Sitting of 27 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  ST. MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  On the order for the Third Reading of this Bill,
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Tomorrow.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE:
  May I ask Whether the verbal Amend-
  2
  ments should not be placed on the Paper, or should not in some way be shown?
  MR. SPEAKER: They are on the blue Paper.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: They are not on the Orders of the Day, and I think they should be.
  To be read the third time Tomorrow.

BUCKIE (CLUNY) HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered.
Amendments made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
(Queen's Consent signified),—Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time Tomorrow.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) (RE- COMMITTED) BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time Tomorrow.
KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills [ordered, 26th July, to examine the Kingstown Harbour Roads Transfer Bill with respect to compliance with Standing Orders relative to Private Bills] do sit and proceed forthwith.—(Mr. Hanbury.)
PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from Nottingham, London, and Bristol (2); to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY BILL.
From the National Poor Law Officers' Association, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
From Bower, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
THAMES CONSERVANCY.
From Eton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CIVIL SERVICES (ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE, 1898–99).
  Copy presented of Estimate of the Amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1899, to defray the Expenses in connection with the Public Funeral of the late Right Honourable W. E. Gladstone [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 319.]

LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the East Riding of the county of York from Carnaby Station to North Frodingham (Bridlington and North Frodingham Light Railway Order, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Sutherland between Forsinard, Melvich., and Port Skerra (Forsinard, Melvich, and Port Skerra Light Railway Order, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, empowering the Gifford and Garvald Railway Company to construct and work their authorised Railway as a Light Railway (Gifford and Garvald Light Railway Order, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the counties of Dumbarton and Argyll, between Arrochar and Loch Fyne (West Highland Railway (Loch Fyne Light Railway) Order, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
Account presented of Deposits in Naval.Savings Banks, and the Payments thereof, and the Interest thereon, etc., during the financial year 1896–7 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND.)
Copy presented of Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1898, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUEEN'S COLLEGE (CORK).
Copy presented of Report of the President for the Session 1897–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
REGISTRATION OF TITLES (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd May; Mr. Clancy]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.320.]
EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
Copy presented of Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1896–7. Third-third Number [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,161 to 2,165 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No.471 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Chamber of London,—Annual. Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1897 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 321.]

BURIAL GROUNDS.
Report from Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 322.]

BILLS ADVANCED.
  BURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
CARLISLE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL.
  The House entered upon the consideration of this Bill as amended by the Standing Committee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To move the following new clause—

  "(1) In every port where there is a local marine board the Board of Trade shall appoint and remove the superintendents, deputies, clerks, and servants of the Mercantile Marine Office, and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, shall determine the amount of their salaries and wages.

  "(2) Save as aforesaid, a local marine board shall retain its powers and duties under section two hundred and forty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with regard to the Mercantile Marine Office.

  "(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the powers of a local marine board to appoint and remove examiners to conduct examinations for the purpose of granting certificates of competence as masters or mates."—(Mr. A. Spicer.)

  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment which stands in the name of the honourable Member for Monmouth Boroughs is out of order. There is nothing in the Bill relating to the constitution or powers of local marine boards, and the Amendment is not relevant to the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 37, after 'service,' add 'and all sums received in respect thereof shall be paid to the general lighthouse fund.'"—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)
  MR. C. McARTHUR: I beg to move the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 18, after 'authorities,' insert—
  "But in no case shall the light dues levied at any port under this Act for a single voyage exceed the net amount levied and paid for light dues from port to port on a single voyage before the passing of this Act, and no steamer shall be required to pay more than one shilling and fourpence halfpenny per ton, and no sailing vessel more than one shilling and one penny halfpenny per ton, in any one year."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to move this Amendment, which formerly stood in the name of Mr. Doughty, and he, being a Member for a shipping port, Sir, had, I presume, good reason for putting it on the Paper for discussion.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): My honourable Friend has shown discretion in not attempting to argue in favour of this Amendment. It would be extremely difficult for anyone who approves of the principle of the Bill to argue in favour of an Amendment which strikes at the very root of the Bill. We have established a uniform system, and the adoption of the Amendment of my honourable Friend would involve a return to the condition of things which we have abolished.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not desire to press the Amendment.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, line 3, after 'scale of payments,' insert 'three farthings per ton for steamers and sailing ships employed in the Baltic trade, and not in any year to make more than six payments. A voyage is out and home one payment.'"—(Mr. Charles Wilson.)
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: This Amendment is very much upon the same lines as the one which has just been withdrawn. The only difference is that the one which has just been withdrawn applies generally. My honourable Friend opposite desires to make an exception in regard to one particular trade. It is manifest that this also is a matter which cannot be considered in connection with this Bill. If every particular trade is going to be considered in the light of what it has paid before we should have to make a considerable addition to the payments of some claims, and possibly subtractions in others. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, I do not think we can accept the Amendment.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I admit that the general tendency of this Bill will be to reduce the dues payable by shipowners, but it is a Bill which carries with it some distinct disadvantages to them. Granted that there are some who will benefit by the reduction of their dues, the burden on certain other trades will be increased. The effect upon the shipowners in the port of Hull, many of whom trade only with the Baltic, will be to increase the dues paid by them not only doubly, but even trebly, and that will be a very great burden to them. I am aware that there is a power in the Bill to enable the Board of Trade to give consideration to such, cases, but I have not yet received—I hope I may receive today—a distinct and specific assurance from the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that the case of Hull, where I know with absolute certainty that hardship will occur, that this particular case will be considerately dealt with. This is just one of those exceptional cases which will have to be met by the special power given, to the Board of Trade by the Bill. I submit that this is one of the cases of special hardship under the Bill where, so far from giving benefit, it doubles and even trebles the dues made payable by certain shipowners, and I trust that it will be favourably considered, and that the President will give the House a clear
  10
  declaration to that effect, otherwise, even now, I shall oppose the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I did not enter very fully into the merits of the Amendment when the honourable Member proposed it because he did not make a speech in doing so; and I therefore followed his example. It is possible that there may be some cases of considerable hardship in the operation of the Bill, and my honourable Friend knows that I have inserted an Amendment which will enable them to be dealt with as special and urgent cases. With regard to the Baltic, I have made very close investigation, as far as I can into the matter, and I find that although undoubtedly there is a largely increased charge involved, yet any incidents which have been brought to my knowledge have shown that so much would be saved in other voyages as to leave a balance to the good at the end of the year. The honourable Member for West Hull gave me three instances of hardship. I went into the whole question of how much they paid during the year under the old system, and how much they would pay under the new, and I found that in the case of each vessel there would be a considerable saving under the new Bill as compared with the old. The fleets of which the honourable Member is the happy possessor will, in the long run, save something like £4,000 a year.
  MR. BRYCE: While I do not contest what the right honourable Gentleman has said with regard to particular vessels trading in the Baltic, I think he will admit that there may be cases which may be very hardly dealt with. It is the merit of the new scheme that it leaves a large discretion to the Board of Trade, and I hope, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman will bear in mind that while in particular cases—probably in the majority of cases —there may be no hardship in the long run, still, those who trade wholly in the Baltic will suffer rather than gain by these rules. I think, however, it is a matter which must be determined entirely by experience—which time gives. I hope in the meantime the Board of Trade will watch these cases with an open mind and deal with them in a spirit of equity.
  SIR J. JOICEY: I am very glad indeed to hear what the right honourable Gentleman has said on this question. I am informed that the Bill will increase the burden on the coasting trade, and I hope, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman will give consideration to this point before the Bill becomes law.
  SIR H. SEYMOUR KING: I should like to say one word in support of the observations of the honourable Member for Islington [Sir Albert Rollit] in regard to the trade in the Baltic. There cannot be the slightest doubt as to a very heavy loss falling on steamers engaged in the timber trade. At present such a steamer of 1,000 tons pays £1 8s. 2d. in light dues; while under this Bill it will pay £11 9s. 8d. on the round voyage. As such vessels can only make six voyages in the year the exemption after six payments is of no use to them.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: It is quite true that the firm with which I am connected obtains a considerable amount of reduction in the light dues to be paid; but I think, Sir, that is hardly a fair way of treating the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is not entitled to speak more than once.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the answer of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is not quite sufficient. There are many of us who are averse to trusting to the discretion of the Board of Trade on this subject. We look at the matter as one of principle, and the conditions laid down should not be left even to a person so eminent as the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment is not one of general application to the principle of the Bill, but deals with a special grievance. My opinion is that the Bill will not only inflict considerable injury on the trade referred to in the Amendment, but upon many other trades as well, because my conviction is that the scale of charges is altogether unscientific. But the question I have to consider is whether I should vote for the removal of
  12
  this special grievance. I am sorry to say that I cannot do that. My object is rather to keep alive all special grievances which exist under the Bill, because my final object is to destroy the Bill, and put the light dues on the Consolidated Fund.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, line 9, after 'tugs,' insert 'and.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I beg to move the Amendment
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, lines 9 and 10. leave out 'and vessels engaged in collecting and carrying fish to port.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I beg to move the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to move—
  "Insert after the word 'yacht,' 'except when such tugs and yachts have been laid up for six months or longer.'"
  As I read the Bill a yacht or tug, although laid up for a year or two, will still be charged a shilling per ton, because the payment is an annual one, and does not depend on the voyage. The Bill should make the point clear, which I do not think it does at present. When a tug or yacht is laid up for a year, then the annual payment should not be exacted. I therefore move to insert after the word "yacht"—
  "except when such tugs or yachts have been laid up for six months or longer."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It is clearly the intention that a tug or yacht which does not

  13
  go on a voyage for 12 months shall not be liable. So clear are the Board of Trade on this point that I am told that if any owner by mistake pays for a tug or yacht which does not go out for 12 months he will have the money returned.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: After the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman I will not proceed with the Amendment.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 2. after 'passengers,' insert 'mails.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I beg to move the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 4, after 'made,' insert 'provided that a new vessel shall pay only one penny per ton for each month after the commencement of her first voyage till the first of April following.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I beg to move the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 8, after 'cargo,' insert 'or in the case of an unregistered vessel, in accordance with the Thames measurement adopted by Lloyd's Register.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I beg to move the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I would like to point out to the right honourable Gentleman that the Thames measurement is unknown to the law, and the charge on a vessel during the transitory period would be considerably more than
  14
  if her registered tonnage were ascertained. I would suggest that some deduction should be made.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: My honourable Friend will sea that it is impossible to avoid something of this kind. I am, however, prepared to consider the point and consult with the honourable Member on the subject.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 13, leave out 'Her Majesty's ships.'"—(Sir A. Rollit.)
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to move the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member cannot move the Amendment on the Report stage, as its effect would be to impose a charge upon the revenue.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 19, after 'ballast,' insert 'on which no freight is earned.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I beg to move the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, leave out lines 22 and 23, and insert 'vessels for the time being employed in sea fishing or in sea fishing service, exclusive of vessels used for catching fish otherwise than for profit.'"—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I beg to move the Amendment. I may, perhaps, point out that this will exempt all vessels engaged in fishing operations.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, lines 20 and 21, leave out 'the voyage only,' and insert 'their own use on board.'"—(Mr. C. McArthur.)
  MR. C. MCARTHUR: I beg to move the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, after line 27, add 'yachts and pleasure boats of under five tons registered shipping tonnage.'"—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I observe that the honourable Member for St. Pancras is not present, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Insert after clause 5 the following clause—
  "On proof to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that a British ship has during any financial year carried, in accordance with the scale and regulations to be made by the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Treasury, boys between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, there shall be paid to the owner of the ship, out of moneys provided by Parliament, an allowance not exceeding one-fifth of the light dues paid during that year in respect of that ship. Provided that no such payment shall be made in respect of any boy unless he has enrolled himself in the Royal Naval Reserve, and entered into an obligation to present himself for service when called upon, in accordance with rules to be issued by the Admiralty. The scale and regulations aforesaid may be modified from time to time by the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Treasury.
  "This section shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and five, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise enact."—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have now to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of this new clause. As the House well knows, the question of the declining number of British seamen in our mercantile marine which has undoubtedly
  16
  taken place during the last few years is a matter of considerable anxiety to those who have the best interests of the country at heart, and many suggestions have been made with a view of endeavouring to check the decrease. There is no doubt that the recent criticisms which have been passed on the mercantile marine are justified by the figures bearing on the subject. In 1891 there were 41,590 British sailors on board British ships, but in 1896 there were only 35,020, showing a decrease in five years of 6,570. In 1891 the number of foreign petty officers and seamen on board British ships was 13,432, in 1896 the number had risen to 14,469, an increase in five years of 1,037. Thus the decrease in British seamen during those five yeans has been 15 per cent., while the increase in foreign seamen is 8 per cent. Sir, it is not an agreeable thing to know that no less than 30 per cent, of the petty officers and seamen on board British ships are foreigners. I do not dispute the fact that in a very large number of cases those foreigners are very good seamen; but I think we should prefer that our ships were manned by British seamen. And, Sir, a. very disquieting feature of the decline is that the decrease is most marked among the younger men. In 1896 there were 3,981 fewer sailors under 25 than in 1891. It is hardly necessary for me to enlarge upon the fact that such a state of things is dangerous to our commercial interests and national position. The Naval Reserve, as the House knows, is dependent upon having a large field of selection in the mercantile marine, and the mercantile marine itself is largely interested in having a plentiful supply of British seamen, so that in case the Reservists are called out it may not be dependent on foreigners to man its vessels. Now, this is a very important consideration. I would have the House bear in mind that if the Reservists are called out the mercantile marine will be left almost entirely in the hands of foreign sailors. This is a danger which I think the House ought to support the Government in endeavouring to some extent at least to remove. Now, this falling-off in the number of British seamen is not, I am informed——
  DR. CLARK: When the right honourable Gentleman uses the term "British" seamen,, does he include Lascars?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir, I do not. This decrease in the number of British seamen is not, I am informed, in consequence of any lack of boys. I believe it is true that there are certain parents who are unwilling to bind their boys by indentures, but the real difficulty is due to the reluctance both of shipowners and masters to carry boys, as they find, speaking generally, that for the first year, at any rate, they are of very little service, and cost almost as much for maintenance as full-grown sailors. Now, Sir, can anything be done—can any step be taken—in the direction of remedying a state of things which I believe the House of Commons unanimously deplores? The matter is one which has received the anxious consideration of the Government, and especially my own anxious consideration as head of the Department which has charge of all matters affecting the mercantile marine. Sir, it appears to us that the Bill now before us does afford an avenue by which at least something—I believe a good deal—can be done to remedy the existing state of things. When this Bill was before the House on the Second Reading stage, and in the course of discussion in the Grand Committee, many appeals were made to the Government to contribute to the light service in respect of the ships of Her Majesty's Navy. Well, Sir, I did not disguise from myself the fact that many arguments adduced in favour of that proposal were arguments of considerable weight; but the proposal was negatived for this reason, among others, that the Royal Navy existed very largely to protect the interests of the mercantile marine, to which it renders very important services. It was held that this was a fair equivalent, and that the Navy ought not to be called upon to pay light dues. Well, Sir, it strikes me that possibly we might be able to reconcile these views, and at the same time do a considerable amount of good in the direction which we all desire—that of securing a larger employment of British sailors in the mer-
  18
  cantile marine. Cannot the Government, supposing they give a large sum of money upon this Vote, if necessary, on the one hand, on the other hand ask the mercantile marine to render to the Royal Navy, which exists so much for their protection, some corresponding service? The training of boys to join the Royal Naval Reserve, as proposed, will not only be helpful to the Navy in supplying it with recruits for service when required, but would be also greatly helpful to the mercantile marine itself. By assisting and helping national defence, the shipowners in the mercantile marine will not only be providing for their own safety in times of danger, but also for the efficient supply of British seamen, well trained to man their own vessels. I will give to the House an outline of the Government proposal and scale, and I may observe, with regard to the scale and recommendations, that there are certain matters in them upon which we shall be glad to avail ourselves of the advice of those connected with the mercantile marine. I merely give this as a sketch; details we may have to reconsider. We propose to give an allowance equal to 20 per cent, of the light dues at the end of each year— during which the vessel must not be less than nine months with articles of agreement running—to the then owner of the vessel, provided it carries on each voyage; "boy sailors," according to the following scale: under 500 tons, one boy; over 500 tons, and under 1,000 tons, two boys; over 1,000 and under 2,000 tons, three boys; and an additional boy for every 1,000 or portion of 1,000 tons. It will not be essential, in order to obtain a share of this deduction, that the full complement of boys should be carried by any one vessel; it will be for the owner to decide as to the number of boys that he will carry, and he will get a proportionate allowance for the carriage of each boy. In order that the allowance may be obtained, each boy sailor must be a British subject; not being a Lascar, he must be ft deck hand; he must be medically examined by an Admiralty surgeon or agent, and certified to be sound, and likely to grow into an efficient volunteer of the seamen class Reserve, and he must be enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve, and enter into an agreement to present himself for service when called upon, in

  19
  accordance with the rules issued by the Admiralty. He must be over 15 and under 18 years of age at the time of the first enrolment, and under 19 at the time of signing an agreement for any voyage in respect of which the allowance is claimed. No allowance will be granted in respect of any "boy sailor" over 19 years of age, or for a longer period than three years from the date of the first enrolment as such "boy sailor." The superintendent of a mercantile marine office, upon being satisfied as to the age, nationality, and physical fitness of the boy, will issue to him a book containing a description of his appearance, and blank spaces for recording his employment. This book the boy will produce to the superintendent of a mercantile marine office on every engagement and discharge, whether in the foreign-going or home trade, in order that the necessary entries may be made therein. There shall be no enrolment, nor will there be any allowances made in the case of boys carried as apprentices or midshipmen, with the view to being specially trained as certified officers, nor in respect of boys carried in the engineers' or stewards' department. All claims for the allowance will be examined by the Board of Trade before payment is made. That is, generally speaking, the outline of our proposals. With regard to the Admiralty regulations they are not yet definitely drawn up, but I understand that my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty proposes to open a new class for these boys, which will be entirely separate from the existing Royal Naval Reserve. If this proposal is accepted and followed out in its entirety the number of boys who would be carried would be 16,150, and the amount of the grant would be £62,559. The Royal Naval Reserve, if the scheme were availed of by the shipowners, would receive an accession of this number every three years—that is to say, that 16,150 boys would be turned out every three years as fully equipped sailors and members of the Royal Naval Reserve But as 2,000 boys are already carried in our merchant ships, the number of boys added to the Naval Reserve would be 2,000 less than the number which I have quoted. I am perfectly well aware that it would not suit every shipowner to take advantage of this proposal, but I think
  20
  and hope that shipowners will be actuated not only by financial considerations, but also by considerations of patriotism, of he national safety, and their own interests; because it is quite clear that if they accept this proposal, and adopt it, they will be rearing up a large number of boys who, in the future, will become efficient sailors, and be very valuable in their ships. A boy in his first year, I quite concede, is of very little use, but if he is a sharp youth in his second year he is as efficient as any sailor on board. [Oh, oh!] Honourable Members do not seem to think so, but I say that a sharp boy with 12 months' service on board one of these ships will, if large enough, be efficient as a seaman. But assuming that the scheme were taken advantage of to the extent of only half, and that only 8,000 boys were added to the Reserve; every three years, that would be a most important addition to the force. I feel it is a plan that, is to be tried as an experiment, and it is to be tried for six years, but I hope the result will be such as to make the Government continue either the same scheme, or replace it by something better at the end of that period. There is no compulsion attached to it at all, and I hope it will be availed of by the owners of the mercantile marine. It remains, of course, to be seen if it will be a success or not, but whether it is successful or not I hope the House will see that the Government has made an attempt, and a sincere attempt, to deal with an evil, which is a real evil, which is likely to become, if not now, in the near future, if it is not remedied, a national danger.
  MR. BRYCE: Any scheme which has the air of giving a subsidy is apt to be looked upon with a certain amount of distrust. This is, no doubt, a practical endeavour upon the part of the Board of Trade to deal with what is unquestionably a real evil, and which may become a great danger, and the Government, of course, must make its case; but I think that a closer examination of this proposal may dispel the presumption, which otherwise might militate against the scheme. The Board of Trade in this case is endeavouring to deal with a real evil, which may become a great danger. The subject is not a new one—

  21
  it engaged the attention of Lord Spencer and myself, and we were hoping to be in a position to lay some proposal before the House with regard to it, but it was frustrated by political events. The question has been a very serious one for a long time, and I am glad that the Board of Trade and the Admiralty have now turned their attention to it. It is quite true that the supply of British seamen for the mercantile marine is not what it ought to be, and that there has been a progressive diminution of the British subjects employed in it. That is, of course, an evil. I believe that a large proportion of the foreign sailors employed in our mercantile marine are Norwegians, and they make excellent sailors, and are efficient in every way; but they are foreigners, and we could not rely upon them in the same way as we could upon our own men on the occasion of national danger. There is, both in the ease of the Admiralty and the mercantile marine, a case for endeavouring to remedy this evil. One of the causes why there is this diminution in the number of sailors in the country is, I believe, the fact that our fishing population is not so large, relatively, as it used to be, owing to the substitution of new methods of fishing, in place of line fishing, which has led to a diminution it is impossible to resist, but which has the effect of diminishing the number of seafaring men upon whom we could rely in the event of the outbreak of war; for this reason there is a strong primâ facie case for doing something in this matter. I should prefer to see it done rather on the ground of naval interest than upon the ground which the right honourable Gentleman has given us. The Royal Navy ought, in any case, to be exempt from light dues.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Pardon me, I did not place more importance on the question of the mercantile marine. This is not a contribution in aid of the mercantile marine; it is primarily for the purpose of increasing our Naval Reserve, but at the same time it benefits the mercantile marine.
  MR. BRYCE: I am very glad to have that explanation from the right honourable Gentleman, because what he said as to the interest of the mercantile marine is perfectly true. It will be in
  22
  the interests of the shipowners themselves that they should carry out this scheme. I do not refer to the details of this scheme. I reserve those altogether, and should not venture to express an opinion upon them until I had an opportunity of hearing some honourable Gentlemen who were conversant with the subject. All I can say is that it gives the shipowners an opportunity of employing a larger number of boys in the mercantile marine, and having a larger number of British subjects in it. Of course, the details will be a matter for discussion when the House goes into Committee upon the clause, but I believe it is in the interests of the mercantile marine, as much as it is to the Royal Navy, that it should have a larger number of British sailors; and it is to the interest of the country that, at the time of the outbreak of a war, we should be able to strengthen our Royal Naval Reserve in the manner intended by the scheme. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has proposed this scheme as an experiment, and clearly it must be experimental. It is impossible to see how it will work, and it is impossible to see how the difficulties and details can be overcome, and until we see the rules of the Board of Trade and Admiralty we cannot give an opinion; it seems, therefore, that a wise discretion has been exercised in making the clause temporary. It is to be in force until 1905, and then it will be within the power of Parliament either to continue this method, or, if this method has been investigated and found to be of no use, to take some other method of strengthening the mercantile marine and the Royal Naval Reserve; but taking the outlines of the scheme which seeks to procure this important object I think it is one which deserves the favourable consideration of the House, and it will certainly receive my support.
  The Bill was then recommitted, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  A new clause—
  "Page, after clause 5, insert the following clause—
  "On proof to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that a British ship has during any

  23
  financial year carried, in accordance with the scale and regulations to be made by the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Treasury, boys between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, there shall be paid to the owner of the ship, out of moneys provided by Parliament, an allowance not exceeding one-fifth of the light dues paid during that year in respect of that ship. Provided that no such payment shall be made in respect of any boy, unless he has enrolled himself in the Royal Naval Reserve, and entered into an obligation to present himself for service when called upon, in accordance with rules to be issued by the Admiralty. The scale and regulations aforesaid may be modified from time to time by the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Treasury.
  "This section shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and five, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise enact."—(The President of the Board of Trade.)
  SIR J. COLOMB. Perhaps I might say one or two words upon this clause. I must congratulate the Government on their attempt to reduce what is, and has been, a very serious state of things, and a great evil. I think that the Government are to be highly commended upon the manner in which, they have sought to deal with it. The only point that I have to make upon it is that it is rather difficult to discuss a question of this kind without the details which can only be produced by Admiralty memoranda. The only difficulty likely to arise is the difficulty after training the boys. With regard to the use of arms, that is a matter which must be considered; but that is a matter I am not going into now. Whether this scheme will work or not will largely depend upon the method by which it is dealt with in practice. There ought to be no difficulty at all. To my mind, the most important part of this clause gives hope of the effect upon the mercantile marine. I think the advantage to be gained by this clause is a great deal more to the mercantile marine than to the Navy, which, in itself, is a great national and important consideration. It is most important to remember that while on the one hand you propose, in time of war, to recruit your Navy from a Reserve, which on the other has itself been drawn from the mercantile marine; but the importance of this clause, to my mind, is the effect that it may have upon the mercantile marine. I trust the Government will be successful in this measure, and I see no reason why it should not be.
  SIR F. EVANS: The honourable Member need not trouble himself whether this scheme will go down with the mercantile marine, or as to whether it will be successful. I can tell him it certainly will not. I hope, before I sit down, to have been able to prove to the House that the result of the adoption of this clause would not only stop the mercantile marine doing anything at all, but would have the effect of stopping those apprentices which the mercantile marine already take. I presume this clause was made by the Board of Trade to induce us to take boys on board of our steamers. Of course, we have had no opportunity until the present moment of knowing what the scheme was going to be. Now, just across the Table of the House is to be discussed one of the most important changes which it has been proposed to introduce in connection with the shipping interest for very many years. It is impossible in this short space of time to find out what would be the effect of it. I should tell the House, with regard to the fleet, with which I have a great deal to do, that in order to earn a one-fifth part, or 30 per cent., of the light dues, we should have to carry 120 boys; that is to save what would amount to £700 or £800 a year, our share of the light dues, and the cost to us would be between £3,500 and £4,000 a year. The President of the Board of Trade says this is not a contribution to the mercantile marine. I also echo that, and I hope that I have proved that it is not one in any shape or form. Shipowners of this country are only too happy to agree to some scheme which will assist the Navy of the country, but in this we do not assist the Navy, so far as I can see, but only incur a very heavy expense. I would like to give some details as to that. If you take boys they are to be deck hands; they are not to be engaged in the engine room, and are not to be stewards' boys, but they must be deck hands. Now, in connection with deck hands, we come into contact with the Board of Trade, and all their rules. We have to feed the boys, we have to find them food and light cabins and space—all very proper rules. Now, the result of this is that these boys take up the room of nearly a ton and a half in our ships, cubic measurement, cubic space. They will take up a certain

  25
  amount of cubic feet of room, which otherwise would be taken up by the cargo. Taking the feeding of the boy at the lowest estimate, which I may say is about 1s. a day—that is £18 a year. You deprive us of the space of a ton and a half of cargo, which I estimate at £15. You cannot get below that estimate—that is £33—and over and above that there are other expenses; but say that it only amounts to £35 a year, and we have got to carry 120 boys; to earn this deduction, multiply the 120 by the 35, and you find the gross loss is about £730. What I complain of is this: I was the only shipowner who got up the other day and asked the right honourable Gentleman not to put this provision in this Bill; I was the only one who knew of it at that time, but we have had some days' grace since then, and a number of shipowners and others interested in the shipping world have come up to look into this question, and no doubt this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade will have an opportunity of hearing what they have to say to it. I have taken the view of certain shipowners. The first one, a very large shipowner, said, "I will never carry one boy on my ships under this scheme "; and then there is the case of another large shipowner, very well known to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and he said he would not carry a boy under this scheme. No matter how many cases of inquired into, that was commonly the reply of the shipowners, "We will not carry a boy"; and, if that is the case why do you press this on us? Why do you not call the shipowners together, and ask us to consult with you? We are always anxious to do what we can to assist the President o the Board of Trade. He has never found us wanting when he asked us to come forward and assist him, and yet, when a great change of this kind is being made by way of attempting to find a means of helping the Navy, we are not consulted. I say it was very necessary that we should have been consulted, and that he ought to have called us together. For a long time we have been anxious to work with the Board of Trade, in order to do good to the Navy, even a the loss of a certain amount of money But we have been presented with a
  26
  scheme which, first of all, will prevent us doing anything, and, next, will stand in the way of those reforms we are anxious to bring about. It is most unfortunate that this scheme should have been brought in, and brought in in his way.
  MR. McARTHUR: I desire, in the first place, to express my personal views on this subject, and, in the second place, the views, which are identical with my own, of the shipowners of Liverpool. In the first place, I need scarcely say we regard this proposal as in principle a most valuable one. It is a lamentable fact that in the mercantile marine British sailors are to a large and constantly increasing extent being displaced by foreign sailors, and we are thankful to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for having taken this matter in hand, and proposed something which, although it may not be perfect, seems to go some way towards remedying this evil. We consider that this proposal, if it were properly carried into effect, would be a benefit to the mercantile marine. It would provide an adequate supply of British sailors, and would be a benefit to the Royal Navy, because it would increase the Reserve. It would also be a benefit to our juvenile population by providing for them a means of entering an honourable profession, which they at present do not possess. But I am sorry to say that, when we come to consider the form in which the proposal is placed before the Committee, we cannot give it our entire approval. In the first place, I do not see any real connection between carrying boys for the merchant service and the payment of light dues, and the remission of one-fifth stands in no just or necessary connection with the cost of the service to be given. Supposing a ship were to earn the full amount of dues she could earn in a year, and the remuneration was sufficient, which I do not think it is, no objection could be taken; but we have to consider the case of vessels that do not pay full dues—sailing ships and cargo steamers, that go on long voyages and only once or twice in the course of a year call at a port in the United Kingdom. These vessels would only mean a fraction,

  27
  perhaps one-fourth, of the light, dues they earn, so that the carrying of these boys would be a constant expense, while the remuneration would be a variable amount, dependent upon the number of boys in the ship and the amount of light dues it might happen to incur. This seems to me to be a very strong objection to the clause, and if it is to be at all admissible it will have to be amended so as to provide, instead of—
  "An allowance not exceeding one-fifth of the light dues paid during the year in respect of that ship,"
  "An allowance of one-fifth of the maximum light dues which could have been paid during the year."
  I desire now to turn for a moment to a consideration of the question of remuneration itself, and, in fairness to all who have practical knowledge, I maintain that the remuneration is inadequate for the services proposed. I agree with the honourable Member for Southampton in his estimate that thé lowest sum for which a boy sailor can be maintained for a year is £18. A vessel of 500 tons is required to carry one boy, and the remission amounts to £6 17s. 6d. A ship of 1,000 tons would have two boys, and the maximum amount she could earn would be £13 15s., and the cost of maintaining the boys would be £36. In a ship of 2,000 tons the maximum amount earned would be £27 10s., and three boys would be carried, who would cost £54; and so on with larger vessels. These figures support my contention that the remuneration is entirely inadequate for the service the shipowners are asked to perform. Another point in which shipowners consider that this proposal is defective is that it does not apparently provide for apprenticeship. There is a strong feeling that the boys should be indentured, so as to prevent their running away and taking service as ordinary seamen just when they are becoming useful.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: That is a detail left open for consideration.
  MR. McARTHUR: It is a most important detail. A further objection we entertain to this proposal is that it will tend to perpetuate the payment of light
  28
  dues, which has been considered by the shipowning community to be a great injustice. If in the future there should be a further demand for the abolition of these light dues, we should be met with the objection that they could not be abolished, because this scheme has been adopted, and the system could not, be disturbed. I object altogether to this proposal as a substitution for a contribution to the light dues from the Royal Navy, and I am strongly of opinion that as the ships of the Royal Navy, in common with the ships of the mercantile marine, benefit by the lights, the Navy ought to contribute its fair share towards the cost of maintaining the lights. On all these grounds it appears to me that the best course for the Government to take would be to withdraw this clause and discuss the matter on its merits, apart altogether from light dues, and after consultation with the various interests concerned, I can assure the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that shipowners, as far as I know, are in hearty agreement with him in his intentions, and they do not desire to make this an opportunity for creating unfair terms; they only desire some system in which they can co-operate heartily with the Government in giving it a fair trial, and it is to be hoped that will be done. But, if this clause is persevered with, it appears to me that it will be absolutely necessary to amend it in the way I have suggested.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: As a practical shipowner, I only express the feeling of shipowners generally when I say that if the good which the President of the Board of Trade suggested would really be the result of this Measure it would receive the unanimous support of the shipowners of this country. We want to increase the number of British sailors, not only in the interests of the mercantile marine, but in the interests of Her Majesty's Navy. Starting from the first point, the question is asked, "Why are not British sailors increasing in number?" I answer that it is a question of £ s. d. When foreign sailors are in competition all over the globe with British sailors, at about one-fourth less wages, it is very difficult for the British shipowners to cope with that competi-

  29
  tion, and difficult, to a certain extent, not to take advantage of it. Take the case of the town of Hull. There we have altogether 400 or 500 boys in orphanages and other institutions training for sea; but when they are ready to go to sea it is almost impossible to find openings for them. The shipowners, who have the keenest competition with the foreigners, do not want supernumerary hands on board their vessels. Boys are a good deal of trouble, and officers do not like to take them. Altogether there are so many difficulties in the way that, speaking as chairman, of one of these large orphanages, I can say that hardly any of the boys go to sea. Ships will take a certain number of boys, but I believe that they are used in a way which would not come under this Resolution; that is, they are used in, the engine-room. But another result would follow, which is not contemplated in this Resolution. Where are we to draw the line between men belonging to the ship and boys added to it? The clause will bear inducement to shipowners to knock off a sailor and employ a boy. There is nothing in this Resolution to prevent them doing that, and the consequence will be that the mercantile marine will be to that extent less seaworthy than it is today. Take the Baltic trade, with which I am specially interested. Going back to the Crimean War, the Admiralty had to come to Hull to get their officers ranked as pilots for ships employed by Sir Charles Napier. What happened then might happen again, and the Admiralty would be to a certain extent dependent upon Hull. What is the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade doing to encourage Hull shipowners? The dues paid at present by Hull steamers of 1,000 tons engaged in the Baltic trade amount to £23, but under this Bill that amount would be multiplied by three, or, at least, would come to £66. Is that, to begin with, an inducement to a shipowner to put extra boys, who would be practically useless, on board his vessel, for the benefit of the Navy? It is true the shipowners will get one-fifth of that £66, but that is little more than £13, and what good will that be compared with the cost of maintaining two boys on board the ship? The thing is absurd, and although we acknowledge, as we must do,
  30
  that the intentions of the Admiralty and of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade are in the right direction, still we maintain that the right honourable Gentleman has been misled by the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. If the right honourable Gentleman had taken the despised shipowners into his confidence he could have put before the country a proposal that would have been of some benefit to the mercantile marine, and to the Royal Navy. This Measure is foredoomed to complete failure, and that being the case is it wise on the part of the Government to persist with it? If the Government want to do something for the mercantile marine and for the Navy they should do the proper thing. Let the Admiralty find the means for training for the see a certain number of sailors from boyhood—4,000, 5,000, or 10,000 would be the proper number. Take these boys when they leave the institution, and train them up, give them food and proper attention, make men of them, and draft them into the mercantile marine as a Naval Reserve with power to call upon them when required. You would then get an efficient body of well-trained sailors, instead of these boys, a large number of whom, in all probability, would leave the sea, and go into land employment, and so be practically wasted. There are reasons almost in every direction in opposition to this scheme, and I think it would be wise on the part of the Government to withdraw it. I think, too, the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade ought to do the mercantile marine community and the Navy the honour of calling representatives into conference with him. We will do what we can to promote, what is really an object of national importance, the increase of British sailors in the mercantile marine, and the use of these men as a Naval Reserve in the interests of Her Majesty's Navy. I think the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when he analyses his own scheme, will acknowledge that he has been misled by the information of the Board of Trade officials—who ought to know better—and he will see also that it is doomed to failure, and had better be

  31
  withdrawn, and something more substantial put in its place.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I do not intend to discuss at this moment whether this scheme is foredoomed to failure, as the honourable Member for Hull [Mr. C. H. Wilson] says, or whether it is not so foredoomed. What I rise to do is to answer the extraordinary theories put forward by the honourable Member for Hull. The Government are proposing a scheme to increase the numbers of British sailors in the mercantile marine, and the honourable Gentleman opposite speaks as if we were acting in an entirely different direction. The honourable Member spoke as if the Government were to be patronised by the mercantile marine. He said in effect, "If you propose something that suits us extremely well we will be good enough to consider it." I maintain that the present scheme was expressly meant to assist the mercantile marine. [Cries of dissent.] I say it is. It offers to take money out of the general taxpayers' pocket in order to put it into the pockets of the shipowners.
  SIR F. EVANS: I would remind the right honourable Gentleman that his colleague, the President of the Beard of Trade, has distinctly stated that this is not a contribution to the mercantile marine. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was not in the House when that statement was made.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: But I know what my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade said on the subject. The object of this Bill is a double one, but it is in the main intended to increase the number of British sailors in the mercantile marine, thereby offering, no doubt, a larger area from which we can draw Reservists for the Navy. I say frankly, I should never have approved of this scheme if its object were simply to increase the Naval Reserve. If that were the object of the Government, I can imagine it would have been possible to devise more practical and more attractive schemes. What the Government are anxious to do—and it is an object with
  32
  which I am sure the whole House and the country will sympathise—is to assist in arresting the decline in the numbers of British seamen.
  SIR F. EVANS: Why not have consulted us?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The honourable Member asks: "Why not consult the shipowners about this proposal?" Year after year has gone by, and what proposals have the shipowners made for arresting the decline in the number of British seamen serving in the mercantile marine?
  SIR F. EVANS: We have never been asked.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The shipowners have treated this question as if it were the business of the country, and not theirs, to look after the interests of the mercantile marine. What other industry in the country does that? What other takes up that attitude? The honourable Member [Sir Francis Evans] speaks as if there were no objection to taking boys; but he also talks of each boy occupying a ton and a half of extra cargo space. But I ask, are the shipowners satisfied with working their ships as they are worked by foreigners? As a matter of fact, it is out of the way of the ordinary functions of the Government to propose a Measure of this kind.
  SIR F. EVANS: Why do you do it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Does the honourable Member argue that it is the business of the Government to assist to increase the number of British sailors in the mercantile marine?
  MR. C. H. WILSON: Yes, certainly.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The shipowners argue that it is the business of the Government to assist the mercantile marine in this way. I have never heard it put in so crude a, form. The honourable Member for Southampton has put forward his calculations as to what the cost of the boys will be; but he forgets that in the second or third year these boys become

  33
  useful, and will probably save the wages of a man.
  SIR F. EVANS: I assure the First Lord of the Treasury that I did not mention the question of wages. In such a case I should, of course, have to pay wages.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: My honourable Friend will pardon me if I ask him a question. Are the shipowners going to make this simply a question of pounds, shillings, and pence?
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I have distinctly said so.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Are they going to say that, because they do not get a certain sum of money, they will do nothing in the matter? The honourable Member's figures are exaggerated, but is it not a question of immense importance to shipowners that the number of British sailors should be increased?
  MR. C. H. WILSON: The shipowners cannot afford to do it in competition with foreign ships.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be more convenient if the right honourable Gentleman were allowed to finish his speech without interruption.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I agree, Mr. Lowther, that it would be more convenient, but, at the same time, these interruptions draw out in a curious way the views of honourable Members opposite. It now comes to this: that they say they cannot meet foreign competition, and that, therefore, they ought to be subsidised by the country at large in order to be able to meet the foreign competition.
  SIR C. CAYZERMay I ask if the right honourable Gentleman is aware that many foreign Governments subsidise their mercantile marine?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am aware of that, and there are many others whom they also subsidise; but I am not aware that it was ever proposed to subsidise British
  34
  shipowners, because they cannot otherwise meet foreign competition. The Government have brought forward this proposal with the object of increasing the number of British sailors in the mercantile marine. For years the number of British seamen in the mercantile marine has been going down, yet shipowners have never put forward any proposals. They have gone on from year to year, remaining absolutely passive in the matter, and when now the Government bring forward a well-meant proposal, the first Measure we have introduced, and one which we believe is calculated to benefit the shipowners and increase the number of British seamen in the mercantile marine, we are met by the opposition of some, although I hope not all, of the shipowners.
  SIR F. EVANS: I really must put the First Lord of the Admiralty right in regard to one or two important statements the right honourable Gentleman has made. I stated that the shipowners were not willing to make this a matter of £ s. d., and that we were not afraid to lose some money on behalf of the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: On behalf of the Government?
  SIR F. EVANS: Yes, on behalf of the Government. The right honourable Gentleman said that my figures were exaggerated. Let me say that I did not think a charge like that could be made against us in this connection unless the right honourable Gentleman was prepared to substantiate it. I get as many men as I want to go to the Royal Naval Reserve, and I keep their pay going all the time. That was done, not for the benefit of my company, but for the benefit of the Navy; and I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will see that such a charge as he made should not have been made. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said that I was guilty of gross exaggeration, but my figures were perfectly correct. The amount we have to pay in light dues during a year is £3,785; and if we were to save one-fifth of these dues they would amount to £750 a year. I have put them at £35 a piece, because I, at any rate, know it will cost that much, although it has been estimated

  35
  that they will cost £50. That will make something like £3,700. I think the First Lord should accept my statements, and not say they are exaggerated unless he can prove it.
  COLONEL DENNY: I have spoken with one of the largest shipowners in the kingdom on this matter, and he stated that if the Government would grant a reduction of 20 per cent, on the light dues, he and his company would carry what they call boys before the mast. That gentleman has got all he asked in the shape of 20 per cent, and he is prepared to verify his words. I also laid before one of the largest shipowners in the city of London this morning the Government's proposal, and he, too, said that under these conditions—whether it might pay him or not he did not know, and he did not particularly care—his mind was made up, and he would be pleased to carry these apprentice boys. There is no question that our leading industry is the shipping industry, and it must be prepared to make some sacrifice if it is to maintain its position. There is one argument in regard to this proposal which occurred to my mind on the remarks of the honourable Member for King's Lynn, namely, that this proposal was going to stereotype the light dues. If this is so, then it will be fatal to it, for I agree with the honourable Member for King's Lynn that these light dues ought to be paid by the country and not by the trade; and if I thought that this little clause was going to stereotype the light dues out of the pockets of the shipowners I would not support it; but I fail entirely to see how they would be stereotyped, for, in the first place, they are going to get 20 per cent, off the light dues; and secondly, the proposal is only for a limited time. I can quite appreciate the argument of an important shipowner like the honourable Member for Southampton; and I am perfectly certain that if he wished to produce an increase of boys for the Royal Naval Reserve I do not think he would have much difficulty in doing so. The question of indemnity should be brought out, as well as the number of boys in the engine-room; you must double the number if necessary;
  36
  but it is essential for us to have a proper number of men to handle the engines in the Royal Navy, as well as in the mercantile marine. I do not think there is really anything more to be said, except that I would appeal to the House not to take this purely as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. Shipowners will have our own native sailors, and that will redound more to our credit than to see ship after ship leaving port with nothing but foreign sailors on board. If we only get a chance of carrying these boys to sea, I am sure the scheme will succeed; whereas, if we are thrown back on Scandinavia and Germany, I shall dread the future of our mercantile marine. I remember a case where four vessels were despatched to America in which the only Englishmen were the captain and chief mate. There was not a single Briton besides. Now we are going to have a class of men introduced upon whom we can rely; and notwithstanding what my honourable Friend says I predict that before this scheme is in operation a couple of years its benefits will be seen and proved. At any rate, give it a chance. Supposing it were allowed to run, say, for six years, if it turns out a failure at the end of that time it can be stopped. For these reasons I am thoroughly in favour of this clause; and if the House adopts it, it will have gone some way towards meeting the shipowners.
  SIR C. CAYZER: I regret I cannot support my honourable Friend in all his conclusions, but I am sure, Sir, that shipowners throughout the country will welcome very heartily any Measure that will make provision for an adequate supply of seamen to fill wastage in the Naval Reserve; but I doubt whether the proposal comes in the right form by attaching the condition of making rebates to shipowners in respect of light dues. It appears to me that if this proposal were carried out it would admit the equity of these dues, and I for one am of opinion that the light dues should be a general charge to the country. If they were a general charge to the country, lighting of our coasts would be more effectively administered, and possibly

  37
  there would be less loss of life through the want of effective lights. If, however, it were insisted that the payment should be made from the light dues, I for one should not object to rear apprentices, provided that the conditions are sufficient and are such as are likely to attract apprentices to our ships. Of course we have not been able to consider all the conditions which have been put before us only this afternoon. To my mind many of these conditions would effectively stop the object of this proposal. I think the chief articles of the agreement should make the service continuous, and not for nine months carrying boys as apprentices. I see this has since been granted. But as regards payment, will what has been proposed be a sufficient inducement, when you consider the competition which our large foreign-going steamers have to contend with? I think we should look more to the coasting trade and to the smaller ships of the country for rearing the men required; and we know well that men reared in coasting ships make the best sailors. Now, what would be the attraction to the steamship owner to carry these men? For a foreign or coasting vessel the payment would not exceed £4 yearly per boy. It is a most important subject, and I regret that it should have been brought down here at the last moment. If the shipowners had been consulted, I am sure better conditions could have been devised, even if the payment came under the head of light dues. If it is intended as a quid pro quo for the payment, which, undoubtedly, should be made by the Royal Navy towards the maintenance of the light dues, I object to it as such. The Navy have the service of the lights, and I do not see why shipowners should be taxed twice in this respect. You have as much right to ask the shipowners of this country to pay the Admiralty gas bill. If the Navy render service to the shipping industry they also render service to every other industry in the country. This should not be made a set-off, and the Navy ought to pay a fair contribution towards the maintenance of the lighting of our coasts. The conditions which have been put forward are such as would require consideration, and although shipowners throughout the
  38
  country are equally desirous with the Government of increasing the number of British seamen it can only be effectively done by agreement with them. It would conduce to the attainment of this end if the President of the Board of Trade, instead of making these conditions final, would consult the shipowners in order that they might be put into a more acceptable form.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: They are the general outcome of what was discussed, but I shall be very glad to consult the shipowners on the subject as far as possible.
  SIR C. CAYZER: I am pleased to hear that statement, because before, if a Division were challenged, I should certainly have voted against the proposal; but after what my right honourable Friend has said I shall certainly support the new clause, as I believe, if these conditions are extended, it may have the result, in a partial degree, but not to the extent which my right honourable Friend indicates, of raising 16,000 boys; but even if it is only one-third of that number the increase will have a beneficial effect.
  DR. CLARK: I regret when this matter was before the House before that the President of the Board of Trade did not adopt my suggestion in regard to sailers and tramp vessels. However, I think the clause is a very wise one, and I thoroughly support it. It is only the thin end of the wedge, and, in my opinion, it does not go far enough. I think I may point out this to those gentlemen here who only represent one section of the ships, namely, the steamboat owners. This is not for you. We have two classes of vessels—sailing vessels and steam vessels. To the sailing vessels it is a very valuable boon. They have the seamen, and steamships I have got the advantage of them. Sailing vessels are bound to be a benefit to the steamers, for it is the former which have the best facilities for training seamen. We are told that boys are troublesome and a nuisance; but do not forget that in these sailing vessels there are royals and topgallant sails, which can only be handled by boys. One argument advanced is that the contribution proposed will not be enough towards the cost of the boys. Well,

  39
  if it is not enough you do not need to carry them. This is an attempt to subsidise sailing vessels which fulfil certain conditions, and I should have liked the Government to have subsidised steamers which carry a certain number of officers and men and comply with all the requirements which allow them to carry the blue ensign. We are told, finally, that this proposal will bolster up the present light dues, and that the burden of them will be transferred from the shipping interest to the general community. Well, we have tried that before, and it has not been a success; and you are not going to do it at the present time. You are not raising the question de novo. In any case it won't do any harm to the steamer owners, and I cannot see any reason for the opposition they have made to it. It does not affect them. If you get sailing vessel owners to increase the number the result is that you get more seamen to be transferred from the sailing vessels to the steamers. If they do not pay as much they pay their share. It is a very serious problem, because we are changing from the old-fashioned sailing vessels to have our work done by steamers. The old sailing vessel becoming extinct, you cannot find sailors, and you thus become dependent upon Germany and other countries, where sailing vessels abound, for that valuable article. The sailor is the only man we can depend upon, for instance, for fishing around our coasts. Sailing vessels are the nurseries of the ocean, and they deserve every encouragement we can give them.
  SIR J. JOICEY: I am rather surprised at the sentiment expressed by my honourable Friend who has just sat down, that this is to be a very great boon indeed to small sailing vessels. Now, if my information be correct—and I believe it is, as I have it from gentlemen who have large interests in small vessels—I am told that instead of this being a boon to them it will considerably increase the dues paid by these small vessels.
  SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no!
  SIR J. JOICEY: I am told that these small sailing vessels run all
  40
  round the coasts to the Baltic, to the very districts where there is to be a considerable increase of dues. Therefore I assure my honourable Friend that there is no boon in this matter to the class of interests named. But to take the Bill as a whole—the clause as a whole—I am afraid you will find that it is anything but a boon to the special class of interests which my honourable Friend put forward. We all have an interest, undoubtedly, in increasing the number of our sailors. In these days, when we have a sudden increase in our naval power, it is absolutely necessary to have an increase in our sailors from which we can draw for the Navy; but I am bound to say that the First Lord of the Admiralty, in attempting to put the responsibility of making this provision, is not taking the right course. He rather sneers at the increase of the outlay it will involve; but who is to pay for it? I protest, not the shipowner. Why not the general taxpayer, who gets the benefit of it? Whenever my right honourable Friend makes a demand, and gets millions and millions in response, he seems to make light of it. Well, Sir, I would rather take the opinion of my two honourable Friends below me and of my Friend opposite as to the success of the clause. These gentlemen are authorities on the question of ships, and no one in this House will deny their capacity to speak on a matter of this kind. They say that this scheme will prove a failure, and I am rather inclined to think that is true. When you are inclined to put an idea like this into the Mercantile Marine Bill you must consult the shipowners, as, unless the shipowners are prepared to work with you loyally, the project will fail. Therefore I say we ought to consult them now, before passing this Measure into law. I think my right honourable Friend said it will assist the shipowners. The object of the clause may indirectly assist the mercantile marine; but, undoubtedly, the main object is to assist Her Majesty's Navy, the object being to get sailors. If, then, that is the main object the Government ought to pay for it. It should not be got out of private enterprise. Now, Sir, I am not going to discuss this Bill further in connection with this

  41
  clause; but I will make this one declaration, that the way in which these dues are levied is certainly most unjust. You are taking a burden off one shoulder of the shipowner to put it on the other, because you have not a sufficiently large representation of small shipowners in this House. I will only add, Sir, as I am informed by gentlemen who are able to judge, that this is a bad Bill, and I trust it will never become law.
  MR. LAWRENCEI am most keenly interested in this subject of the employment of boys in the mercantile marine, which is both for the benefit of the Admiralty and of the shipowners. I also have the honour of representing the shipping interest in Liverpool. I am in no way advocating anything which is unworkable, and in speaking here today I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman not to press this clause, and I do so for this reason: it will not have the effect which he desires, but will rather prejudice its accomplishment. If I thought for a moment that by passing this clause its object would be carried to a successful issue I should give it a hearty welcome. My honourable Friend the Member for the Exchange Division thought it possible that ships might not earn the ordinary amount of their dues, and yet having engaged the boys to the end of the year it might turn out at the end of that time, when they looked for a rebate of their dues, that the cost of the boys far exceeded any advantage they might have gained. My honourable Friend referred to an amendment of this clause by substituting for "light dues paid" words to the effect that the shipowners should have one-fifth of the maximum chargeable amount which could have been earned. Well, unless these words are excepted, there would clearly be a very serious injustice done; and as regards these ships the clause would certainly prove unworkable. As I understand it the right honourable Member is unable to accept this Amendment, I believe, owing largely to the forms of the House. That seems to me to show the propriety of withdrawing the clause.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I told my honourable Friend that I could not possibly accept it for financial reasons; but there was another reason I mentioned, namely, that it would not be in accordance with the Resolution passed in Committee.
  MR. LAWRENCE: Well, that may be a very good reason, but I still say this is a matter so important that it ought not to have been brought on on a Wednesday at the end of the Session upon a scratch Debate. We are all ready enough to facilitate the passing of Acts of Parliament which will turn out to be useful; yet with all our care we often fail, but here we have a clause in black and white which will evidently do nothing. I therefore urge honourable Gentlemen— speaking as I do, not as a shipowner—to consider well their decision, and to do nothing to prejudice the great question which we all have so much at heart. My right honourable Friend quotes the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs, but there are many shipowners who do not agree with the figures of the honourable Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. I would only add that, having heard the information which gentlemen from various parts of the country have communicated as to the propriety of inserting this clause, it would be an appropriate thing to withdraw the clause and bring in, instead, a Bill at the beginning of next Session, when the whole problem can be fairly and fully discussed.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Sir, I am at a loss to understand why the Government has introduced the clause at all. Apparently shipowners do not require it, and I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that the seamen do not require it. There has been considerable talk about the scarcity of British seamen, but I venture to say very respectfully that gentlemen who talk about the scarcity of British seamen know nothing whatever about it. I am constantly visiting ports, and I have had conversations with a large number of officers throughout the year, and if you take a ship in port, say in the Tyne, or North Shields, you will find that for every one man engaged there are 20

  43
  or 30 bidding with him for that solitary berth. It is altogether a mistake for shipowners, or for anyone else, to say that there is a scarcity of seamen. I candidly say so because I am in a position to prove it. The great trouble our men have is to get employment. I know that in the majority of shipping ports if a man is able to get employment within five or six weeks after leaving his last vessel he thinks himself very fortunate indeed. Why, then, should the Government wish to provide so large a number of men for the mercantile marine, when we have not employment for the men we have already? The right honourable Gentleman no doubt says we want British seamen. Well, are parents likely to be anxious to send their sons away as professional seamen when there is the prospect that as soon as they have obtained their able-seaman's certificate they are not able to get employment? Besides, the salary is so small that it is not sufficient to keep a man. Although I do not wish to make any unfair charges against members of the shipping community in this House, I do say that there are some shipowners who pay their men as low as £3 per month in their steamers. That would not be a bad thing in itself if it were only for continuous employment; but when you consider that the average employment is for voyages lasting from six to seven weeks, and when you take into account the interval between leaving one ship and joining another, you will find that these seamen do not get more than about seven months' employment in the year. I repeat, it is altogether a mistake to talk about providing more men for the mercantile marine. I should like to see the Government build more ships before seeking more men. If they had followed the recommendation of the Committee and insisted that every ship should carry a proper complement of men it would have been more to the purpose. That would have been satisfactory to owners and men alike; but this proposal pleases neither. But there is another part of the clause, Mr. Lowther, which seems somewhat strange to me, and that is the condition that the owners shall not have this money unless the apprentices join the Naval Reserve. Now, I want to know why seamen should be the only class of workmen who should be forced
  44
  into the service of the Government. It seems to me like conscription to say that a lad shall not go to sea unless he says he will join the Naval Reserve. Tell me why seamen should be compelled to join the Government service any more than any other class of men. You might as well say the same of men on shore and give them a bounty, and demand that every apprentice you take into your works shall join the Militia. Well, I believe that employers would object to any such proposal; and on behalf of the seamen I enter my protest against this clause. As it stands the argument is utterly nonsensical. Again, if it were insisted that every seaman should have a. certificate before going to sea as a qualified seaman, shipowners in their own interest would provide themselves with apprentices without any such bounty as this being offered. But supposing this proposal is carried and the shipowners commence to carry apprentices, I want to know what is to be the outlook of these lads. The shipowner does not always require them. He engages hands in Hamburg, Rotterdam, or Amsterdam for a few shillings cheaper. I do not say this of all shipowners, nor do I charge my honourable Friends with it. I want to clear them from any imputation of that sort. But there are a certain number of "tramp" vessel owners with whom that is a system, and I am afraid the right honourable Gentleman has not done much to change it. The system prevails still that these vessels on arrival at those foreign ports discharge their crews whom they have engaged at £4 per month and take on the foreigner instead at £3 per month. Will the right honourable Gentleman insert a further clause in his Bill to stop this system, so as to give the British seaman an opportunity of retaining his employment? I think the Government has made a mistake in bringing forward this clause, and I hope the House will reject it.
  SIR C. DILKE: Sir, I am bound to protest against the statements of the honourable Member who has just sat down. I sympathise strongly with his trade union grievances, but that is no reason why I should support him when he comes here today and tries to prevent the Government taking the

  45
  first step in a direction which I am sure will be welcomed throughout the country. I agree with my honourable Friend from one point of view; but, Sir, we have to consider this proposal in itself, on its merits, as it comes before the House. It is no new proposal which is being forced on the House in the last days of the Session; but has been adopted after long negotiations by the Government, after considering suggestions emanating from all quarters, and after it has been approved in the Press, when it was argued in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill three or four months ago. My honourable Friend speaks of it as a new matter. Why, it has been under constant discussion for the last four years at least, and we have been rather slow than otherwise in taking this step. The First Lord of the Admiralty, it is thought, throw cold water on it, but has now slowly followed the opinions of the country. Those who have taken an interest in this question ought to give the Government their heartiest and warmest support. A great deal has been said of the injury this will do to the shipowners. How are they damaged? On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed a view in favour of exempting shipowners from light dues, and I would even go as far as this, that I would exempt them from the light dues altogether, as I think it is a charge which should be borne by the country. I would also exempt them from the consular charges upon certain conditions, although I should want something from them in return. But that is outside the present Bill, and we have to consider where they would be damaged as regards the future in accepting the principle of this clause. Now, Sir, I do not think it would injure them at all. There is nothing compulsory about it. They need not carry the boys unless they like. They are not forced to do so; and therefore I cannot think that they have any proper or legitimate grievance upon which to base their opposition to the clause. Then there is another question. It is said that it will preclude them from raising the larger question of the abolition of light dues in the future. But if you are going to consider this question generally and take the result of public discussion, it is
  46
  much more likely to help it forward next Session. They will be in no worse position by accepting this principle at the present time. The honourable Member for Southampton comes down and says the clause will be a failure. Of course, we are all looking at it from different points of view. I should not have thought myself that my honourable Friend's arguments would be conclusive. I should not have thought that many of these steamers were filled up to so narrow a point that the carrying of the boys would have been so serious a matter. I certainly should never have thought that the mail steamers would have run so near the mark as that. Of course we are in a difficulty; laymen in this House must be in a difficulty, more or less, in meeting the arguments of shipowners in a matter of this kind; but my honourable Friend's grievance is not so great as he imagines, for although these boys are not equivalent to able seamen, they would count in the Board of Trade returns as equivalent to a fixed number of able seamen. I take it that the effect of this clause will be to increase the number of able seamen, for at the end of two years two of these boys, I suppose, would count at least as one able seaman.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have spoken to those specially qualified to speak on the point, and I am told that many of those young men—they are rather more than boys—would be quite as efficient and would be counted as ordinary seamen, and that certainly after two years there would hardly be one of them who would not count as an able seaman.
  SIR C. DILKE: Well, I was putting it even lower than that.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: This is a very material point. The right honourable Gentleman says that after three years boys can be counted as ordinary seamen. That is to say, the expenses would be less, because the boys would be able to undertake the duties of ordinary seamen. The object of this clause is to increase the number of seamen.
  SIR C. DILKE: I never heard it alleged that the object was to increase the total number of seamen. The effect it is intended to secure is the increase of the British element among our seamen. That, I think, is the object as it was explained by the President of the Board of Trade. However, it is quite clear that there is a considerable amount of opposition to the proposal on the part of a number of the shipowners; but I cannot think, in this resistance to the Board of Trade, that they are wise in their generation. This clause is only the thin end of the wedge; but by driving it home it will do much to strengthen the arm of our marine service. Therefore I regard it as most foolish on the shipowners' part to oppose what is really in the national interest.
  SIR E. HILL: I venture to congratulate the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on having recognised the necessity of doing something in order to increase the proportion of the British seamen employed in merchant vessels. I think it is distinctly a step in the right direction. The clause may not possibly go as far as some would wish; but it is, at all events, a sign of recognition by Her Majesty's Government of a subject which requires very serious consideration. I, Sir, have looked for several years past with considerable alarm at the increase of foreigners employed in our vessels and the corresponding decrease of British sailors. It is true that we have lost the nurseries of seamen which we formerly possessed in our sailing fleets. My honourable Friend thinks it would be a good thing to encourage the employment of seamen in our coasting trade, and no doubt it would. Again, our fisheries are being rapidly monopolised by steam trawlers. Every week I see steam trawlers being built, and so supplanting the old type of vessel. That is all in the direction of depleting the ranks of really good sear men. But, then, it is suggested that foreigners are engaged in British vessels because they are cheaper. That, Sir, is a mistake, as, so far as I know, when British and foreign seamen are engaged together in a British vessel each gets the same wages. It is quite true that abroad
  48
  foreign vessels flying a foreign flag often pay their men less wages than we do.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: What I said was that British vessels pay less wages in Rotterdam and Hamburg than they do in England.
  SIR E. HILL: I was not talking of Rotterdam or Hamburg. What I say is that when a seaman signs articles in England, be he British or foreigner, he receives the same wages. As I have said, however, I know it is a practice with foreign vessels to pay a less rate of wages than British owners do. Well, Sir, I think everyone will agree that it is extremely desirable to replace the foreign element in our vessels by British seamen, and I am quite sure that most shipowners will welcome and give preference to the British sailor over the foreigner as far as possible for his reliability alone. Mention was made of the decrease of our natural nurseries of seamen; but in this connection one thing has been overlooked, and it is of serious importance. Not only are we lacking in this respect, but there is the fact that a great source from which we derive our seamen is Norway, and there also steam vessels are being supplanted by sailers. The time seems to be not far distant when the sailing vessel trade will be wholly absorbed by the steam vessels. I do not think this is the time when I would be justified in discussing whether or not the Royal Navy should pay any part of the light dues. I would only mention this, that when I had the honour of being on the Committee of the Mercantile Marine Bill —although we were unanimous in our report—it must not be considered that the shipowners were agreed that the Navy should be exempt. We were compelled to consider many matters in connection with that Bill, and compromises were needful. It is a Bill which will be a very great advantage to the mercantile marine of this country. I do not think the public have any right to expect the British shipowner to take boys from a patriotic principle. If the British mercantile marine is not manned by British sailors, the time of emergency may come when the Royal Navy will require to supplement its crews from the mer-

  49
  chant vessels and then they might find there were no sailors to be had. That is a reason, at all events, why we should encourage the shipowner to take British seamen. There is another thing to be considered, and that is you have no reasonable prospect, if you engage your boys for four years, of keeping them. They will go two years, and then a boy, under the present system, has only to say to his master, "I don't wish to serve you any longer," and his indenture must be cancelled. I should like to see some guarantee given by the Naval Reserve that would remedy this evil. On all these considerations, therefore, I hope that this clause will be passed, even if it is with some modification. I thank the President of the Board for his efforts to remedy a state of things which is by no means desirable either for the shipping community or the country at large.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN at twenty-five minutes past three,
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Sir, this proposal, although it appears to be somewhat small, is of the very greatest importance. I hold that to train the boys properly in the mercantile marine the only chance is to get them young, and I am glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty recognises this principle. The only point that has arisen in my mind as to the proposal now before the Committee is whether the scheme will work. I came here the other night prepared to gather light from the wise men of the shipowning class. I have heard of shipowners who run ships, and of shareholders who run companies, and I say that those interested in shipowning require unanimity. I admit that I know less about the matter now than I did before hearing them. I must remark here, Sir, that a certain amount of misapprehension has arisen from this clause. It has nothing to do with the lighthouse fund, and it is, in fact, an extra Naval Vote. It has nothing to do with outside contribution. I rather expected the First Lord of the Admiralty would have given us some views of the Admiralty, but I suppose he will do so when he comes to reply. The working of this clause will depend on two sets of
  50
  rules, one to be made by the President of the Board of Trade, and the other by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The First Lord of the Admiralty did not tell us the rules that he proposes to lay down, because it is manifest that upon these rules the success of this experiment must depend. Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the right honourable Gentleman, and it is that from my point of view all the rules ought to be made by the Admiralty. However, this question is for the Admiralty itself; but I should prefer that this rule should be made by the Admiralty, and not by the Board of Trade. Now, Sir, this is really a new Naval Vote for a specific purpose, and a very good purpose, for the purpose of increasing the number of boys between the ages of 15 and 19 in the mercantile marine. I wish to enter my caveat against one statement of the President of the Board of Trade, a statement which has been exploded, that there are only 35,000 British seamen in the mercantile marine. That is a fallacy, and has been repeated again and again; and if he had taken the figures he would have seen that there are 178,994.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I gave the figures of 1896 and of 1891 for the purpose of comparing the number of British seamen and the number of foreign seamen employed on those ships in 1896 and 1891. I did not say there were not other ships.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The question is a, very important one, and I should not like it to go forth on the authority of the President of the Board of Trade that there are only 35,000 British seamen in the mercantile marine. The numbers merely include those who, in the language of the Registrar, are technically so-called sailors, able-bodied seamen, ordinary seamen, and boys; they do not include stokers, carpenters, quartermasters, masters, and mates, who together would more than double the numbers. I very much doubt that the total numbers have diminished at all taken together. The figures only represent those who serve for one day in one year, and I am perfectly convinced that there are over half a million British sailors, if fishermen,

  51
  colonial sailors, and the Navy are included. I do not go further than that. The right honourable Gentleman calculates that he may get 16,000 boys. Here a very serious question arises, whether £4 per annum for each boy—which is what the estimate works out at—will pay the shipowners; but, at any rate, the experiment is one to which everybody must wish well. I was glad to notice that the right honourable Gentleman is prepared to consider modifications in his scheme as time brings experience. There is one other point, if boys are got it will be necessary to recast the Royal Naval Reserve. You must make a new and special class, and I do not see exactly where you are going to place the boys who will be put into this new class. I earnestly trust that this experiment will not be allowed by the First Lord or the Admiralty to interfere with the marvellous success of the Naval Reserve. Now, all I wish to say is, that this experiment can do no harm. I am not sure that the scheme quite recognises the principle of catching the seamen young, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will bear this in mind, that he will not depart from that principle in regard to the Britannia and the Navy generally. If this scheme does work well, it will be a very great advantage to the mercantile marine itself, and I hope also to the Royal Naval Reserve. Under these circumstances I think the President of the Board of Trade is entitled to credit for the courage with which he has made this extremely novel experiment, and I shall certainly support him.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Mr. Speaker, the idea is this: these boys will be taken from the age of 15 to 18 or 19, and I agree with the honourable Member that nothing in this proposal must interfere with the present system of the Naval Reserve. That system is working well, and I would be unwilling to make any change which would in any degree weaken that system. What we wish to do by this proposal is to increase the area of seamen, sailors, and others on whom we can draw. During the first three years, while the boys are serving in the mercantile marine, the Admiralty
  52
  have nothing to do except to keep a register of the undertaking that these boys will belong to the Naval Reserve. They are the material which is being prepared for the Naval Reserve.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: At the expense of the shipowners!
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No. Besides, I believe the shipowners want a Naval Reserve as much as any other class. As a seafaring nation, we should increase the number of our seafaring men, and no artificial method on the part of the State in bringing up men for the mercantile marine can possibly be of assistance unless that body works cordially with the Admiralty. That being so, at the end of three years the 8,000 boys who will have acquired the qualifications for the Naval Reserve, which is insisted on, would be, in consideration of their having been to a certain extent paid by the State, bound as a matter of promise and undertaking to join the Naval Reserve. For three years they will have been passive members of the Naval Reserve, liable to take up their active duties at the expiration of that period. They will be liable to be called on to drill for 28 days, and they will have to go to sea for six months as seamen of the second class. In fact, they will be trained in precisely the same way as the Naval Reserve are at present, and when they will have reached the necessary age they will be treated in precisely the same way as any other sailors willing to enter the naval service. Let me repeat that we are not going to treat these boys as Naval Reserve men for three years; they will not be substantially in the Naval Reserve until after three years have expired. My honourable Friend has spoken of stokers, and I may tell him that, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, we will be prepared to extend the Naval Reserve system. At present I am not prepared to say that stokers should not be in the Naval Reserve.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: The honourable Member for King's Lynn has spoken of the shipowners as having shown, in the past, a want of unity, but I am glad to know that the shipowners are becoming alive to the desirability of

  53
  exercising as much co-operation as possible on Bills of this character and generally. The First Lord of the Admiralty has just referred to the co-operation of shipowners with the Navy, and we all hope that such will always be the case. He said, if I took his words correctly, that the shipowners wanted the Naval Reserve as much as any other class in the country. On the other hand, I think the shipowners will require more reciprocity both from the Admiralty and from thy general community. For instance, in relation to this Bill, instead of the mercantile marine bearing the whole charge of the light dues, it seems to me that it would be more just if a contribution had been promised towards that fund by both the President of the Board of Trade and the First Lord of the Admiralty in consideration of the just requirements of the shipowners. Now, I wish to give further credit to the right honourable Gentleman for having proposed this clause with the object of benefiting two important rational classes. In the first place I think it will tend upon the whole to give a better element to our mercantile marine in securing the employment of more British seamen, who have been comparatively lessened owing to the decrease of the coasting trade and sailing ships, to the better education given abroad, and, in some cases, to misconduct, and I hope there is an improvement in these directions. I think, in order to tend towards the improvement of the Naval Reserve, and also benefit the mercantile marine, that this clause is worth consideration. But, Sir, when we consider the mode in which it has been proposed and is practically to be worked, I think some difficulties present themselves. Why have the Government not dealt with this matter directly instead of dealing with it through the medium of a Light Dues Bill? Why, what connection has this with the question of light dues? If it be proposed to the House on the ground of strengthening the Navy it would be a different matter; but what I think is the general difficulty in. connection with this Measure, is that it will introduce new anomalies and inequalities into the shipping trade. It will, while carrying some benefit to certain classes, also bear a great burden on other classes. While
  54
  the large liners may be benefited, the cargo ships and tramp ships as a whole will not receive any benefit in proportion to the large interests they represent in the mercantile marine. It is quite true that such ships pay a large aggregate of the light dues, but on the other hand, their individual benefit under this clause will be small, owing to their smaller tonnage and consequent less light dues to be paid. There is one thing on which I think there should be a clear understanding in connection with the light dues fund. It has hitherto been the practice to have a system of set-offs. It has been said that while the Navy makes no contribution to the light dues, many special services are rendered to the mercantile marine which are a set-off. I think it should be made perfectly clear today that we do not take this proposal as in any sense a substitute for the duty of the Admiralty and the community in relation to the question of making a contribution to the light service. If the shipowner is benefited, on the other hand the Navy will be very largely advantaged; and as to the estimate of £4 which has been mentioned, I think anyone who has any practical acquaintance with shipping cannot do otherwise than feel that this is ridiculous on the face of it. What will the shipowner have to do under the scheme of the right honourable Gentleman? He will have to employ untrained boys, and he will have to teach them; and as soon as they become competent the Government will have the first call upon their services, and, as I think, under the Act, will be at liberty to call for those services at any time. There is one point on which I should like the right honourable Gentleman to afford information, and it is this: does the Government propose to take the whole of these boys, or exercise its own will with regard to the proportion to be taken? There is another point which I think is of practical importance, and that is the difficulty which shipowners have in dealing with boys, in training them first, and then losing their services as soon as they become valuable. How far the condition that they are to enter the Royal Naval Reserve will prove a check upon such desertions is also a question. I can say the difficulty of retaining

  55
  boys when they are bound, and have acquired some knowledge of seamanship, has been the chief obstacle in the way of their employment. Two or three years ago I was present at a distribution of prizes at the Royal Naval School at Greenwich. There were two boys who had distinguished themselves; they took prizes, but were disqualified, physically, from entering the Royal Navy. I thought that was a good opportunity of making an experiment on my own account, and I asked them if they would like to go into the mercantile marine, and what they could do. Their answer was that they could do everything that a seaman could do, except that they had not the requisite strength at the wheel, and would require assistance. That difficulty was got over, and they came to my firm; but as soon as they were getting to be practically useful on board the steamers those boys left the ship on the ground that they were not receiving seamen's wages. The school was excellent, and my disposition was to encourage those two boys, who had done well at the school. They had every inducement to do their duty, they certainly had good treatment, and yet as soon as they became really useful they left because they were not receiving seamen's wages. I only point that out as one thing we have to contend with, and I hope that in the regulations for the Naval Reserve some check will be adopted to prevent that which may deprive the proposal of much real practical value. I think the shipowners as a whole will be disposed—though I think it will benefit some, and that some will be, again, completely left out in the cold—will be disposed to entertain favourably this proposal as an experiment. But I repeat that the Bill does not do them justice; and I had hoped that even at the last moment that part of the proposal of today, of uniting the Navy to the mercantile marine more effectually, would have been accompanied by some offer of a contribution or grant on the part of the Government to pay some proportion of the cost of that light service which the proposal now made has passed over entirely—those lights which are essential to the Navy, which the Navy uses, which are as useful to the Navy as the mercantile marine, and without which navigation by either would be impossible, and that
  56
  the Admiralty would have offered to bear its share of the cost, and to take from shipowners an unjust incidence of taxation which is not only disadvantageous to them, but which they believe to be thoroughly unjust, and to be taxation of a class for the benefit of the whole community, which is much better able to bear the burden.
  MR. BRYCE: Sir, I have only two or three words to say to explain why, in case the two honourable Members for Liverpool, who have just spoken, also my honourable Friends on this side, the Members for Hull and Southampton, should divide against this clause—why I should feel bound, nevertheless, to vote for the clause. I do not think that we have lost at all, but that we have very much gained by the criticism that we have had from the shipowning Members of the House; and, in particular, I think that the Members for Southampton and Hull did not deserve the reproaches— were not justly reproached by the First Lord of the Admiralty. This is brought forward as a business proposal, and my honourable Friends were perfectly justified in criticising it as a business proposal, and I think it is for the benefit of the Committee, and of the Board of Trade itself, that the criticism of the honourable Members for Southampton and Hull should be heard, and that we should know now the view which many of the shipowning Members take. Nevertheless, those criticisms do not convince me that the proposals made may not have some practical result. It is said the proposal is not logical, because it ought to have been made by a separate Bill, and not contained in this Bill, dealing with lighting. In this House, Mr. Lowther, we are nothing if not illogical, and it would have been a pity if the Government had waited to make this proposal until at some future Session they had introduced a new Bill dealing with the question at large. I think, therefore, they have been well advised to take this opportunity of bringing forward this proposal, and I cannot refuse to vote for the clause, on these simple grounds: that it is a voluntary clause which no shipowner would accept unless he pleases; that it is an experimental clause which is avowedly brought forward only to be tried; and that it is a temporary clause, which will

  57
  not last beyond six years. There is great force in the criticisms of my honourable Friend the Member for Southampton, but he will notice that it is in the power of the Board of Trade to modify the scale of regulations contained in the clause, and no doubt, if the scheme is not found to work on the present scale of regulations, they will exercise that power. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the importance of the scheme which the clause suggests, and the very real danger to the mercantile marine and Royal Navy of the diminishing supply of seamen, I cannot refuse to give my support to the clause.
  MR. WARR: Perhaps the fact that I represent one of the Divisions of Liverpool may be deemed sufficient excuse for my saying a word, and it shall be only one word, on the subject of this clause. I have received a communication from the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, and I gather that the proposal which is embodied in this clause does not meet with their immediate approval, on the ground that there is an absence of information as to the scale and regulations under which the abatement will be made, and on the ground that they fear the abatement will benefit some classes of shipowners, and that others will not benefit in the same proportion, and especially they refer to the possibility of sailing ships—the owners of which are entitled to every consideration—and ships not belonging to regular lines, which they think will not benefit in the same proportion as the regular liners. Well, if it were a question of applying minute criticism to the operation of this clause, it would very likely be right that one should associate oneself with the very able criticism that one has heard from the honourable Member for Islington; but, for my part, notwithstanding all these doubts of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, and the doubts which have been suggested in the House, I have not the slightest hesitation in giving my most hearty support to the clause, because I think it is one which we should judge broadly — judge by the principles involved in it. The principle which is involved in it is one which should receive our most hearty approval, because it gives an encouragement to shipowners to em-
  58
  ploy on their ships British boys, who are eventually to be British sailors, attached to the Royal Naval Reserve. Mr. Lowther, I think it is high time that such a principle was in force; and it is a principle, the adoption of which in this Measure will help those of us who believe hat encouragement should be given to co-operate with the Government in the training of boys who are afterwards to be enrolled in the British Reserves. I feel quite satisfied that such a proposal as this ought to be welcomed by every shipowner, and that it is destined to bear very good fruit in the future.
  MR. WARNER: Sir, I only want to ask two questions on this matter. I think it is a matter of great importance to everybody that the Naval Reserve should be as strong as possible. The great fault strikes me as being that it does not give any encouragement to the employment of trained British seamen on merchantmen. Now, the British seaman is said to be kept out of it by low wages on account of foreign competition, but making a lot of apprentices will rather lower the wages of British seamen than increase them, and I know it will be rather detrimental to the number of British seamen serving on merchant vessels than increase them. Of course, if you create a glut in the market you will have plenty of men, but I do not think that is the way you ought to set about the matter. I think something should be done to encourage the British seaman. Then there is one other point, and that is that light dues will relieve certain ships very much more than others. A tramp going a very long journey and touching very few British ports, and sailing ships which will take a very long time to go a journey, will have very much more relief than those which are coasting about from one British port to another, and they will only have the same encouragement to carry boys, as ships going from one British port to another will have. I hope the Government will do something towards encouraging these ships also to take boys, or modify the regulations in such a way that there will be greater encouragement to those who do not get the same help in the way of light dues.
  SIR C. CAYZER: I should like to clear up one point, and it is this: I think it is generally agreed in this House that shipowners represented here are most anxious to carry out the object of this clause, but the sense of the Debate is that the conditions and scales and regulations put forward here for the first time today will make it impracticable to carry into effect all that is desired, and therefore I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether the scale of regulations and conditions under which the boys will be carried, will be submitted to the shipowners before they are fixed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Sir, I think this has been a most interesting Debate upon a very important subject, and that, practically, all issues that can be possibly raised in regard to this matter have been raised, and very fairly put from both sides of the House. I think now, after honourable Members have discussed the question in the manner I have mentioned, that we might be allowed to come to a decision upon the subject. I do not think the Government have any reason to complain about the general view which has been taken by the House with regard to their proposals. No doubt, Sir, there has been a difference of opinion between shipowners in the House with regard to the success, the probability of success, of the proposals which have been made, but I think that only two representatives of shipowners in the House have spoken absolutely adversely to the proposals—the honourable Gentleman the Member for Hull and the honourable Gentleman the Member for Southampton. There have been many other expressions of opinion from shipowners, and from those who represent shipowners, and while they have made certain criticisms, some of which I cannot agree with, with regard to our proposals, they have, on the whole, welcomed the proposal as a step in the right direction. Then, with regard to the honourable Members for Hull and Southampton, while they have raised doubts whether this scheme will work, I do not gather from them that they will not on their part endeavour, so far as they can, to make it a success. I do not gather that they
  60
  expressed absolute hostility to the proposal, although they doubt whether it will be successful. I shall look to them to help the Government to make it successful, notwithstanding the adverse views they have expressed. But, Sir, the great majority of the shipowning opinion in this House is in favour, at least, of trying this experiment, and I say, without hesitation, that this is an opinion which is shared very largely by shipowning communities outside. I have received many representations from those who are justified in speaking on behalf of the shipping interests, that these representations have been almost uniformly in favour of the proposal, although many of them asked for some modification. Sir, I think the honourable Gentleman the Member for Southampton rather exaggerated—I am sure unintentionally—what might be the cost to some shipowners of putting this clause in force. Be it remembered that this contribution is not to be simply a contribution for the one year in which these boys will be non-effective. It is to be a contribution which will be continued in the second year, when they will be fairly effective, and in the third year, when they will be wholly effective, and take the place of men. So that, while undoubtedly the first year will not be a year of success, so far as the employment of these boys is concerned, when it is found that in the second and third years these boys take the place of men, earning men's wages, and doing men's work, but still getting this grant, I hope shipowners will see that what it amounts to—although only a grant of 20 per cent, of the light dues—is really a grant of 60 per cent, of the dues for the first year, in which these boys will be non-effective. I cannot help feeling that, looking at it from this point of view, the shipowners will see it will be a great advantage in assisting the Government in this way. Sir, my honourable Friend who has just sat down, the last speaker, suggested that we should submit the regulations to the shipowners. Sir, I do not believe there has ever been a President of the Board of Trade who has been more anxious to take the shipowners into consultation in regard to shipping matters than I have. Again and again, when a question arose affecting their interests, I

  61
  have asked them to consult with me, and those consultations have always ended in an agreement between myself, the Board of Trade, and the shipowners. And this is not only with regard to shipowners, but with regard to those who represent the seamen. I have taken every opportunity of consulting them, and I shall continue to do so. With regard to this scheme there are questions of detail, in connection with it which require further consideration. I have been anxious to inform the House generally upon it, but they are not stereotyped proposals, and I shall be very glad indeed to consult with shipowners, and to endeavour to secure their co-operation in making this scheme of ours a success. Sir, I do not know that it is necessary for me to enlarge upon this subject. Something has been said about anomalies. Of course, there are anomalies in this proposal, so far as the earning power of these ships is concerned, but I do not care what system you adopt, there must be anomalies in that system. If you were to sweep away the light dues altogether tomorrow it would be quite open for a shipowner who paid very small light dues to say he was not given nearly as much as the shipowners who paid very largely; and so with regard to any proposal which might be made in that direction there might, and there must, be anomalies. I do not expect that all ships will take these boys. I think that there may be ships where it will be inconvenient to take these boys, but I do honestly believe that there are a very large number of ships which will take these boys, and that in the end we shall secure the result desired by all classes of the community.
  SIR F. EVANS: Mr. Lowther, this is far too important a matter for us to have any doubts at all as to what we are going to vote upon, and I do not agree at all with the statements that have fallen from the President of the Board of Trade in reference to the opinion expressed, even in this House alone. Only three steamship owners, I think, have spoken in this Debate.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Four.
  SIR F. EVANS: Oh, four; three of them directly against the admission of this clause; the fourth also spoke against
  62
  the admission of the clause, and then he said he was going to vote for it—a staunch supporter of Her Majesty's present Government. But is it not a curious thing that in a clause like this, gravely affecting what is said on both sides of the House to be the greatest industry in this country—is it not a strange thing that the Member for Liverpool—a man eminent as a lawyer, I believe—should get up and say something in favour of the clause, whilst the shipowning community of Liverpool say they are not in favour of it and do not understand it. That is to say, we are absolutely asked to vote in favour of a clause affecting this great industry, and the principal shipowning port of the kingdom say they do not know what the conditions are. [AN HONOURABLE MEMBER made an inaudible remark.] I did not hear what the honourable Member said, but he seems to think my remark about Liverpool is not correct. I am quoting exactly what the honourable Gentleman the Member for Liverpool said just now. Now, I want to put right the position we take up. First of all, you can never say that any shipowners of this country have been unpatriotic, or have been unwilling to meet the Government, or the Board of Trade, in any great changes which they want to bring about. We are only too willing to discuss with the Departments these questions, and I am sure if war ever breaks out with this country you will never have reason to think that the action of the shipowners is wanting in any of those attributes which we expect from our countrymen. I object very much to the aspersions thrown upon many of us by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think that he ought not to have thrown them, and that they are altogether undeserved. We have done our best to help the Navy, and will do so still. I object to the clause because it greatly affects this great industry, because no notice was given of it, and its details are entirely unknown to anyone who has not heard them tonight. I do not think the President of the Board of Trade is justified in pressing us to accept a clause about which we know nothing.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Sir, I am sorry the right honourable Gentleman, in replying to the Debate, did not take any

  63
  notice of the questions affecting seamen m this matter. At the present time every man serving on board a British ship is supposed to have served four years, that is, before he is entitled to the rating of A.B. That is the law. Yet, in spite of the fact that there is a section of the Merchant Shipping Act which provides that they shall not be signed on as able seamen unless they have four years' sea service, every day there are scores of men engaged on British ships who have never been at sea before—serving with bogus discharges procured by boarding masters and crimps of the worst kind. I have brought this question over and over again to the notice of the right honourable Gentleman, and he takes no notice of it. Then again, Mr. Lowther, there is the question of the foreign seamen on board British ships. There are hundreds of foreign seamen signed on board British ships as seamen who cannot speak or understand a word of the English language. The Board of Trade officials have no right to sign these men on, because the Merchant Shipping Act provides that no man shall be engaged on a British ship unless he understands the agreement read out to him, and what he is signing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not think those matters are relative to the clause.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I am coming round to that. I am a sailor, and it may be a sailor's way, a long way, but I am coming to that. The object of this clause is to provide a larger number of men for the mercantile marine, so that when the Navy wants more men it will have them. Now I am going to do what I can to persuade boys, or the parents of lads, not to send them to sea. I am going to do all I can in that direction, and I am going to do more than that—I am going to advise them not to join the Royal Naval Reserve, because of the scurvy, mean manner in which the Admiralty have served the seamen in refusing to give
  them a pension at 50 instead of at 60, as at the present time. Over and over again I have made an appeal to the Admiralty to give a pension at 50; but the right honourable Gentleman, the First Lord takes no notice. Yet they want, and hope to get, eight or ten thousand men out of this scheme by giving the shipowners a bribe. Well, that is the usual manner with this Government—to give a bribe to those who can do well without it. Every section who can well afford to do without a bribe get it; but the seamen who really need it do not get it, I would recommend that he puts in a clause that wherever the British shipowner paid a fair rate of wages and gave a preference to foreigners who can understand the English language, or to Englishmen, that their light dues should be taken off entirely. I am bound to say he would have the sympathy of both sides of this House. He would certainly have the support of the Conservative Party in this country, because they have been talking in the country about the Aliens Bill, and I do not see that there is much difference between the aliens who come into our workshops and those who come into our ships. If the right honourable Gentleman wants to make himself popular, I would recommend him to let it remain open tonight, and bring it up again in the form of an Act— one for the British sailor, so as to encourage the employment of Britishers, and, if not entirely Britishers, at least foreigners who can understand our language. Mr. Lowther, I intend to protest, and protest vigorously, against this clause, and the matter will not be decided without a Division, for I shall divide the House if I can get anyone to support me.
  Question put—
  "That the clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 37.—(Division List No. 262.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Ascroft, Robert

  Baker, Sir John

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Asher Alexander

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Beach,Rt.Hn. SirM.H. (Brist'l)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Neill, Hon. R. Torrens

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Green, W D.(Wednesbury)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Penn, John

  Bethell, Commander

  Gretton, John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Bigwood, James

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bill, Charles

  Gunter, Colonel

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Price, Robert John

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Purvis, Robert

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

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

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Brist'l)

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Cayzer, Sir Chas. William

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Rutherford, John

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jackson, Rt.Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonsh.)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Kenrick, William

  Spencer, Ernest

  Crombie, John William

  Kenyon, James

  Spicer, Albert

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Knowles, Lees

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Drucker, A.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lowles, John

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dunn, Sir William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wayman, Thomas

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  McEwan, William

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Finch, George H.

  McKillop, James

  Whiteley.H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Malcolm, Ian

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Milton, Viscount

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Monk, Charles James

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  More, Robert Jasper

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Goschen,Rt. Hn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)

  Nicol. Donald Ninian

  NOES.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Davitt, Michael

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dillon, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Billson, Alfred

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Caldwell, James

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Harwood, George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork)

  Colville, John

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  66

  67

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Mr.Charles McArthur and Sir Francis Evans

  Roberts, John H.(Denbighs)

  Wilson Chas. Henry (Hull)

  Robson, William (Westmeath)

  Wilson, Frddk. W.(Norfolk)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wilson, H.J.(York, W.r.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, J.H. (Middlesbro')

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Question put—
  "That this clause be added to the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That I report this Bill as amended, to the House."
  Agreed to.
  The House resumed and the Bill was reported.
  Question put—
  "That this Bill be now read a third time."
  Agreed to.

  PRISONS BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [28th June], on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee):—
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 8, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), of clause 5."—(Captain Norton.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'mutiny,' inline 11, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR C. DILKE: This Amendment would bring about the complete abolition of flogging in gaols, and I do not think the Government have made any reply to the arguments which have been advanced in favour of it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am unable, as the Standing Committee knows very well, to take the view set forth in the Amendment, and I have the approval of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton in the
  68
  view that although corporal punishment ought to be most rigidly guarded, still it is a punishment which ought to be held in reserve for certain cases. I accordingly oppose the Amendment. There are cases which ought to be met by flogging, but I have a subsequent Amendment by which the offences for which it can be administered are to be confined to offences limited under the Statute—an entirely new limitation in clause 2. There is also to be a more formal summoning of the committee of the Prisons Board or of the committee of visitors. I have provided, further, that a report of the sentence and the grounds on which it was passed shall be sent to the Secretary of State, and shall be included in the annual Report of the Prison Commissioners. After a great deal of consideration, and for the sake of agreement, as we are all aiming at the same object, though it will be casting exceptional responsibility on the Secretary of State, I am prepared to propose that every such sentence must be approved by the Secretary of State.
  MR. FLOWER: I am sure the House will learn with great pleasure the decision of the Home Secretary. We have all been giving anxious time to this Bill in order to introduce more humanising influence into our prison system, and the announcement which the right honourable Gentleman has just made will, I am sure, be received with approval on both sides of the House. In future corporal punishment will be inflicted in our prisons in the full light of day and only after the sentence has been sanctioned by the Home Secretary. I thank the right honourable Gentleman for the very considerable concession he has made in the direction of prison reform—a concession which will receive the cordial approval of all who have been working in the direction of prison reform, and one which I feel sure will materially facilitate the passing of the Bill. During the last few years there has been an immense diminution in the number of corporal punishments inflicted in our

  69
  prisons. Ten years ago in the official Report for 1887–8 I find that there were no less than 65 cases of corporal punishment in our convict prisons, whereas we were told by the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department the other day that only seven cases of corporal punishment occurred in our convict prisons last year. Side by side with that diminution there has also been a steady diminution in the number of prison offences. In the year 1887–8 there were no less than 11,500 such offences, whereas in the year 1896–7 there were only 3,500, and even allowing for the diminution of our prison population which has taken place during the last 10 years I think we may conclude from the figures I have quoted that an increased humanity in our prison administration has been followed by a marked diminution in the amount of crime in our prisons. I think the statement of the right honourable Gentleman, for which I beg respectfully to thank him most sincerely, will materially aid the passage of this Bill, and I hope that before the prorogation the House will have the satisfaction of knowing that a marked improvement has been effected in the administration of our prison system.
  MR. ASQUITH: I join in acknowledging the very large concession which the Home Secretary has made to those of us who desire to restrict corporal punishment within the narrowest limits possible. Before the Standing Committee and in the House on a previous occasion I expressed my own opinion that the best way to deal with the matter was by a judicial inquiry, but the House decided against that, and that being so I do recognise that it is an enormous safeguard that every sentence of corporal punishment must be submitted to the Home Secretary, and cannot be inflicted without his approval. I very cordially thank the right honourable Gentleman for it, and hope the House will accept it.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I cannot help thinking there has been already too much concession to the sentimental views of honourable Members opposite
  70
  who come to Westminster to make laws. I think the right honourable Gentleman in charge of this Bill might have gone a step further. What is the good of a board of visitors passing a sentence if it is to be subject to review in Whitehall? Many sentences are inflicted only to maintain discipline, and I submit in this matter, if there is to be punishment, it should be quick and short in order to maintain discipline. The present system, which is confined to the hands of the governor, may be rather too strict, but when the visiting committee decide under this Bill how to maintain the discipline of a prison it is distinctly against discipline to refer this decision to Whitehall, and it is also a reflection on the visiting committee, who have hitherto done very good work. It seems to me the right honourable Gentleman has gone beyond what might fairly be expected of him in granting concessions. If he were a little more consistent he would do away altogether with the visiting committees and order that every case of lack of discipline should be referred to him at once.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am quite ready to acknowledge that the concession which the right honourable Gentleman has announced does create an enormous difference in the Bill. We now practically have the Home Secretary responsible for floggings in prisons, and I think he himself and his successors will find that this punishment will be followed by some lingual punishment in this House. The position of my honourable and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment, and many of us on these benches, is that we object to flogging altogether. We regard it as a barbarous and unnecessary punishment. We have shown by statistics that practically flogging has been abolished in Ireland and Scotland without any injury, but with considerable benefit, and I am unwilling to give the predominant partner the privilege of flogging which Ireland and Scotland can do without. America, which is now in the van in prison reform, has done away with flogging, and I believe my honourable Friend the Member for South Mayo, who has travelled through all the colonies of Australia, found that flogging

  71
  was in process of abolition in most of the prisons there. The only reply of the Home Secretary is that prisoners in Ireland are of a milder type than prisoners in England, and that, therefore, a more severe form of discipline was necessary. I duly acknowledge the flattering contrast which the right honourable Gentleman makes between Irish and other prisoners, but I cannot accept it as a reason. If flogging be unnecessary in Ireland, in Scotland, in Australia, and in America, it surely ought to be unnecessary in England. In America they have a population which is as hard to deal with as that in any English city, and if they, with a section of this population drawn from some parts of Southern Europe, can do without flogging in prisons we ought to be able to do it here. I regard the lash as a relic of barbarism and savagery, and if there is a Division in favour of total abolition of flogging I will support it.
  MR. COHEN: My honourable Friend who has just sat down said that the Home Secretary bad made
  himself responsible for the infliction of corporal punishment in prisons. I think he has, and I think he has made himself responsible for a little more by bringing into disrespect, to my mind, the authority of the visiting justices. I do not share the opinion of some of my honourable Friends opposite as to the impropriety of corporal punishment. On the contrary, I think it is the best, quickest, and most effective punishment which can possibly be awarded for offences for which it is to my mind most appropriate; but, be that as it may, it would, in my judgment, be better and more conducive to the authority of the visiting justices if they were deprived of the power to award corporal punishment than to have their authority diminished by referring punishments justly awarded to some authority in Whitehall which has not hitherto been consulted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 64.—(Division List No. 263.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Arrol, Sir William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Ascroft, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Asher, Alexander

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Gretton, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Greville, Captain

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.A. J. (Manc'r)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Balfour, Rt.Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Denny, Colonel

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Beach, Rt. Hn. SirM.H.(Brist'l)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Howell, William Tudor

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Drucker, A.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Bethell, Commander

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Bigwood, James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kenrick, William

  Bill, Charles

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Kenyon, James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Knowles, Lees

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverp'l)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fletcher. Sir Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Cayzer, Sir Chas. William

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Spencer, Ernest

  Lorne, Marquess of

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Lowles, John

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Penn, John

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverp'l)

  Purvis, Robert

  Tennant, Harold John

  McArthur, William (Cornwall)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Thornton, Percy M.

  McKillop, James

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Milton, Viscount

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Rutherford, John

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  NOES.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (S'th'mpt'n)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Baker, Sir John

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Holburn, J. G.

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Spicer, Albert

  Cameron. Robert (Durham)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Carew, James Laurence

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  McEwan, William

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wayman, Thomas

  Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  McLeod, John

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull)

  Colville, John

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Crombie, John William

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork)

  Dillon, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Captain Norton and Mr. Davitt.

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 12, after 'prison,' add 'nor "'(c) except by order of the board of visitors or visiting committee of the prison, after inquiry on oath held by them at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose, and consisting of not less than three persons: provided that the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, appoint a metropolitan police magistrate or stipendiary magistrate to take the place of the board or committee, and the magistrate shall in any such case have the same powers as the board or committee.
  "(2) Where corporal punishment is inflicted under prison rules, a copy of the notes of evidence shall be furnished to the Secretary of
  74
  State, and a report of the sentence and of the grounds on which it was passed shall also be made to him, and be embodied in the annual report of the Prison Commissioners."—(The Secretary for the Home Department, Sir M. White Ridley.)
  As Amendments to Sir Matthew White Ridley's proposed Amendment—
  "Line 5, after 'persons,' insert 'two of them being justices of the peace: provided that each accused prisoner shall be entitled to have two persons present throughout such inquiry to assist him or to conduct his defence.'"—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
  MR. H. D. GREENE: The right honourable Gentleman the Secre-

  75
  tary of State for the Home Department has made such very wise concessions in the directions which are desired by many honourable Members, that I do not wish to press unduly the Amendment which stands in my name. When this question was last discussed in the House, and also when it was considered in Committee, two principles were laid down under which corporal punishment in gaol alone could be inflicted. The first was that it should be done by order of a judicial tribunal; and the second, that there should be publicity. The right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State has given notice of an Amendment which will secure a good deal of publicity, but I should like to point out that he has not yet appointed a judicial tribunal. He has appointed three persons, neither of whom may be a justice.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am willing to accept the first part of the Amendment.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I understand that the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary assents to that part of my Amendment which proposes that two of these officials shall be justices of the peace. I therefore proceed to the next portion of my Amendment, which, proposes that the prisoner shall be given an opportunity of having his side of the question thrashed out by the tribunal that is considering his case. At present he has no one to advise him, no one to whom he can appeal for mitigation or to put forward extenuating circumstances; he is left entirely in the hands of those who constitute this tribunal, and to the way in which they may think fit to direct the inquiry. Supposing a man is sentenced to two months' imprisonment for an assault, and while he is serving that time he is guilty of some act of violence towards one of the warders; he is taken before the committee and receives a sentence of flogging. In the original case, when he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, he had evidence on his side and lawyers to defend him; but in a case of assaulting a warder the punishment is infinitely more severe than the sentence of two months, yet the prisoner is unable to have any assistance. In my
  76
  opinion it is illegal and wrong not to allow a person to have a chance of legal aid when such a terrible punishment may be inflicted upon him. Since this matter was last before the House a very striking reason in support of my Amendment has come under my notice. A deputation has had an interview with the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department; they were visiting justices from the country, and their object was to protest against interference with their right to order flogging. The right honourable Gentleman seems to have pointed out that the number of floggings in gaols has decreased enormously within the last year or two, but it was found that the reason is that the present Secretary of State has been holding that an act of insubordination is totally different from mere disobedience. On the other hand, the justices have been holding that, if a prisoner on two occasions disobeys some regulations, he is insubordinate, and so falls within the scope of the rule for corporal punishment It happens, therefore, that numbers of men have been flogged in the past for what turns out now to be an incorrect interpretation of the rule. The wording of this Bill will give rise to equal doubt. A person is to be punished by flogging for "mutiny, or incitement to mutiny." Who will define mutiny or incitement to mutiny? It will be a difficult question to decide if disobedience on three occasions is to be called mutiny, or whether it requires acts of violence, or whether more than one person can be concerned. These are matters which the solicitor or counsel would be able to thrash out before the tribunal. I am told that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is going to review all these cases, That may be so, but he cannot elicit facts, and his view will probably in most cases be the same as the view of the justices. He will not have the full disclosure of facts, which would be the case if someone assisted the prisoner in his defence. Another reason why the prisoner should have someone assisting him is that the tribunal may order twenty-four lashes, and with legal aid the man might give, very good reasons perhaps from the incidents of his past life, or other circumstances, why less than the maximum should be given. In

  77
  the criminal courts we daily see counsel pleading for mitigation of punishment. Why should there not be the same opportunities in the cases I have described? Why should not a prisoner have every opportunity of appealing for as lenient a sentence as possible? Punishments of this kind may have such serious consequences that it is only right and just that a prisoner should have some means of appeal. I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department will see that some such provision is introduced, or will, at all events, give the House some assurance that, if he will not allow a prisoner to have assistance at an inquiry, he will at least have a fair chance of having his side of the case represented to the Home Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have no objection to the words "two of them being justices of the peace" being inserted. As regards local prisons, every member of the visiting committee must, of course, be a, justice of the peace, but I have no objection to words being put in which merely carry out my intention. But when the honourable and learned Member suggests that there should be a judicial inquiry I would remind him that that question has been discussed by the House. The honourable and learned Member seems to have no confidence in the administration of justice by these tribunals. On that point I can assure him he is mistaken. How is it possible to provide that in the case of any intricate question of prison discipline prisoners should, if they can afford it, have the assistance of professional men? I have endeavoured to do my best in order that, in these circumstances, a prisoner should be tried in a manner which, I venture to say, would be almost as judicial as the honourable and learned Gentleman could wish, but I am afraid I cannot undertake to consider the honourable Member's proposal to encumber the Bill with a provision that the prisoner shall have two persons present to assist him in his defence.
  MR. SPEAKER: If it is the sense of the House that the words, "two of them being justices of the peace" be added,
  78
  the best course would be for the honourable Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment and propose it again as two separate Amendments
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. D. GREENEformally moved—
  "To insert the words 'two of them being justices of the peace.'"
  Amendment, agreed to.
  MR. H. D. GREENEformally moved—
  "To insert the words 'provided that each accused prisoner shall be entitled to have two persons present throughout such inquiry to assist him or to conduct his defence.'"
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I regard this as one of the most important Amendments that have been proposed in the course of this discussion. I must express my profound regret that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not see his way to accept it. What is the state of affairs? Take the case described by the honourable Member for Shrewsbury, of a man sentenced to two months' imprisonment. Before he received that sentence he had the right to a regular trial, and the right to be represented by counsel. He had every possible professional assistance for his defence. Within the two months of his sentence, the prisoner is brought up for some offence committed within the gaol, and he runs a chance of having to undergo the punishment of 24 lashes, which, practically, is worse than four, five, or six months' imprisonment, and he is deprived of any professional assistance. The right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department seems to have suggested that the honourable and learned Member for Shrewsbury is, by his Amendment, throwing doubt upon the fairness of the court which will try the case. I do not think any such idea was present to the mind of the honourable Member, and I altogether dissent from and repudiate the idea that it is throwing doubt upon the fairness of a tribunal to insist that professional assistance, shall be given to the prisoner. I have the very highest opinion

  79
  of the judiciary of this country, I think it is the best in the world; but does anybody suggest that I would be throwing doubt upon its fairness if I advocated the right of every prisoner to have professional assistance? It is absurd. When a person is charged with a serious offence— say murder—before one of these tribunals, the judge, although he is there to protect the prisoner, is not satisfied, but assigns to him a counsel for his defence, and it is a matter of professional honour and professional duty for that counsel to do his very best for the prisoner, exactly as if he were feed for the purpose. That is what takes place before one of these tribunals, and they are tribunals that sit in the light of day. The Press is represented, the judge on the bench sees that the Public Prosecutor does not unduly press the case against the prisoner, and, if the case is interesting or remarkable in any way, it excites the attention of the country; and yet I venture to say that, with all these safeguards, cases of gross injustice frequently occur. As an illustration I may mention a case which occurred at a recent assize at Norwich. A man was charged by the police with burglary. The suspicion against him consisted mainly of the fact that there were marks on the ground from where the burglary was committed, and corresponding marks of the shoes worn by the prisoner. Fortunately for him there was on the bench that able, upright, and most humane judge, Mr. Justice Hawkins, who cross-examined the police, and proved that it was only a case of suspicion, backed up by a feeling on the part of the police against the prisoner; but if there had been on the bench a judge less humane and less experienced in cross-examination the unfortunate prisoner would have got seven or 14 years' penal servitude, although the evidence against him was of the most flimsy character. Well, I am sure that, notwithstanding all these safeguards, acts of injustice are done; but now let me go from the open tribunals, where these cases are tried, to the secret tribunals, because those are the ones where these cases are tried. The prisoner comes before these tribunals with all the safeguards the Home Secretary has given; thus, after all, it is, to all intents and purposes, a secret tri
  80
  bunal. The prisoner comes before it with all the prison authorities and influences against him. He is tried by three men, two of whom are to be justices of the peace. I hope the Home Secretary will not think that I am throwing a general charge upon the justices of the peace when I say their judicial minds, and knowledge, and freedom from anything like prejudice are not sufficiently strong to make them equal in authority to the judge upon the bench, and it must be remembered that the tribunals before whom these prisoners will come are composed of gentlemen who, we have heard from the Home Secretary himself, came to the right honourable Gentleman, and confessed that they had been, for a considerable time, misinterpreting the law.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, not at all. They expressed their views in favour of altering a rule which I had, in my discretion, seen fit to make. They thought it was desirous to retain the power, but they were acting quite within their powers in doing what they did.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: From the statement which the Home Secretary has made I understand that these gentlemen consider insubordination a sufficient ground for flogging. Insubordination, an angry word, refusing to obey a warder, who may have been, for aught we know, goading and oppressing the unfortunate prisoner, that is a justification for flogging which, according to the Home Secretary, might be received for the greatest act of mutiny. But I take the case of the Home Secretary as regards these justices—I attach great importance to what the Home Secretary says as to his having the right of revising any of these decisions; but, after all, I would point out that the whole bent of an official mind is to confirm, if possible, the decision of the court below, and if the court below had given its decision against the prisoner the bent of the mind of the Home Secretary, whoever he might be, would be to confirm it if he possibly could. Put yourself in the place of the unfortunate prisoner, with no friends or assistants, like a rat in a trap. Put yourself in his place.

  81
  Finally, I want to know what answer there is to the honourable and learned Gentleman who had pointed out that the words of the Bill—"mutiny, and incitement to mutiny"—were very difficult of interpretation. The honourable and learned Gentleman said that it was very hard to define what mutiny was, and I am not certain but what the Home Secretary might find difficulty in defining it under cross-examination. Why should not the warder be cross-examined upon it, or his inspector? You do not allow a man to be 24 hours in gaol without his being allowed this professional assistance, and I regret extremely the attitude which the Home Secretary has taken in this matter. It is a refusal to take that step in advance which he should have taken, and it is also putting our present system far below the advances which have been made in France, where, after many years' agitation, they do at least allow the prisoner to have professional assistance.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: It would be no use my attempting to carry this Amendment after the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, and therefore I will, with the permission of the House, relieve it by withdrawing the Motion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 9, leave out paragraph (2), and insert—
  "(2) An order under this section shall not be carried into effect until it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, to whom a copy of the notes of evidence and a report of the sentence and of the grounds on which it was passed shall forthwith be furnished.
  "The said notes of evidence and report shall be embodied in the annual report of the Prisons Commissioners."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I accept the honourable and learned Member's principle, but I cannot accept his words "the said notes of evidence and report shall be embodied." I am quite willing to accept the suggestion that there should be the approval of the Home Secretary, and I hope the honourable Gentleman will agree to amend his words in order to place words which I shall suggest therein.
  MR. HALDANE: What will the words be?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I propose that—
  "An order under this section shall not be carried into effect until it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, to whom a copy of the notes of evidence, and report of the sentence, and the grounds upon which it was passed, shall forthwith be furnished."
  And then these words—
  "Such report of the grounds on which it was passed shall be embodied in the annual report of the Prisons Commissioners."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I am quite content to move the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman suggests, and I should like to thank him very much for making this suggestion, and therefore I shall not say a word upon the Amendment which stands upon the Paper in my name, but there is just one point. It has been suggested that, along with this privilege, the prisoner should be at liberty to forward a statement. It is at present a right or privilege of the prisoner to forward to the Home Secretary, and I think he could hardly be excluded in a case of this kind. I do not wish to press the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary, but I think he will be willing to accept that.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: It is quite unnecessary to insert any such words in the Amendment, but, of course, he would still retain that right.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to ask the question, before the words suggested are inserted, who is to make the report upon which the Home Secretary is to ground his decision, and which is subsequently to be inserted in the annual report of the Prisons Commissioners. That report clearly should not be made by the prison officials. I want to make it quite clear. It is not stated who is to make the report, and I do not think it would be at all satisfactory if it were made by the governor of the gaol.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The report would come, of course, from the tribunal which tried the case.
  The Amendment was agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (a)."—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I wish to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I shall not trouble the House with more than a few brief observations upon it, because the concessions which the right honourable Gentleman has made are very substantial; but this is a question upon which I entertain a very strong opinion, or else I should not have moved it at all. My Amendment has reference to the way in which prisoners for debt will be treated under this Bill, and this is a Bill which generally is a considerable step in a forward direction. So far as the treatment of prisoners for default or debt is concerned, their position in the future will be very much worse than it was before. At present they are treated as first-class misdemeanants. They are allowed to see their friends, and they are allowed to send and receive letters, and their treatment is entirely different to that of ordinary prisoners. Under this Bill it is proposed to alter all this, and it is proposed to make these men, whose only crime has been that they have been unable to meet their liabilities, and then, when a judgment summons has been taken out against them, and the judge is of opinion that they are able to pay the debt—an order made frequently on the most slender evidence. In this case the man goes to prison, and under this Bill this class would be treated as prisoners of the second division. What does that mean? It means that the man would be treated as an ordinary prisoner, and sent to an ordinary prison. It is true that concessions have been made by the right honourable Gentleman that they should wear their own clothes, but they will only be allowed to see their wives or children once a month, and then the visit will only last a quarter of an hour. They
  84
  will only be allowed to send one letter a month, and receive one during the same period. Now, that seems to me to be very severe treatment for men who have committed no offence against the law, to send them to prison amongst other prisoners. Although they will not associate with men who have committed felony and crimes, they suffer this degradation, because the judge is of opinion that they could pay their debts. If they do not do so, then they are to suffer this treatment. Now, when the Government, take this matter in hand, with a view and for the purpose of improving the conduct of our prisons, I do think it is a retrograde step to treat this class of men in this way. It was said upstairs, in the Standing Committee on Law, although some honourable Members who defended this clause opposed imprisonment for debt, that they wanted to see imprisonment for debt abolished, and therefore they were going to support this clause, because, if the law were made more intolerable than it is at present for this class of men, the judges would hesitate before they sent them to prison. Now, it is quite illogical to make a position worse in order that the judges should make it better.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The object which the Government had in making some difference in the treatment of the debtors in the prisons—there is, no doubt, some justification for the remarks of the honourable and learned Gentleman upon this point—was to get rid of a very troublesome class of prisoners, and they thought the recommendations of the Committee ought to be carried out. I have had a great many suggestions made to me that this class of prisoners ought to be put to some kind of work, and ought not to be what they now practically are—idle loafers living at the expense of the public. I might remind the honourable Gentleman that, whatever we may say about imprisonment for contempt, it yet remains the law. No one desires to give the law effect unless a man refuses to pay that which he can pay; therefore you have got, in the first case, to deal with a class which refuses to pay that, which they can pay, and the intention

  85
  of this clause is to remove abuses which existed; and, while it is not desired to inflict a social stigma upon the debtors, it is desired that there shall be some power to put these men to work; and in deference to the opinion of some honourable Gentlemen in the Committee I undertook to introduce words which are now upon the Paper. It is not intended that a debtor shall associate with ordinary prisoners, but it is, at the same time, desirable that these men should not bring in their own food, and eat their own dinners, and be entertained in other ways at the expense of the public. I hope that the honourable Gentleman will see that the words that I propose to move will meet the case.
  MR. DILLON: I shall oppose this Amendment, because I think it is a monstrous thing that in a Bill which is to improve the condition of our prisons one class should be singled out like this —a class which is not one whit more dishonest than hundreds of gentlemen who are walking about the streets of the City today, and are living in luxury and wealth. If it were a law that every dishonest man should be got hold of and punished, it might be a good law, but this law does not attempt to do anything of that kind. These men are the victims of the relic of an old and bad scheme, which I hope will very soon be swept away. If the prison authorities are troubled with this class of prisoners, the true remedy is to abolish the system of imprisonment for debt. It is the relic of a system which has been in a course of change for some years, and which I hope will soon come to an end, but this system is still in force, and people are allowed to be held in gaol. I think the theory of it is, not that they have committed any offence, but that their bodies are held in pledge until they have discharged their debts. I do not think you have any right—you have no moral right—to inflict punishment upon those men, except that punishment which is inseparable from the restraint of their liberty. I remember the Marshalsea Prison in Dublin, and in that gaol we had a nice suite of rooms, and
  86
  we had balls there, and many a pleasant hour I have spent there, in the society of many of the most delightful men in Dublin, who were in the habit of spending some time at that resort. This was 25 years ago, and it was perfectly well recognised then that there was no kind of punishment in the debtors' gaol. They were held there until they made an arrangement with their creditors, but they had everything that their means would allow them to have in prison. But now, in this Bill, which is to mitigate the rigours and improve the treatment, in our prisons, such a clause as this is entirely out of place, because it will put the debtor in a very much worse position than he is at present—the position of a first-class misdemeanant. It is a total departure from the theory of imprisonment for debt. The trouble with regard to these prisons arises from the fact that they ought not to be in prison at all. Until that is more recognised than it is at present there should be a different prison, with a totally different system, set apart for them, but when imprisonment for debt was abolished those prisons were abolished. The proper remedy, I think, is not to treat debtors in the ordinary criminal prisons, but to abolish this last remnant of an old and barbarous law.
  SIR H. FOWLER: If this were a question of the abolition of the system of imprisonment for the non-payment of debt, in all probability I should be found in the same Lobby, and voting with my honourable Friend. I think this law is very unsatisfactory, as administered by the county courts, and that the law itself is defective. But that is not the question in this Prisons Bill. I am bound to say the Home Secretary has made large concessions in the course of the Bill through Committee. He has made large concessions on the Amendments now put down. He proposes to amend the law to carry out the recommendations of the Com-

  87
  mittee of my right honourable Friend beside me, and has removed from our minds the general impression of my honourable Friend's Amendment. I should be glad to see this form of imprisonment abolished altogether, as perhaps some day it may be, but so long as it is in force it is necessary to have some discipline, and that these men should have some labour to occupy their minds. I think this particular departure is an improvement, and therefore I shall support it.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendments proposed—
  "Page 2, line 29, leave out 'or,' and insert 'shall be placed in a separate division, and treated under special prison rules, and shall not be placed in association with criminal prisoners, nor be compelled to wear prison dress, unless his own clothing is unfit for use.'"
  "Page 2, line 30. before 'for,' insert 'any person imprisoned.'"
  "Page 2, line 32, leave out 'unless he is a convicted prisoner.'"
  "Page 2, line 33, after 'division,' insert 'unless he is a convicted prisoner or.'"
  "Page 2, leave out lines 36 to 40, both inclusive."—(The Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  Amendments agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 3, line 19, leave out 'exceeding six months,' and insert 'prescribed by the rules.'"
  "Page 3, lines 21 and 22, leave out 'not exceeding one-fourth of the period remaining after he has served six months.'"—(The Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I beg to propose the Amendments standing in my name upon clause 8.
  Amendments agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 4, line 32, leave out to 'and,' and insert 'section sixty-seven.'"
  "Page 4, line 33, leave out 'that Act,' and insert the Prison Act, 1865, and Schedule 1. to that Act.'"—(The Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, line 38, after 'ninety nine,' insert—
  "Provided that sections six and nine of this Act shall come into operation on the date at which the first rules made under this Act come into force."—(The Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I move this in order to cover the gap in the passing of this Bill. This is for the purpose, as it were, of covering the interregnum.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Schedule 5, line 10, leave out '67,' and insert '41.'"—(The Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I hope the House will now read the Bill a third time.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not think it would be a fair return for the conciliatory spirit which the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary has shown in this Bill that we should not read it a third time. If it had been earlier in the Session I should have been glad to have had this stage postponed until we had had some further discussion. I am quite prepared to meet the right honourable Gentleman, as he has met us, in a good spirit, but I cannot help regarding the history of this Bill.

  89
  I remember, when my honourable Friend the Member for South Mayo delivered a speech on this Bill, which, I think, will remain historic, that in the denouncements which, he made he denounced the dietary as scientific starvation; he denounced the indiscriminate treatment of hardened criminals, and those who were there for their first or second offences; and he denounced, and will continue to do so, the absence of any distinction between political and other prisoners. I remember that in the speech of that honourable Member, although I think the House was disposed to regard his criticism as sound, some portion of it regarded his descriptions as exaggerated. I remember, when he spoke of scientific starvation, that there was a movement of ridicule from the Treasury Bench, but most of the charges brought against the prison system have been more than justified by the Amendments which have been inserted in the Bill. I think the prison system still needs some more reform. I believe there is still a spirit of seeking to reform prisoners, but I do not think it is fair to the Home Secretary to go into the matter now. I regard the Bill as an enormous step in advance, and although I say great credit is due to the Home Secretary, I say that the real credit for this Bill passing into law belongs to my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo.
  The Question put, and the Bill was read a third time, and passed.

  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the annual payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, during the continuance of the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896, of sums to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, equal to the dif-
  90
  ference between the sums payable to that account, under section three of the said Act, and a sum equivalent to seven-sixteenths of the total amount certified by the Secretary for Scotland, as the amount to be taken as having been raised by rates by county councils and parish councils from the owners and occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages as defined in the said Act, during the year ended the 15th day of May, 1896; and also to make provision for the distribution and application of such sums—

  "(1) To the relief of the occupiers of Agricultural Lands and Heritages in Scotland;

  "(2) To an additional contribution to the Police Authorities in Scotland for the pay and clothing of the Police;

  "(3) To providing and maintaining vessels for the enforcement of the Scottish Sea Fishery Laws;

  "(4) For the purposes of secondary or technical (including agricultural) education in Scotland."

  Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Anstruther.
  Bill,—"To make provision in regard to the distribution and application of further sums from time to time paid to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 317.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) ACCOUNT.
  Upon the Order for the Third Reading—
  MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to ask the First Lord whether it would not be possible to do something with regard to the question raised yesterday as to making a larger grant towards the maintenance of the Ben Nevis Observatory for the next three years. It does get at present some £360 a year, and, in all probability, those who are in charge of it will have to close it in October, if some provision be not made. Representations have been made to the Treasury that £500 a year should be devoted to it.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is nothing as to that in the Votes.
  MR. BUCHANAN: It is contained in one of the Votes. This grant of £360 is contained in the grant of the Meteorological Society. The Ben Nevis Observatory was established in 1890, and there is a further amount required to carry it on to bring it up to £500. It is not required for more than three years, and it would be a great pity if it is allowed to be shut up. It is the only high level observatory in the kingdom, and I am informed that they do not want more than £500 a year for its maintenance, and it cannot be said that Her Majesty's Government could not grant this small amount, when it is borne in mind that it is the only high level observatory we have. This is the only civilised nation which does not maintain any high level observatories, and I put it to the Government whether they could not hold out some hope that this amount will be devoted to this purpose, either by putting pressure upon the Meteorological Council, or in some other way, and say that it could be carried on for a further three years.
  MR. BRIGG: I think that this is an observatory in one of the finest positions we have; there is no such other observatory in this country at all. The observations which are daily made there are extremely valuable when they have been tabulated. As they have been carried on for a great number of years, it seems a pity that we should let them be stopped now for the want of the sum of money which has been asked. This is one of those small points which surely might be conceded. This observatory carries on a great deal of legitimate research of great value, and I think should be supported.
  MR. HANBURY: I am very fat from saying that what is done at the Ben Nevis Observatory is not of great importance, and probably the
  92
  benefit accruing from that research would not be confined to Scotland alone, but extend to England also. This is a subject upon which a question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, and he has considered it fully, and given his reply, and his decision is this: If it was possible for the Treasury to give grants in this way, in this case the grant would be made twice over. If any grant is made at all, it ought to come out of the grant to the Meteorological Society. We cannot give a general grant for meteorological purposes, and then small grants for each different purpose. We do give a very large grant to that society, and if they think that the Ben Nevis Observatory requires their support, then they ought to find the funds for that, and supply the Ben Nevis Observatory out of the grant which they receive. We have no funds for the purpose. The honourable Gentleman proposes that the Treasury should bring pressure to bear upon the Meteorological Society to assist this observatory. I think that is a very fair request to make, and we shall certainly do all we can in that way.
  DR. CLARK: Well, the grant to the English Meteorological Society is all spent in keeping up their own institutions. Whereas you give to the English Meteorological Society £15,000 a year, you are giving to the Scotch society £100 a year. All that you are required to do now is to increase the Scotch Vote from £100 to £500. There are only two Scotch societies supported by the Government—one, the Meteorological Society, and the other the Royal Society, of Edinburgh—but these you only subscribe to on paper. What you give with one hand you take away with the other. All that you give them is free offices. What we want, so far as the Meteorological Society in Scotland is concerned, is full control. The English society spend money in Scotland, and both the societies do the same work,

  93
  and I think there should be some arrangement as to a sphere of influence. It is not proper, or fair, to ask the English society to keep up the Scotch society, because they have got all their work to do, and have spent all their money. This is not work for voluntary effort; it is for the general benefit, and I think it is very mean of the Treasury to make a fuss about £500 a year for this Ben Nevis Observatory, which is a very valuable observatory, and I think when we have got to the Votes the Treasury may see their way to meet us in some other fashion, otherwise we shall have to consider how we can reduce the English Votes.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: What has happened I suppose is that the Meteorological Society has found itself hard up for its own, purposes, and cannot assist here. Whether that is so or not I do not know, but I quite agree with my honourable Friend opposite that it is a thousand pities that the observatory at Ben Nevis should be abandoned for the want of a few hundreds of pounds. If it is true that the Meteorological Society has not had to devote its money for other purposes, then I think pressure ought to be brought to bear upon them to assist the observatory. It should not be abandoned; or, better still, a few hundred pounds should be given by the Government to keep this observatory going. Whatever else is done, it is a monstrous shame that this observatory in this unique position should be abandoned for no object whatever.
  MR. PIRIE: It has been admitted that this observatory has done good work, and I do just ask honourable Members if the observatory were situated in England instead of Scotland, would the results be exactly the same; and if it were so, would there be any difficulty at all in supporting it? I venture to say that if this observatory were in England there would be no difficulty whatever; but we
  94
  have been forced to come to this House to get a contribution for a Scotch institution; we have to go before English boards and English institutions in the same way. The whole of the money for the Scottish Meteorological Society has to go before the English Meteorological Society, and in everything it is the same way. As one honourable Member has pointed out, in England expenditure of this kind is hundreds and thousands; but in Scotland it is only a few hundreds. I think that the two institutions ought to be separate, and control ought to be given to Scotland in this matter. I think it ought to be settled in some way that would be satisfactory to Scotland.

  METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL.
  The House then went into Committee upon this Bill, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: AS the right honourable Member has withdrawn his subsection I offer no further opposition to this Bill.
  The Bill then passed through the Committee and was reported to the House.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  Upon the Second Reading of Bill,
  MR. LOUGH: I do not wish to detain the House, but I have tried to understand this Bill, but I have not been able to do so. I think the fact that such a Bill is introduced at such a late stage of the Session shows that there was more real distress in Ireland than

  95
  some honourable Members of the Government were inclined to admit in the past; but I wish now to ask the precise effect of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): It is a precisely similar Bill to that which was passed in 1885 and 1886. First of all it indemnifies the boards of guardians for the outlay they have made for exceptional distress. It indemnifies them for the outlay to the extent which has taken place up to this date, and covers that which will be made up to the 1st September, 1898.
  MR. DILLON: Does it in any way cover the labour test?
  MR. ATKINSON: No; it merely indemnifies them, for what they have done, and authorises them to continue until the 1st September next.
  MR. DILLON: Does it touch the question of the money which has been expended in the labour test?
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes; but it refers to the expenditure of the loans, and enables them to borrow more money.
  DR. CLARK: This is, unfortunately, one of the Bills not settled by two sides of the House, and I think it is too late, at half-past six in the evening, to settle it now. If we are going on with this it will take up to eight or nine o'clock. I think I must move the adjournment of the Debate with regard to this, because if it is proceeded with it will take some considerable time. It ought not to have been brought before us tonight under the usual arrangement which we agreed to, because it was only non-controversial matter which was to be taken on Wednesdays.
  MR. ATKINSON: There is absolutely nothing controversial in this bill. It simply indemnifies the boards of guar-
  96
  dians, who have been giving money for the distress for which they would otherwise be liable, and to enable them to continue to relieve distress until September. It is a general Measure to meet the distress, and cannot raise any controversy.
  MR. DILLON: I now understand from the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General that without this Bill makes some provision for these sums of money they are to be charged to the guardians, and I understand it covers the labour test. I understand that is the case, and if that be so it raises the entire question of the new departure which has been put in force by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland for the first time this year, which he describes as the labour test. It raises a most important question of policy as regards dealing with distress in Ireland, and it is, as I maintain, a very serious question of policy indeed; and I think it is preposterous to ask us to discuss it now. It opens up the entire question of the new system of dealing with the distress in Ireland, a question upon which I feel most bitterly, and one upon which I understand the bitterest feeling exists in Ireland. Now, Sir, the understanding which the House had with the Government was that this power of continuing the Wednesday sittings by the suspension of the rule was to be temporarily used, but I have noticed that since the 12 O'clock rule has been suspended we have been kept here until three o'clock every morning; and, of course, have plunged into the most exhaustive subjects in the most exhausting period of the year. It is now half-past six, and I submit that as this is a most contentious, subject, and opens up the whole question of the amount which is to be charged to the guardians of these unfortunate districts scourged by famine—
  MR. ATKINSON: If the honourable Member will permit me, that question is not affected by this Bill; all this Bill

  97
  does is to indemnify the guardians for past expenditure.
  MR. DILLON: What is the amount?
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot state the exact amount; the accounts are not yet finished; but as soon as we can ascertain—the amount spent by the guardians is about £10,000, the amount spent by the Government is £50,000—it is to indemnify them, for that expenditure.
  MR. DILLON: The Attorney General has not succeeded in making it clear; it may be that the Government have spent £50,000 and the guardians £10,000; we want to know how much is going to be charged in respect of the Government expenditure for the relief works. This is all a question of expense, and I do think we ought to have a reasonable opportunity of eliciting from the Government what the exact situation is, because I am entirely in the dark. I do not understand from either the Bill or the Attorney General what the policy is or what the effect of this Bill is.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope the honourable Gentleman will not insist upon the Motion which he has made for the adjournment. This Bill deals with an action of the past, and is not a Bill dealing with a policy of the future. It is not a Bill upon general questions upon which discussion could be raised, and under the circumstances I suggest to the honourable Gentleman that he will withdraw his Motion.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right honourable Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any other Bills besides the two Bills before the House, upon which the question of policy can be raised?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that the two
  98
  Bills upon the Paper cover all that is to be done. The general question can be raised to a certain extent upon the point which the honourable Member wishes to discuss upon Supply.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERLichneld): I think it is quite clear that in this Bill there is a new policy. The right honourable Gentleman opposite says "No"; but it is quite clear that there is a change of policy, and we have the Chief Secretary's word for it. This is the only opportunity of discussing that change. It has been stated by the Leader of the House that there will be no other opportunity except Supply, and Irish Supply is done for, so far as discussion in this House goes——
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I said the general policy of the country upon Irish distress. A discussion may be raised then.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I never complained of the Government not introducing enough Bills, and I do not think that is the complaint now; but what is complained of now is that there is no opportunity given for discussing this subject. I hope, considering that we had the assurance that legislation would not be kept up late, and we have been kept up until the early hours of the morning ever since the 12 o'clock rule has been suspended, that the Government will not press upon us to continue the discussion now.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I might point out that the honourable Gentleman has no right to complain of the attitude of the Government today. The First Reading was immediately considered, and I am sure the right honourable Gentleman will feel that we do object to the Bill being gone on with without some opportunity being given for discussing it. I have had some conversation with my

  99
  honourable Friend, and I find that his opinion is that this Bill raises very important questions of policy. The right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General has one opinion, and my honourable Friend holds another upon the question of policy. This Bill raises that particular question as to the districts where this labour test was applied, and the amount of expenditure which those unions will be expected to pay. Nobody can deny that those are important points, and a policy which ought to be discussed. Now, I understand that it is suggested that these questions ought to be raised upon Supply, but the right honourable Gentleman must know that we are in a peculiar position as to Supply, owing to the rapidly-running sands of time, and under the circumstances I appeal to the Government to reserve this question to a more convenient moment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The appeal which has been made by the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down is that we should adjourn this Debate to a more convenient time. I do not know how a more convenient time is to be found, but these Bills must pass, as I understand, because they are to relieve the guardians, who have done their duty, and whom nobody desires to leave under a possible threat of legal proceedings. That being so, I do not think there could be a more convenient opportunity for discussing it. If it is distinctly understood that it must pass, then I do not think it is worth while to resist the Motion.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I appeal to the honourable Member opposite not to obstruct these Bills. I do not wish to see the poor law guardians mulcted in the £10,000, and have to pay it out of their own pocket.
  MR. DILLON: I was only going to say I made the appeal entirely upon the
  100
  statement of the Attorney General, which I understood to be that this Bill covered the question of the labour test and the cost of the relief work of the guardians in Ireland. If that be so, I do claim a fair time for discussion.
  MR. ATKINSON: I said this was a Bill for indemnifying the guardians for having expended money under the provisions of the Act of 1862, and also to enable them to continue to expend money up to September.
  MR. DILLON: I think the best course would be to let this stand over until the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has expressed his views. I have no objection to your taking the next Bill.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Might I join my honourable Friend behind me, the honourable Member for Belfast, in appealing that there should be no obstruction with regard to this Bill? Might I also recall the transaction of a short time ago, when the First Lord of the Treasury was sketching to the House the course of business: he mentioned it would be necessary to introduce this Bill in order to indemnify those who had relieved the distress in the south and west of Ireland. I do hope there will be no obstruction.
  The adjournment of the Debate was agreed to.

  SEED SUPPLY AND POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I wish to thank the Government for undertaking this Bill. I think the general provisions of this Bill will be taken advantage of by the farmers of Ireland, and by the poor law guardians, who are, I think,

  101
  to provide the machines mentioned in this Bill. I have great pleasure in supporting it.
  COLONEL L0CKW00D: I have no wish to oppose the advantages which Ireland is to receive in this way, but I should like to draw attention to this fact, that the small farmers in Essex have not yet been considered, and, having regard to the fact that the right honourable Gentleman has found the Essex people more faithful than the Irish have been, I do hope that he will see his way to bring in a small Bill for their benefit next Session.
  MR. DILLON: When the honourable Member for Essex brings in his Bill I, for my part, shall be very happy to support it, but I beg to point out that I do not think this Bill will cost the Treasury a penny so far as I can read it; all the cost is to come out of Irish money, and all it does is to provide certain machines for the west of Ireland, for which the farmers are to pay by instalments. I am glad to be able to say I think that it is a useful Bill, and I rise for the purpose of supporting it. There are, however, one or two points which I desire to criticise. I do not think that the honourable Member for South Belfast need be so extremely effusive in his thanks. There is one particular thing in this Bill which is unfortunate. It is a Bill for the purpose of enabling the guardians in the poorer districts all over Ireland, if necessary, to supply seed and spraying machines and material for spraying. In the case of seed and material for spraying they are authorised to sell for cash, but in the case of the spraying machines they can either hire or sell, but as regards materials and seed they are authorised to supply materials for spraying and seed potatoes in the usual way to a certain limit, the amount to be paid in two instalments extending over the period of a year. Now, the assump-
  102
  tion in such a case is this—and I am extremely desirous that it should be brought before the House—that there are in Ireland certain large districts where, owing to the failure of the crops and the disastrous character of the year, the people are unable to supply themselves with seed and spraying machines. If they were in a position to buy them the House would not be under the necessity of introducing this Bill at all; the assumption is that they are in such a state of abject poverty that they are unable to obtain seed. Now, the first point I find fault with is, that whereas, in the case of spraying materials and seed, the guardians have power to give them out and take the price in two instalments, in the case of spraying machines it is enacted in the subsection 7 of section 4 that they shall only be sold for cash. Now, it is a rather expensive machine—I think it is supplied at 22s.—at least, it is something considerable to a small occupier, and is a very serious matter, and I do not understand, and I wish to have it from the Treasury, why this distinction is drawn between the seed and spraying materials and spraying machines, which are mainly for the purpose of saving the crop. One of the objects when bringing in a Bill of this kind ought to be to make it as simple as possible. What has been the result so far as this Bill is concerned? Complaints have reached me from several unions that the instructions issued in advance for carrying out the provisions of the Bill were misunderstood. I have heard of cases where a considerable number of machines were ordered and looked up in the unions, while the people were in a state of frenzy trying to get them; where the machines were locked up for weeks, and in some cases private individuals put up sums of money out of their own pockets and bought them. In another case that arose in a very poor union in Ireland, where no machines were supplied for

  103
  a very long time, the result was that the people were endeavouring to spray their potatoes with a brush. I believe that the trouble arises largely owing to the extreme provision contained in this subsection that spraying machines shall only be sold for cash on delivery. Why it should not be upon the same basis as the payment of the seed and materials I am at a loss to understand. In some cases the guardians have refused to hire them out on the ground that if they did they would not be able to get them back again.
  MR. JOHNSTON: That is not the case in the north of Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: You are so rich in the north of Ireland that you can afford to buy them; I am speaking of the west of Ireland, the guardians of which, having bought a large consignment of machines, have got no provision in this Bill for enforcing the return of these machines or the repair of them in case they are broken. By refusing to lend them out a considerable difficulty would arise. One doubt one has is whether they could hire them out, because the guardians themselves might be surcharged out of their own pockets for those machines. However that may be, confusion has arisen in dealing with a matter which is of the most vital importance owing to the introduction of this most curious provision, which forbids the guardians giving the spraying machines on the same terms as the seed and spraying materials. The season has now gone by when the machines could have been of any use.
  MR. JOHNSTON: There is quite time enough now for spraying potatoes.
  MR. DILLON: Nothing of the sort; not at all. The honourable Gentleman knows nothing about—is entirely ignorant of—the subject The crops of potatoes have been sprayed, resprayed,
  104
  and sprayed again before now, and it is useless to attempt to spray them now; it is no use whatever, and I think we are entitled to some explanation.
  SIR J. COLOMB: My experience of the poorer unions of Ireland does not at all agree with that of the honourable Member who has just sat down, and I can only tell the House that I was present at a board of guardians when the inspector came down to put the arrangements for the machines in motion and explain them. The whole thing was fully explained, and no difficulty arose in any way. The way it worked is this: it is a condition that the guardians making provision take upon themselves the responsibility to buy the machines and pay cash, and so long as the cash is got back it is all right, and they recoup themselves from those who propose to buy them.
  MR. ATKINSON: I think the honourable Member for Mayo is in error. Instructions have been given all over the country, and the estimated amount altogether is £80,000, of which £69,000 has been offered. As to the difference between the materials and machines in the mode of purchase I think the answer is obvious. The materials cannot be hired, but must be bought, and therefore you must make the terms as easy as possible. On the other hand, machines may be hired and need not be bought. A man can hire them and need not buy them, and therefore there is no necessity for spreading the instalments over a period.
  The Bill was read a second time.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion mode, and Question put—
  "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at 7.