumed it was not the intention of the Government to make any modification of the wages, having regard to the reduction of hours; in other words, the same would be paid for 48 hours as hitherto had been paid for 50 hours. He had made a calculation, and if that were so the cost to the country in the small loss of hours as it appeared would amount to £50,000 a year, so that in the last four years they should have paid in meal or malt the substantial sum of £168,000 upon a pay roll of £ 1,000,000 sterling a year. This was only setting the ball rolling for further and increased agitation, and that must be unsatisfactory to all Members of the House. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) said that the proper

    645
    principle was Trade Union wages and conditions. He would say at once if that was admitted there would be an end to these discussions. The Civil Lord very properly took up the question of Trades Unions, and asked what was to be the guiding spirit of the wages regulated by the Trades Unions. They knew that the wages varied very considerably between good times and bad times. He had a statement before him which showed that they varied to the extent of something like 6s., 7s., and even 8s. a week between good and bad times. Then, again, they had a great variety between one district in the country and another. Shipwrights made an average of 80s. in one place, 33s. in another, and as much as 37s. 6d. in another. If they were to have Trades Union wages, which of these places was to be the guiding spirit? If there were to be Trades Union wages, all the advantages dockyard men now had must go by the board, and they would make the dockyards the rendezvous of all the unemployed men engaged in the shipbuilding work in the country, and every one who went to the yards for employment was as much entitled to obtain it as any of the men occupied in their duties in the yard. That was one point for the consideration of the Dockyard Members. Another was the higher they raised the cost of shipbuilding at the dockyards the keener became the competition with the private yards, and he believed that this House was not going to allow work to be done at the dockyards if the cost of performing it was much higher than would be the cost of performing similar work at private yards on the Tyne and the Clyde. As he had said, this scheme put before them would not be a settlement. Much had been said of what was called classified or graduated pay. But this scheme, except as regarded shipwrights and joiners, was one succession of classified or graduated pay. Take the two first headings of the scheme—there was 710 less a difference between trimmers and stokers than from 21s. to 27s. What was that but a graduated scale of payment according to their skill and intelligence? That it meant classification on page 9 of the Return the Admiralty said they could not admit the necessity, but seniority would always be taken into consideration in making selections for an advance;
    646
    therefore, it was idle to say this scheme did away with any grievances of classification. What he ventured to say to the House was this—that there ought to be an end put to this constant and regular yearly agitation, and this constant demand on the Government. It was a system that was most demoralising to the men in the yards; it produced an unsatisfactory state of feeling there, for each of the men in the several trades were trying how best to obtain some advantage from the next House of Commons or the next Government. His feeling was that they should not get this matter settled unless the House took it up itself, and he thought the best course would be to refer this question of the men, their privileges and emoluments, to be considered by a Committee of this I louse. Let the Committee be fairly constituted, having upon it the Labour Representatives; let them hear the men from the dockyards, the officers of the Admiralty, and then come to the House and say, "We think so-and-so should be the scale of pay." If that were done, he thought they would have a, scheme that would have sufficient acceptance to prevent this constant recurrence of these Debates from year to year.
    MR. W. ALLENthought that no one could have heard the statement of an intention to adopt the eight hours day in the Government dockyards without satisfaction; but he did not agree with the last speaker, that it would mean a decrease in the amount of work per week that would be turned out. The experience of those who had already adopted the eight hours day was that the men turned out, as much work in the eight hours as they formerly turned out in the longer period, and he saw no reason why in the case of the dockyards the same thing should not hold good. But while he welcomed the statement of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty and thoroughly agreed with him, that was not what the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Kearley) asked for; the hon. Member asked for bread, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had given him a stone. Far be it from him, however, from saying the stone was not of as much value as the bread, for he was as strong an advocate of an eight hours day as well could be, but it was not what the hon. Member had asked for.

    647
    What the hon. Member asked for seemed to him to be fair and reasonable—namely, that the Government should pay the Trades Union rate of wages in their dockyards. And why had he to ask that? Because the Resolution that the House carried last year, on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cambridge University (Sir J. Gorst), had not been carried out. If that Resolution had been carried out there would have been no need for the hon. Member to have moved his Motion. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) last year objected to this Resolution on the ground that it was too wide and too indefinite, and now he objected to the narrower Resolution on the ground that an eight hours day was being introduced, and that the two issues ought not to be confused. But why should it confuse the two issues? The hon. Member for Battersea seemed to him to take up a line that he was not used to. The hon. Member seemed to advocate the side of the employer of labour, and did not appear, as he usually did, as the Representative of labour.
    MR. J. BURNSsaid, he must protest against this misrepresentation of his speech. The whole of his contention was that they wanted a Trade Union wage, and because the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Kearley) did not ask for that but its equivalent, whatever that vague phrase meant, he protested against it.
    MR. W. ALLENsaid, at any rate, the hon. Member said he would vote against it, whilst they who supported this Motion said they called on the Government to adopt a Trade Union rate of wages. The hon. Member for Battersea might not agree with that, but if they were right the hon. Member was voting against a Trade Union rate of wages in the dockyards. Then the hon. Member for Battersea asked if they would advocate the labourers in the dockyard giving up the privileges they now had if granted Trades Union wages? The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Kearley) practically stated that the employés were willing to give up their present privileges if they were granted a Trade Union rate of wages. It seemed to him of vast importance that they should pay the workmen in the Government yards the current rate of wages in the trade,
    648
    when in the contracts that the Government sent out for various things they inserted a clause that the employer of labour must pay to those who worked on those articles the current Trades Union rate of wages. If the Government did not pay the Trades Union rate of wages, then it would be natural for the employer to turn round and tell them to put their own house in order. But if the Government were to pay the Trades Union rate of wages and at the same time give continuous employment, the consequences would be that they would get the pick of the men, and have their work better done. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask the Government to pay the Union rate of wages? A private employer had to make a profit, or, if a company, to pay a dividend; but the Government were under no such obligation. The Resolution asked them, in the first place, to pay a living wage, and, in the second place, to set a good example to private employers. But the Government were not doing either one or the other. For instance, the coopers at Devonport were paid from 10 to 25 per cent. less than the prices agreed upon by the London masters and the Coopers' Trade Union. Surely that was not carrying out the spirit of the Resolution adopted by the House of Commons. Surely the Government, as a large employer of labour, should respect the agreement come to between the Representatives of the men and the masters. Again, it was stated in evidence before the Labour Commission that while the average pay of ship-riggers in the Government yards was 4s. 4d. per day, the average pay in the great commercial centres of London, Liverpool, Hull and Newcastle-on-Tyne was 5s. 8d. per day. If the Government had carried out the spirit of the Resolution adopted by the House, it would have increased the wages of the ship-riggers by 1s. 4d. per day and the wages of the coopers by 10 to 25 per cent. per week. The Government would only treat their employés in a fair and generous manner when they carried out the wishes of by far the largest majority in the House. It was all very well to look at the question from the taxpayers' point of view; but the working-classes' point of view was clearly indicated during the recent struggle in the coal trade, when all working men sub-

    649
    scribed largely to help those who were out of work, and his opinion was that the taxpayers would not object to this small addition to the taxes when they would know that the money would go into the pockets of the employés of the Government. He believed the Resolution to be a just and fair one, and if his hon. Friend pressed it to a Division he would certainly support him by his vote.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he could not go into the details of this dockyard question like the hon. Members who represented the dockyards, but he would give his views as to the general principles which he thought ought to guide the Government in fixing the wages in the dockyards on grounds that were fair and right. He entirely concurred in what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. There was very little in the speech of his hon. Friend that he did not find himself in complete agreement with, and he thought his hon. Friend had put the question on a sound and solid basis. There could be no doubt whatever that the time had come when they ought to put this question on some firm and definite basis, for they could no longer tolerate these constant appeals to the House by Representatives of the dockyards. From the taxpayers' point of view, he heartily supported the recommendation of the hon. Member for Battersea. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that in a great many respects the wages of the dockyard men wore above Trades Union wages, and yet the hon. Member for Devonport asked that his constituents were to have not only the advantage of Trades Union wages, but also the privileges and advantages which they enjoyed under the whole system. [Cries of "No!"] It was impossible that that could happen. The dockyard men could not have their cake and eat it, and it was unfair to working men in other parts of the country that dockyard men should out of Government money be paid higher wages than other working men received. That was an utterly impossible position, but undoubtedly it was the claim made by the hon. Member for Devonport. [Mr. KEARLEY: No, no.] At any rate, that was the view he took of the Resolution before the House. He thought the establishment system in the dockyards a bad one. It was said it had many
    650
    advantages, but he was sure that it had more disadvantages. For instance, a great number of men were kept upon the establishment who would not be retained in private yards. There was also too much of family influence in the dockyards. Jobs were frequently done owing to family influence. What was worse, there were also Party jobs, and one of the worst Party jobs was committed by his own Party in 1878, when they put a large number of men on the dockyard establishment previous to a General Election. But both sides were in this respect tarred with the same brush, and either Party was 110 better and no worse than the other. He would like to see the establishment system abolished altogether, because then the jobs could not be perpetrated. The dockyards ought to be placed more in competition with the private yards, and he was certain that much of the work would be better done in the latter than in the former. he was sure that if they did away with the establishment system and put the Government yards under the same conditions as the private yards it would be much better for the country. It was said that there were privileges granted to the men by employers in private firms. Any concessions made to the men in private firms ought certainly to be retained, but there were exceptional privileges in the dockyards which ought to be abolished. The fact was, that they had gone on long enough trying to work the two systems side by side. He would advise the Government to give up the old establishment system and pay Trades Union wages. The Secretary to the Admiralty had said they were trying to give wages which represented the average of Trades Union wages. But that system would not work, for they would have the Dockyard Representatives coming to the House and insisting that the men should be paid the highest point reached in wages by the Trades Unions. The proper thing was to pay Trades Union wages pure and simple. He did not complain of the action of the Dockyard Representatives, but he should say that the pressure which was brought to bear upon Members of Parliament, by dockyard men and by Civil servants had become intolerable. He once served on a Commission where every member, regardless of Party, was so impressed with this fact that they were inclined to recommend that Civil servants

    651
    should be disfranchised. He believed that was what would happen if they had year after year this constant pressure brought to bear on the Dockyard Members, and then those Members using their political influence with the Government, especially when majorities were small, in order to raise the wages of dockyard employés. It was a form of bribery which ought not to be tolerated. Private bribery was bad enough, but bribing constituencies for the Member's own private advantage with, public money was the worst possible sort of bribery. There was another matter to which he would like to call attention. He was afraid one of the tendencies of this system would be to drive out of our dockyards and Government factories a great many old soldiers and sailors. He thought this House ought, as far as possible, to find employment for these men. He had never been able to see why these men, if they were good men and able to do the work—and if otherwise they ought not to be employed at all—should have their pensions practically deducted from their wages. A man's pension earned in the service of the State was his own property, and he ought to have the same wages as if he had not the pension. He did not, believe the remedy suggested by the late Secretary to the Admiralty—namely, a Committee of this House, would stop the evil for a single year. At least it would very soon be argued that the circumstances had altered since the Committee had met. What they wanted was some self-adjusting arrangement like Trades Union wages, and for that reason he heartily agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Battersea.
    SIR E. J. REEDsaid, that if this Motion was put to the House he should record his vote against it, and he should do so in the interests of the dockyard workers themselves. There could be but one outcome from this perpetual movement in behalf of the dockyards—and although it might not be a very near one, it would come—and that was, to give a vast deal more work to the private establishments, and to bring about a great reduction in the construction staff of the dockyards, be should not be sorry to see that take place, because, looking to the spirit which animated these Debates, and seeing the dockyard
    652
    men were so excessively dissatisfied with their lot, he saw no reason why this House should maintain the dockyards in a stronger position. Why were the establishments set up and maintained? Entirely because they had a body of workmen working under very considerable privileges such as constant employment and constant income. But, if the dockyard men came to the House and asked that the differences between them and men employed outside should be removed, then the very ground on which the dockyard establishments were set up was taken away, and there was no reason why ships required for the Public Service should not be constructed in the private yards of the country. He agreed very much with what the hon. Member for Preston had said. This question had taken such an acute form that it seemed impossible in the House of Commons to give attention to any adequate and liberal scale to the great naval affairs of the country because of this eternal cropping-up of dockyard grievances.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Notwithstanding that this discussion has lasted perhaps as long as time will very conveniently allow for it, it may not be out of place if I say a few words before we come to a conclusion on the matter. Although I have no direct connection with the Admiralty and its workers, yet as last year I was the mouthpiece of the Government on the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I can say a few words with some degree of authority on the part of the Government. There are two subjects connected with this matter, upon neither of which I intend to say anything. First, as to the conduct and position of the Dockyard Members. There may be a good deal to be said on both sides of that question, but it is not a pleasant question on which to embark, and therefore I will leave it aside. The other subject is the question of the grievances which workmen in the dockyards complain of. That would be a proper question to deal with on the Navy Estimates, but it has no immediate connection with the Resolution before the House. That Resolution asks the House of Commons to determine that the men employed in the dockyards shall receive, according to some vague sort of definition, Trades Union rates of wages. There is one

    653
    condition which ought to attach to any such Resolution as that before the House, and that is that it should, if possible, unanimously commend itself to the Members of the House. The two previous Instructions that have been passed by the House have been agreed to unanimously, as it is very desirable that such Instructions should be. But it is apparent that this Resolution cannot be carried unanimously. The Motion has been strongly supported by some hon. Gentlemen who represent dockyard constituencies, but it has been attacked by others. It, has been by no one more forcibly opposed than by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea; and I venture to think that on a question like this my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea is a great authority, even a greater authority than some of those who have found fault with what he has said. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Resolution is at once vague and narrow in its effect. I do not think myself, speaking frankly, that it is a Motion which the Government of the day should be justified in accepting. We have fully accepted the principle that the current rate of wages in a district ought to be paid both in the Government workshops and by its contractors. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty cited the carefully-considered terms—which, I think, I may quote again—stating the present view of the Admiralty's position under the Instructions of the House. The words are:—
    "That the Admiralty should remunerate its workmen on a scale which, taking everything into consideration, is not inferior to that of outside workmen of the same or an analogous class; and, if at any time if be shown that any trade or section of a trade is receiving less than it ought to receive, it is the duty of the Department to set the matter right."
    Now, how have we carried out this direction? I challenge any Member of the House to mention a case in which, when the Departments have been informed that lower wages than those stated are being paid by the contractor, the matter has not been immediately investigated, and, if it has been found a fair complaint, has not been at once set right. This course has been carried out with the greatest fidelity by every Department of the Government. The workmen directly employed by the Government have from time to time received a considerable in-
    654
    crease of wages, and we have in that way given proof that it is our desire to do exactly what is prescribed. If we were to accept a Union rate of wages we should have to know, as has been abundantly pointed out to-night, whether it is to be the Union rate in the locality or a general average Union rate, the payment of which would probably cause as much discontent as if you were to put Union rates of wages aside altogether. This being the way in which the Government have carried out, and will continue to carry out, the Instructions of the House, is it desirable to fetter their hands by passing this vague Resolution? I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff that the men in the dockyard, and those who here plead their cause, ought to take care that they do not push matters a little too far. We are all ready to maintain these great establishments in full efficiency. At the same time, our principle is to give a fair share of work to private workshops and the great shipbuilding yards in other parts of the country; and if the establishments in the South of England become too costly or make work difficult and inconvenient, there is an easy remedy, which is to transfer the larger part of the shipbuilding to the private yards. I do not say it would be desirable to do this to too largo an extent; and it is certainly not the policy of the Government, or likely to be that of any Government, to displace large quantities of labour in the Government establishments; but it is worth the while of the workmen concerned to take to heart the warning given to-night that if repeated efforts are made under Parliamentary pressure to raise the scale of wages to an undue extent, there is always a simple remedy, which, however, I believe the House of Commons would be reluctant to adopt. There is another reason why I think the Government may be trusted to act reasonably in this matter. The hon. Member for Battersea took that line, and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I observe, from his greater knowledge and wider experience, proceeded to lecture my hon. Friend and to point out the line he ought to have taken. But we have done more than this—we have acted in a remarkable manner in other respects than in regard to this matter of fair wages. The announcement that my hon. Friend

    655
    has made to-night as to the introduction of a 48 hours week is a very remarkable and significant announcement. No one has had a larger share in pushing forward that question than my hon. Friend and countryman who sits below the Gangway. I was able some time ago to announce this policy in connection with the War Office. I was not surprised that the Admiralty hesitated or delayed a little in following that example, because, as is well known, the factories with which I have to deal are the very kind of factories or shops that lend themselves easily and without much complication, to the adoption of shorter hours, whereas the establishments of the Admiralty are more scattered and various, and render necessary great circumspection and careful inquiry. The hon. Member for Preston has spoken of the conditions we have had to impose in introducing shorter hours. I think he a little exaggerated what has happened. In making concessions of this kind the Government have a right to ask from the men in their employment some concession in return. There is no denying the fact that in Government factories there is a little more indulgence and laxity than there is in private yards. There are little indulgences and irregularities allowed in Government establishments which are not permitted in private yards, and all that has been done is to reduce those little privileges which the workman can very well give up when so much is being done for him; and I am glad to say that, to the best of my information, there has been no substantial complaint whatever from any of the men. Of course, when the question of wages is dealt with, we come at once to the whole question of establishments. I am of opinion, and have never failed to express the opinion in this House, that establishments are the greatest mistake in the world. The country would be much better served if there were no establishments at all, if there were no established men—no men going on for pension—and if the whole of the men could be treated in the same way as they were in private yards. But there would be a great deal of difficulty in introducing a new system and discontinuing the old. There would be a long time during which there would be men under each system. If, however
    656
    there is a strong feeling in the direction of a uniform arrangement, I can see no objection to carrying further the movement towards what I should call the liberation of labour in public dockyards. I have only one word more to say. With regard to the employment of old soldiers and sailors, which my hon. Friend has referred to, I very much sympathise with the desire to employ them, and am also opposed to counting their pensions as any part of their pay, but in many cases they are not fit to perform the ordinary day's work of an able-bodied man. The work will be very loyal and honest work so far as it goes, but old soldiers and sailors are not fitted for every kind of employment. Therefore, much is not to be expected in that direction, but I should be very sorry if any trade movement should have the effect of making the employment of such men in Government establishments impossible. Having said this much, and after the speech of my hon. Friend the Civil Lord, and the general expression of the opinion of the House, I would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port to withdraw his Motion. He has gained the advantage of having the matter discussed at great length, and, on the whole, I think in a sympathetic spirit. I would venture to ask any hon. Friend whether it would not be better, in the interests of those for whom he acts, to withdraw his Motion.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I should not have taken any part in this protracted Debate if it had not been for one or two observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He sounded what I thought a timely note of warning to the dockyard employés. He said that if the pressure to which the House is year by year subjected becomes intolerable, there is a very simple remedy—namely, to gradually reduce the Government establishments and put the work out elsewhere. Some six or seven years ago, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend near me, I had to face the very difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates. I was suddenly called upon to undertake the affairs of the Admiralty at a time when the dockyards were in much disfavour. Their work, though good, was costly and dilatory, and there was a strong move

    657
    ment made, particularly among those to whom I am politically opposed, to bring; about the abolition of the dockyards as building establishments, and their maintenance for repairs only. I want the dockyard employés dearly to understand that if such a proposition is ever made, for every political vote the dockyard employés can command the shipwrights in other parts of England can command 10. Therefore, if any attempts are made by political pressure and influence to improve the position of the dockyard employés at the expense of the rest of the community, it is very easy to see that there is a practical and effectual remedy. My right hon. Friend and I had a very unpleasant task to try and reform the dockyards and place them on such a basis as would enable them to compete with modern appliances in private yards. I am bound to say that the results of the reforms we have carried out have boon most remarkable. The work of the dockyards during the past five or six years has been such that it holds its own well with that of the best private yards in the country. But dockyard employés must not presume too much on the good work they have done in the past. I agree with everything the Minister for War has said. The Government as employers of labour ought to set an example. I am glad the hours have been reduced. I believe that whore proper supervision is exercised and men are made to do their best, eight hours are about as much as an able-bodied man can do; but, of course, under the exigencies of the Public Service overtime has been and may be necessary, and the present reduction ought to be associated with the understanding that overtime may occasionally have to be worked, though it ought not to be the chronic condition of the Public Service. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he thought establishments were a mistake. On that the opinion of those in the employ of the Admiralty must, to a large extent, be consulted, and almost all the 20,000 employed are in favour of the continuous employment the establishments afford. I believe it would be a mistake to attempt their reduction. There is no desire on the part of the great majority of the House to treat otherwise than fairly all those employed
    658
    in the dockyards: but I hope the moral of this Debate will be taken to heart by the Dockyard Representatives and those they represent. What, is wanted is a little, more backbone in Parliamentary candidates. I think the results of the Debate will be to this effect—that, whilst the dockyard employés, whom I am bound to look upon as amongst the pick of the artizans of the United Kingdom, will be fairly dealt with, if their Representatives yield unduly to political pressure, the House will be stiff-backed enough to pay no attention to them.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid, that after listening attentively to the remarks of the Secretary for War, which he understood to be practically a repetition of what the Civil Lord had said—for he was unfortunate enough not to be able to catch the full purport of his remarks—he felt the undertaking given by the Government to have these matters, whenever they might be proved to be worthy of reconsideration, thoroughly inquired into perfectly satisfactory. He did not abate from the position he had taken up—that it would be beneficial that Trades Union wages should be introduced. But he felt satisfied with the undertaking given by the Secretary for War. He asked to be allowed to withdraw his Motion, and he took the opportunity of thanking the Government for their great concession so far as regarded the reduction of the hours of labour to 48 was concerned.
    MR. WOLFFsaid, that in successive years he had heard the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kearley) and his Colleagues, and the Members of the Government, make the same identical speeches, and it seemed to him that, unless some step was taken to bring about a fixed arrangement, with the dockyard men, they would every Session waste at least one day over these matters. It depended upon how pliable the House was, or how much backbone it exhibited, whether wages were raised or were continued as at, present. He thought that the system in operation in the dockyards was a bad one—altogether out of date according to present ideas of labour and relations between employers and employed. Public shipbuilding yards might have been absolutely necessary at one time, when there were no private

    659
    yards to compete with them, and when men, if they left the Government service, could not be replaced; but now the work in the private yards was done quite as well as that carried out in the dockyards. He saw no reason why the regulations in force in private yards should not be adopted in the dockyards. If a man did a certain amount of work why not pay him for it accordingly? If the votes for candidates in dockyard constituencies were to be given according to the number of gratuities obtained for the men these Debates would take place every year. So long as money could be squeezed out of the Public Exchequer by Parliamentary pressure, so long would the dockyard men remain dissatisfied. As for classification, no doubt, theoretically, it was a good thing, but, practically, it could not be carried out. The practice of paying men on a different scale on the ground that some were more skilled than others was fast dying out in private yards, one universal rate of wages being paid. He would abolish the establishment system altogether, and pay the men the rates customary in the Trades Unions. he had had many fights with the Trades Unions, sometimes having beaten them and sometimes having been beaten, and he had no doubt he should have other fights with them. Generally speaking, however, he got on very well with them; and if he had any influence at the Admiralty he should advise the adoption of the system whereby men would be taken on when they were required, paid the Trades Union rate of wages, and sent away when they were not wanted. That system worked well in the private yards, and he did not see why it should not work equally well in the Government dockyards.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, that the hon. Member for Preston had talked about employing old soldiers in the dockyards, but he had not meant decrepit individuals of 70 or 80, such as were in the mind of the Secretary for War, but Reservists averaging from 25 to 30 years of age. Such men were as fit for employment in the dockyards as any workmen could be.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question again proposed.

    THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, before referring to the condition of the Naval Reserve, he would say a few words upon Lord Spencer's Memorandum. It was a new departure for the Admiralty, which would have a great and lasting effect, in manning the Navy to introduce seamen from the Merchant Service for the Reserve. He was not one of those who clung to the superstition that no one could ever make a good seaman for the Navy who had not been brought up to it from a boy. It was now proposed to introduce 800 men from the Merchant Service, and what he wanted to know was on what terms they would enter the Service. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would tell them when he introduced the Estimates what he intended to do in that respect. Would they enter on the same terms and conditions as the men already in the Service, or would they be considered as short service men only passing through the Service, in a few years to form the nucleus of a further considerable and very valuable Reserve? In considering this question of the Naval Reserve, three questions arose: First, what number of men were enrolled for that purpose; secondly, what was the quality of the men when they were obtained; and, thirdly, were the men nominally in reserve really available? Nominally, the Reserve at present consisted of three portions: the first-class, 10,000 men; second-class, roughly, 10,000: and then the pensioners and firemen, about 6,000; in round numbers about 26,000, including boys. How many of these men could be counted upon in time of war? Sir George Tryon's Committee inquired into the subject some years ago, and came to the conclusion in their Report that 10,000 men might be obtained immediately, though it was rather difficult to judge upon what basis they formed their opinion. That estimate, of course, had reference to the early period of a war, and for ascertaining how many might be got as time went on, say in a year or so, no figures were available; but as far as he was able to see, discounting the pensioners, if out of the 26,000 men 20,000 could be got, we might consider ourselves lucky, say, after war had been going on for a year. Was the

    661
    Royal Naval Reserve, then, sufficient for our requirements? That was a very difficult question, as the Committee he had just referred to had evidently found. His own rough estimate was that our seamen, including coastguards and men employed in harbour duties, would be enough to man the Fleet in ordinary times. But in time of war the ordinary strength would have to be increased by at least 10 per cent., or 6,000 men. Then the question of waste in war time arose. That, again, was extremely difficult to gauge, and the only way to arrive at it would be from the Admiralty's figures in former wars, assuming that the duties would be roughly the same. Taking 10 per cent., another 6,000 men would be required, leaving 8,000 men in the Reserve for the expansion of all kinds required to be provided for in time of war, which would be very large. We should probably find ourselves, after we had been at war for a year or so, in the old difficulty and straits from the want of men. After the last great war the strength of the Navy fell to 50,000, and in war time it had been rapidly raised to 120,000. It was obvious, therefore, that a much larger increase than the 8,000 he had given would be required. For both Army and Navy all soldiers and sailors must recognise the necessity of having a trained, or semi-trained, Reserve to fall back upon. Right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House had done a great deal to improve the condition of the Navy; but the attention of the Admiralty was still further required to increasing the Reserve, an important measure which could be carried out at very small cost. Theses 26,000 men cost something like £205,000, as against the cost of 50,000 men employed in the Fleet. If it was possible to got even a semi-trained body of men to fall back upon it was well worth the Admiralty's while to consider whether they should not extend the endeavours they had already made in that direction. The conclusion he had arrived at was that the nominal Reserve, at present numbering about 26,000 persons, in reality left only about 20,000 men available, a number hardly likely to supply the ordinary waste which would occur in time of war. That being so, it was necessary to cast about for possible fields from which to draw additional Reserves.
    662
    There was, first of all, the Mercantile Marine; but the Committee to which he had referred thought we could hardly expect materially to increase the 10,000 men already drawn from that source. The second-class Reserve, also numbering approximately 10,000 men, were mainly drawn from the fishing population, and that seemed one of the most likely and desirable fields from which additional Reserves might be drawn. The conditions under which the second-class Reserve men were invited to join were not very favourable, but he hoped that certain changes in these conditions being made, a few thousand more men would be obtained from the fishing population. Probably firemen could not be obtained from any other source than the Mercantile Marine, but they might be recruited in considerably larger numbers. Another source whence men might be secured was to be found in the bluejackets and marines who had left the Service at the end of their first 10 years' engagement. Those men were, on an average, about 30 years of age when they left the Service, and he thought that about 5,000 of these men could be obtained for service, and that they would constitute one of the best classes of the Reserve obtainable. He should like to know what were the objections of the Admiralty to make an offer to these men for another 15 or 20 years of service? As far as the quality of these men was concerned, he thought every one would agree that it was good, but the system of drill was not very favourable for getting well-drilled men when the time came to call them out. Too much reliance should not be placed upon the pensioners. Many of them were men getting on in years, though of course they were nominally available for service. With regard to the 5,000 men who might be obtained on leaving the Service at the end of their first 10 years' engagement, many people objected to any proposal which would hold out inducements to men to leave the Service and become Reserve men at the end of 10 years—that we should be losing even more of our good men than we do at present. At the same time, predominant weight ought to be given to the consideration that we ought to have large and well-drilled Reserves, such as existed in all other Armies and Navies, formed by

    663
    passing men more rapidly through the Service. He urged the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to secure these valuable men, who would form the backbone of the Naval Reserve. The advantage in getting marines as well as bluejackets was that they also were well-drilled men, and used to ships. The system pursued at present was not calculated to obtain well-drilled men when the time came for calling them out. No doubt, a fair number of the men came up for their annual 28 days' drill. From a variety of causes, taking the whole Naval Reserve, they were by no means so proficient in their drill as the official Reports would lead people to suppose. The Admiralty deserved, he must say, much credit for the proposals in reference to the training of the men, which were very valuable, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon them. He should, however, like to have some assurance that the Admiralty felt the necessity of providing a large and full reserve—one upon which they could count, and that they should have it well drilled. If that were so, the country generally would feel much greater satisfaction. Having concluded this part of his remarks—and he must say that he had not hostilely criticised the Reserve—he would pass on to another question of reserves—not of men, but of ammunition. He was sorry to say that upon that point there was some reasonable fault to find. But he was in the difficulty that he could not very well give the details he might happen to know about the quantities of ammunition at disposal. As a matter of fact, he thought his right hon. Friend would admit that the reserve ammunition had been allowed to fall considerably below the mark at which it ought to stand. I believed that in the last year or 18 months some increase had been made in the stocks at Malta, Gibraltar, and other places, but a short time ago they were certainly below what they ought to be. He would not go into details upon this matter, but the Government could not expect them to pass over in silence so significant a matter. What did it mean? It meant that when action took place abroad, and ships went to get their stores, they would find nothing like the quantity they wanted. Let them,
    664
    for goodness sake, whatever else they did, keep a good reserve of ammunition! The supplies of ammunition and of coals should alike be looked after. Ships were of no use without ammunition and coal. He would not pursue that question further, but cherished the hope that the Admiralty were fully alive to the urgency of the matter.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that at this hour of the night he did not intend to make any remarks at great length. He was quite willing to be amiable if the right hon. Gentleman would only meet him, and would be briefer than he intended if he would only listen to a logical argument. They had been for five hours listening to dockyard grievances and discussing dockyard matters. He ventured to think that the dockyards existed for the good of the Service, and not the Service for the good of the dockyard; but measuring their relative importance by the length of discussion, one would imagine that the dockyards were of paramount importance, and the Navy of very second-rate importance indeed. Why did the Government listen to dockyard grievances? Because there was a concentrated voting power. He and his brother officers had brought grievances before the House over and over again. Last year he did so, and had done so so often that he was sick of doing it any more. They had been given a hearing, and sometimes a smile from the Treasury Bench, but that was all. The next year came, and they went over the same process. Now if the right hon. Gentleman would say that these things should be referred to the Committee now sitting, presided over by the late Sea Lord, he would sit down at once, because he agreed that that was not the place to ventilate their grievances in detail. The men in the Coastguard complained that they were not given the 2d. per day re-engagement money after 10 years; officers of the Coastguard and chief boatmen were not given the sum to which they thought they were equitably entitled for new uniforms; to second-class leading stokers the 2d. per day re-engagement money was refused, nor did leading stokers got an increase of pay of 3d. per day at the end of four years; chief engine-room artificers claimed that a limited

    665
    number amongst them ought certainly to have warrant rank; warrant officers wished to be granted the titles of fleet gunner, fleet boatswain, or fleet carpenter. These were all grievances which might all be referred to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would only say so. With regard to the transport service, a very delicate question had been asked by the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division. He knew what the right hon. Member was aiming after. It was to abolish the Indian troopships and to get the troops carried in hired transports, and he would tight the hon. Gentleman upon that by-and-bye. He would venture to suggest a solution of that difficulty. It was to take the man-of-warsmen out of troopships and fill up their places by Royal Naval Reserve men. Then they would have their Naval Reserve always available, and the best school for the training of stokers would still be kept going. The officers would also benefit, for the troopships were coming and going in bad weather, and there was plenty of experience to be gained on board of them. There was another point. He had asked for a Return of the waste of seamen of the Royal Navy at the end of 10 years, but he was told it would take up too much time to prepare. Therefore, he had to guess what became of them. One-third of them returned, one-third went into civil life, and they hoped the other third went into the Naval Reserve. He strongly impressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of looking after these men, so that they should not be lost. Whether it was 500 or 1,000 a year or less it was very necessary to look after them, for they were the most valuable men that they had leaving the Service at the end of 10 years. There was no reason why they should not be induced to enter the Fleet Reserve. It was very hard that the men whose grievances he had been ventilating should have a deaf ear turned to those grievances merely because they could not concentrate their votes in a dockyard town. On their behalf he ventured to appeal to Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped he would not appeal in vain.
    MR. J. H. WILSONsaid, he spoke as a Naval Reserve man who had served his time in the Royal
    666
    Naval Reserve and might claim to have some slight knowledge of the Reserve. He wanted to point out some reasons why British seamen would not enrol with the Reserve. They had been told of the necessity of building more ships, but his experience, as a practical seaman, was that before they built more ships they must have more men, and they must he practical men. Before they could begot to do so they would have to be convinced that in times of peace there would be a reasonable probability of their obtaining employment. So far from this being the case at present, the best men in the Mercantile Navy, which was the back-bone of the country, were being ousted by foreigners. Only last week he read of one patriotic British firm who had discharged 400 men and employed Lascars in their place simply because the Government tried to give them protection under the Employers' Liability Act. That was the case of Smith Bros., of Glasgow, who received a large subsidy from the Government under a mail contract; and by-and-bye he should have to say something as to why the Trades Union rate of wages were not paid to the Lascars they employed. In addition to these Lascars large numbers of foreigners were employed on board ship, and he wanted to know how dare the Government ask the British seamen and firemen to enrol in the Naval Reserve to protect their property in the time of war when they would not give them employment in times of peace, because they asked for a living wage? Of course, they were told that preference was given to the foreigner because he was more reliable and more steady. Then why did not they man the Navy with foreigners? There were plenty of unemployed Germans, Swedes, Italians, and Greeks who would be glad to take the place of the British seamen. He was surprised that any sailor or fireman could be induced to join the Reserve at all under the conditions imposed. The three months which must now be served at sea every year interfered with the good employment which the best men of the Mercantile Marine could obtain on land. A sailor would not lose his seamanlike qualities because he had not been to sea for a year or two. He would be prepared to go on board ship

    667
    to-morrow and do his work as well as ever he did. The Admiralty had recently been enrolling a large number of stokers for the Reserve, and these were actually paid 3s. a week more than the able seamen who had gone through five years' training. The wages should be equal, though the stokers' wages should not be reduced. It was a miserable pittance enough for the men on whom the Government must rely in time of war, because they had not got enough men by 10,000 to man present ships if they were put into commission. They might make their ships in three years, but they could not make their men in that time. Therefore, they would require an additional 5,000 or 6,000, and he wanted to know where they would get them from if they were not drawn from the Mercantile Marine? We were not making sailors in the Mercantile Marine. Very few ships carried apprentices. He thought the Government could alter that state of affairs; they could pass a law compelling shipowners to carry a certain number of apprentices on board their ships. Probably there were not more than 5,000 apprentices in the whole of the Mercantile Marine drafted over or stolen from foreign ships by the aid of the crimps. There would not be enough men even to man the Mercantile Marine. Another reason which deterred men from entering the Reserve was that the privilege of pension was not ensured to them until they were 60 years of age and after 20 years of service, and the pension itself was a very small one. Few Reserve seamen lived to get the pension, and, at the present time, although the pension scheme had existed 26 years, not more than 100 men were now in the enjoyment of it. It was difficult for any man over 45 years of age to get employment on British ships at all. When he showed the sign of grey hairs he was told he was not wanted. The Government would not suffer much by the reduction of age, for, after all, it was only a question of £12 a year. He thought if the Government refused to enter into mail contracts with any company except they carried a certain number of apprentices it would be a useful step to take. He thought the Government might also give further encouragement to Naval Reserve officers,
    668
    who would be very useful in case of war. Then, again, if they wanted to encourage seamen to join the Navy, they must improve the conditions existing in the Navy. If they compared the life of a sailor with that of a soldier, he ventured to say that the soldier's condition was much better than that of any seaman in the Royal Navy. There was not so much tyranny practised, for one thing, upon the soldier as upon the sailor. They would have to improve the condition of the men in the Navy all round before they would be able to induce the men to come from the Mercantile Marine into the Navy. The food supply also wanted to be improved, for now it is far from being satisfactory. He thought the question of promotion ought to be equally considered. The men in the Navy had not the same opportunities of promotion as in the Army, and he said it was about time that in this country it became possible for a man on board ship to go from the lowest rung of the ladder to the highest. He hoped the Government would do their best to bring about reforms with a view of encouraging employment for the British seamen in times of peace. The seamen for over 16 years bad been agitating outside the House of Commons for the pension age to be reduced from 60 to 50, but no attention had been paid by either Liberal or Tory Government to that demand. Now that they had a Liberal Government in power which was doing justice to Government employés, he was sure the claim of seamen would not go unheeded, and that what could be done would be done on their behalf.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid he, in common with many Members, had been much disappointed by the speech he had just heard, because he had hoped that from a practical seaman they would have had something better than a speech which was purely theoretical and in the clouds. The hon. Member had spoken of the employment of foreigners in the Mercantile Marine. He spoke in evident ignorance of the facts, and did not know that shipowners had stated over and over again that they were often obliged to employ foreigners, because strikes were fomented in this as in other industries, not in consequence of the industrial necessities of the situation

    669
    but because professional agitators chose to interfere in order to make money for themselves. Alluding to other equally strange statements in the hon. Member's speech, he said, the fact, however, remained, that at the present moment more men were offering their services as seamen and firemen in the Royal Navy than could be taken on.
    MR. J. H. WILSON: The seamen are not offering their services, but the superintendents in the Mercantile Marine offices are being paid so much for every man they can entrap into the Naval Reserve.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I am certain that is not the case.
    MR. J. H. WILSON: I say it is true.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, it was a very grave accusation to bring against any Government that they entrap men for any purpose whatever, and he would leave the Representative of the Government to deal with that accusation. What he wanted to come to was the actual condition of the Royal Naval Reserve, and he hoped they would pass from this cloudy discussion of theory to the facts of the case. For many years past he had taken an interest in the Royal Naval Reserve, and all his life he had had much to do with seamen. It was probably not very well known that in yachts there were employed something like 25,000 to 28,000 men who were capable seamen—a class not yet drawn upon as reserves, and who ought to be most useful in the Navy. There were certain grievances of the men which ought to be remedied. The present Administration had carried to a successful issue some reforms initiated by the previous Administration. There were one or two points in respect to the firemen now pressing for consideration. One was the question of certificates of discharge, which had to be signed by the engineer before the men could receive their retaining fee. He thought it would be a great improvement if these firemen could receive the fee on the Board of Trade certificate of discharge instead of having to wait for the engineer. Another point was that the firemen desired to become, as far as possible, on a level with the combatant men on board ship. They would also like in the different ports to
    670
    have a representative appointed who should look after their interests, and look after both the registrations and applications and the money affairs of those already in the Service. Much observation and experience had strengthened him in the opinion that the Naval Reserve seamen were not so well treated as they ought to be. He ought to be put more on a par with the bluejackets of the Royal Navy. He had himself something to do with the fight for the retention for them of the uniform of the Royal Navy, and they managed to retain the jumpers. That might seem a small matter, but it had a considerable effect; and the more they could do to put the men on a level with the bluejackets the more grateful they would be. There was one great grievance this valuable Force had, and this was one which had been put by the hon. Member who last spoke, and that was the question of pensions. That affected them very seriously. Many a young man hesitated to join the Force because he knew his pension was very doubtful in the future. The one main point which militated against the present policy in regard to the Royal Naval Reserve was the total inadequacy of the numbers of the Reserve to meet the exigencies of the future. The Admiralty in their Memorandum said that the men came forward "in sufficient numbers," but this meant merely that the numbers were sufficient to reach an inadequate limit. Any Admiralty that wished to face the difficulties of the near future must create a larger Naval Reserve, and he trusted that the matter would receive the anxious consideration of the present Ministry. He himself would never let the question drop, and he had no doubt that he would be supported by many Members on both sides of the House. As to the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, he had seen how much they benefited by going to sea for prolonged periods in men-of-war, and his experience was that the same remark applied to the men. Men who served a considerable time in a man-of-war acquired habits of discipline and got to understand the routine and the mechanism of a battleship. He was perfectly convinced that in the naval battles of the future the place where the nerve, the coolness and the courage would be most needed would be below decks,

    671
    in the midst of a mass of machinery. The work must be properly carried on below decks during an engagement as it was carried on in the engine room of the Calliope during the celebrated hurricane at Samoa in which every vessel but she was driven ashore. When one remembered how largely it would be necessary to depend upon the men of the Royal Naval Reserve below decks one saw at once how necessary it was that they should serve for considerable periods on board men-of-war. He was convinced from what he had seen of the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve that if the officers of our Mercantile Marine were favourable to the Reserve the men would follow them into it. Some of the very best seamen now living were the officers of great merchant ships. These men if they would enter the Royal Naval Reserve would be followed by the very best class of seamen, and he thought that everything that was possible ought to be done to promote the popularity of the Reserve with the officers. He was sorry that the action which had recently been taken in giving precedence to the officers of the Indian Marine over those of the Royal Naval Reserve had produced a bad effect on the Reserve, and he hoped that the just grievance felt by the officers of the Reserve on the subject would be done away with. He would say no more at present, but intended to do all that lay in his power to promote the interests of that most necessary portion of our Naval Forces, the Royal Naval Reserve.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was entirely in accord with the hon. Member who had just sat down in regard to the pensions of the Royal Naval Reserve. He himself brought the matter forward last year, and strongly urged that the pensions should be given at an earlier age than 60. The suggestion was, however, airily and loftily dismissed, as probably it would be again dismissed to-night, by the Secretary to the Admiralty. An hon. Member had put to himself the question why seamen would not, join the Royal Naval Reserve; but none of the answers the hon. Member had given to the question wore of any service, because at the present moment seamen did join the Royal Naval Reserve, which was practically full. The same observation
    672
    applied to the Navy. The Admiralty could always get more candidates for the Navy than they could get into it. His hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bethell) had suggested that there would be a difficulty in filling up the Navy from the Mercantile Marine in time of war, inasmuch as the rate of wages in the Mercantile Marine would at such a time be considerably advanced. He (Mr. Bowles) believed that the contrary would be the case. Under the Declaration of Paris we should be bound in case of war to give up our carrying trade, and the whole of our trade would necessarily have to go into neutral bottoms. The result would be that our vessels would have to be laid up, and our seamen instead of getting more employment and higher wages would get none at all.
    COMMANDER BETHELLwas understood to say that his hon. Friend had misunderstood his point.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESwent on to say that he should like some explanation as to how it was proposed to draft 800 seamen direct from the Mercantile Marine into the Royal Navy. He saw with some apprehension and dismay that it was proposed to commence seven battleships all of which, as he understood, were to follow the lines of the Magnificent and the Majestic. These were ships of 15,000 tons, 390 feet long, and having a draught of 27½ feet. These large ships were copied from the foreigners. The whole of our naval history showed that the best ship did not increase in power relatively to her size. A ship of 15,000 tons was not twice as good as a ship of 7,000 tons. In all probability two ships of 7,000 tons, if properly handled, would capture a ship of 15,000 tons. This was the history of the Spanish Armada, and of many a fight in which British seamen in small vessels had captured large ships. Another advantage of having small ships was that two ships could be in two places at the same time, whilst obviously one ship, however large, could not. Then as to the draught, 27½ feet were close upon five fathoms, and a ship of such draught would be unable to undertake a very large number of services that might be required of it. It would be prevented from approaching any shallow coast

    673
    whatever, and it would be unable to go through the Suez Canal.
    MR. J. H. WILSON,rising to Order, asked whether the question of ships or that of men was before the House?
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. Bowles to proceed.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was discussing the general question, which he had a right to do, as the hon. Member would learn when he had acquainted himself a little further with the Rules of the House. The hon. Member went on to say that the Secretary to the Admiralty had learnt from his predecessor the very bad habit of increasing the Contract Vote by something like £200,000 beyond the amount that was to be spent in order to apply it either to the relief of other Votes or to purposes for which no Vote was made by Parliament. He observed that it was proposed to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the commencement of several large works at Portland. He understood that what it was proposed to do was to build out a breakwater from the Weymouth side towards the end of the existing Portland breakwater, and that the works would last for 10 years and cost £1,000,000. [Sir U. KAY-SIIUTTLE-WORTH dissented.] He was glad to observe that his information was inaccurate, but the statement was published in The United Service Magazine, over which he understood the right hon. Gentleman exercised the supervision of a careful editor. At all events, the works were to be undertaken to protect vessels against torpedo attacks. There were three objections to the proposal. The first was that it would interfere with the mobility of the ships, which would be unable to get out of or into Portland Roads with the same ease as at present. They would be boxed up under the breakwater; and would form a splendid mark for a vessel which might he itself below the horizon. The second objection to the proposal was that if the breakwater were built up to high-water mark they would be unable at low water to fire their guns over the breakwater, as the tide fell 25 or 30 feet at Portland. Whilst the breakwater would act as a defence against attacks of the present torpedoes, it would give no defence against aerial torpedoes, which were now being developed in so
    674
    extraordinary a manner. A third objection to the proposal was that it would necessitate land defences. Lord Spencer's Memorandum stated that the system was being further resorted to of putting seamen in barracks on shore. This was a very bad system indeed. A practised seaman who went ashore very soon lost the seaman's habit. His view was that seamen ought to live on ships and acquire and maintain seafaring habits. He admitted that the system of housing men in barracks was convenient, and that it was rather good for the health of the men; but, at the same time, the first thing that was required of a seaman was that he should be a seaman, and a seaman soon ceased to be one if he lived on shore. He was glad that the Government had recognised the necessity for increasing the naval armaments, but he agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. J. IT. Wilson) that their first object ought to be to get men, because the Admiralty could build ships more rapidly than they could obtain men. Unless they had men ready to man the ships when they were built they would be so much useless ironmongery on their hands. That being so, he trusted that the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to tell the House that he had made some arrangement to provide men for the new vessels.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to consult the convenience of the House as to the conduct of this Debate. I had hoped to get the Deputy Speaker out of the Chair to-night; but I, understand that it is not likely that that will be accomplished, and I want to come to some arrangement with reference to concluding (he Debate and taking the Vote tomorrow. It is essential that this should be done if we are to adjourn the House at the period named. If the House agrees with mo I shall not be disposed to press for the continuance of the Debate now.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The arrangement, as I understand, that was arrived at by mutual consent was that to-day and to-morrow were to be given to the discussion of these Estimates, and that to-morrow Vote A and Vote 1 were to be given to the Admiralty with such opportunity as may be required by the Admiralty for making a statement on those

    675
    Votes. I do not think there will be any advantage in continuing the discussion now. I think we should consult the convenience of the House by adjourning now, on the distinct understanding that to-morrow the Deputy Speaker shall leave the Chair; that the two Votes I have mentioned shall be taken, and that the Admiralty shall be enabled to make a statement upon them; but that arrangement must be distinctly adhered to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Harland.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [16th March] reported, and agreed to.—[See page 521.]
  MOTIONS.

    NORTH BERWICK PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, in pursuance of "The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892," to increase the number of Magistrates in the Royal Burgh of North Berwick, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Sir George Trevelyan.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 89.]

    WAYS AND MEANS.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
      Resolutions [16th March] reported, and agreed to.—[See page 556.]
      Bill ordered to be brought in by The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir J. T. Hibbert.
      Bill presented, and read first time.

      PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. John Ellis, Bill to give further facilities for the acquisition of Sites for Places of Worship, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Billson, Mr. Charles Fenwick, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Perks, Mr. Henry J. Wilson, and Mr. Carvell Williams.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 90.]

      TRUST COMPANIES BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Wootton Isaacson, Bill to amend the Law affecting the formation of Trust Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wootton Isaacson, Colonel Howard Vincent, Mr. Lawrence, Major Rasch, and Mr. Henniker Heaton.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 93.]

      FOOD ADULTERATION BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Wootton Isaacson, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Adulteration of Food, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wootton Isaacson, Mr. Brooke Robinson, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Graham.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 92.]

      MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Neville, Bill to amend "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," and the Acts amending the same, and "The Shipping Casualties Investigation Act, 1879," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neville, Mr. Willox, and Mr. W. F. D. Smith.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 91.]

      JOINT STOCK COMPANIES' REGISTER BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Clough, Bill to enable the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies to remove the names of companies from the register in certain cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Clough and Mr. Kimber.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 94.]

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CODE 1894.
    Copy presented,—of Code of Regulations for Day Schools, with Schedules and Appendices, by the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
    Copy presented,—of Revised Instructions issued to Her Majesty's Inspectors and applicable to the Code of 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    EXTRADITION.
    Copy presented,—of Order in Council dated 10th March 1894, giving effect to a Treaty concluded on the 16th December 1892, the Ratifications of which were exchanged on 3lst January 1894 between Her Majesty and the President of the Republic of Liberia, for the mutual Extradition of Fugitive Criminals [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

    IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
    Copy presented,—of Return of Proceedings during the mouth of December 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY) moved—
"That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next:
"That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order in pursuance of a Report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Thursday the 10th day of May next:
"That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Thursday the 10th day of May next:
"That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order in pursuance of a Report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Beard relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next:
"That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next:
"That, when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
"That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill after Tuesday the 1st day of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any Petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Thursday the 10th day of May next:
"That this House will not receive any Report from the Judges upon Petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Thursday the 10th day of May next."
Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That the said Orders he printed and published, and affixed to the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 7.)

COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 2.)
Read 2a (according to Order).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Monday next, in order to its being dispensed with for that day's Sitting.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.