Sitting of 27 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.

    GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON' CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
    STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
    WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ABERDEEN JOINT PASSENGER STATION BILL [LORDS.].
Read 3a, and passed, with Amendments.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [LORDS].
Queen's Consent signified,—read 3a, and passed, with Amendments.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
Queen's Consent signified,—read 3a, and passed, with Amendments.
LEIGH-ON-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [LORDS].
  YEADON AND GUISELEY GAS BILL [LORDS].
  Read 3a, and passed, with Amendments.
GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
As Amended, considered; a Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
As amended, considered: to be read the third time.
OYSTERMOUTH RAILWAY OR TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.]
As Amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL AND WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY BILL.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th July], "That the Great Southern and Western Railway Bill and the Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Bill be withdrawn:"—(Mr. James William Lowther:)
Question again proposed:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): Perhaps I may be allowed to give a short explanation of the reason why I have put this motion down. These two Bills were grouped with the Great Southern and Western and Limerick and Waterford Railways Amalgamation Bill; and a Hybrid Committee has occupied thirty sittings in considering the latter measure, only coming to a decision upon it at the latter end of last week. The Amalgamation Bill having been disposed of there remained the question of what was to be done with the other Bills. The Great Southern and Western Company were under a statutory obligation to proceed with their Bill, but the Bill is opposed and must occupy some time, and therefore there is little hope of its passing in the present session. Both Bills originated in this House, and it would have been so late before they could be sent to another place that all hope of them passing into law this session would have been dashed to the ground. The Committee therefore presented a special report advising that the order for the committal of the Bill should be discharged and the Bill withdrawn, as the company could not themselves
482
withdraw the Bill. It is only right that, in view of the statutory obligation they are under, they should be granted some sort of Parliamentary release, and it is obvious it would not be fair to compel them to proceed with the Bill, in view of the fact that the great expenditure entailed thereby would be absolutely thrown away by reason of the impossibility of the Bill becoming law this session. I therefore ask the House to order the withdrawal of the Bill. In doing so I take it it will signify its. acknowledgment that the promoters have fulfilled their obligation, and that it was simply due to the efflux of time that they were unable to get the Bill disposed of. The hon. Member for North Louth has a motion down to add words declaring that in the opinion of this House the promoters have discharged their obligations. It is not for me, but for you, Sir, to say if that is in order. I can only say that I fully agree with the spirit of the Amendment, although perhaps it is not desirable, after the statement I have made, that the words should be added to the motion which I beg to move.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I think that in the course of the history of the Parliamentary oppression of Ireland, nothing equal to the course that has now been taken of the conduct of private business has yet occurred in the course of our relations with England. The motion is absolutely unparalleled and absolutely without precedent except in the case of a dissolution of Parliament. Yesterday, without notice to any Member of the House, a notice appeared on the Paper in; a furtive and almost illicit manner, and at: twelve o'clock, when nobody knew what was going to occur, the respected Chairman of the hybrid Committee marched up the floor, and the whole matter having been opparently arranged and rehearsed, a motion was made that the Bill be withdrawn. The Bill is one which it is the merest common form of Parliament to grant, namely, an extension of time to construct a small piece of railway some twenty or thirty miles in length. No one had a notice against it, and if the opponents of the Bill had gone before the Locus Standi Committee they would have been refused on the ground that on the question of the extension of time the merits had not been considered. There-

483
fore the Midland Company, which has been appearing as an opponent of the Bill, would, if its petition had been opposed, have been refused a locus. What happened? Another great and cardinal measure was before Parliament—a measure of the very first importance to Ireland—namely, a proposal to make an amalgamation between the Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Limerick Railways. That was a great measure, and to deal with it Parliament appointed a hybrid Committee. The second Bill was absolutely divorced from that measure and had nothing whatever to say to it. It was a mere proposal to give an extension of time for the construction of a piece of necessary railway; but, a hybrid Committee having been appointed to deal with the larger scheme, it was decided to refer the second Bill to the same Committee; and that hybrid Committee, which has expended its time during some thirty sittings in dealing with the first Bill, now comes down to the House to propose to withdraw a measure which, as I have said, it is the commonest form to pass without opposition, and which in the case of every English, Welsh, and Scotch Bill is given merely for the asking. Owing, I presume, to the heat, the Committee are unable to deal with the important question as to whether there shall be three years longer allowed to construct the line. I denounce such a proceeding, and very much regret that the Chairman of Committees should have felt himself obliged, owing to this condition of impotence, for it is nothing else, to make a motion of this kind. The comical part of the proceeding is that the Bill, which one hybrid Committee says it is unable to deal with this session, has been brought in by order of another hybrid Committee. By the Rosslare Act last year a hybrid Committee laid a statutory obligation upon these companies to bring in these Bills which another hybrid Committee confesses its inability to deal with. There is not a petty sessions court in the land which would deal out so monstrous and so expensive an injustice. I believe there has been passed for Scotland a measure to enable some kind of local inquiry to be substituted for inquiry at Westminster, and I am sorry to hear the First Lord of the Treasury say it cannot be extended to Ireland, because it is necessary to get some experience of Scotch procedure before we are treated to
484
a measure of the kind for Ireland. This is a matter, not of sentiment, but of hard cash. Scores and hundreds of witnesses were compelled to come to London, and expensive counsel had to be engaged to plead the question before the tribunals, and now the tribunal itself confesses its impotence. It may be some poor satisfaction to the promoters of this railway to get the limited endorsement which I propose by my Amendment, namely, to commence the Resolution with the words:—
"This House being of opinion that the promoters have discharged the obligation imposed on them by Section 72 of the Fishguard and Ross are Railways and Harbours Act, 1898."
For myself I am entirely opposed to the motion. I think it establishes a very bad precedent, and it ought to give us a sickener of these hybrid Committees. The idea I have of a hybrid Committee is that the opponents and supporters of the measure should be equally represented upon it. But in the present case the gentlemen appointed by the House were confessedly all opponents of the measure, and I think it will be necessary whenever this system is resorted to again that the Members who are appointed shall frankly declare themselves friends or foes to the Bill. I can only humbly submit my Amendment as some slight mitigation of the evil of the motion which is now being moved.
MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. Member to move his Amendment?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: Then it becomes necessary for me to state that it is out of order.
SIR PENROSE-FITZGERALD: Perhaps I may be allowed to make a short statement with regard to the proceedings of the hydrid Committee whose conduct is now before the House. I was Chairman of that Committee. It is not altogether the case, as suggested by the hon. Member, that we declined to deal with the short extension of time Bill. What happened was this: Having disposed of the Amalgamation Bill, we came to the deci-

485
sion to proceed, next with the Central of Ireland Railway Bill: and, lastly, with the smallest Bill. Had it been only a question of the small Bill, I think the Committee would have been willing to go on with it, but, having come to the determination to take No. 2 Bill, they decided to go into the room and ask whether No. 3 Bill was opposed or not. The Committee were told from two quarters that it was opposed, and that it would be bitterly opposed. Having sat for 30 days over the first Bill, and paid the greatest attention to it, the Committee decided that it would be absolutely useless and a waste of time and money to proceed with the other two Bills, inasmuch as it was known that they had to go to another place and be endorsed there before becoming law. The Committee, I think, were wisely advised in the course they took. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth has my entire concurrence. I stated to the Committee more than once that, in my opinion, the promoters of this Bill had purged the promise or pledge which they gave to the Rosslare Committee last year by coming to Parliament and doing their best to carry it out. I think that they have done their very best to redeem their promise; and I believe that every member of the Committee will say the same thing. It should be borne in mind that just when these large Bills of great importance to the people of Ireland were introduced, a grave and serious change had taken place in the representative bodies in the south and west of Ireland. The grand juries had ceased to exist, and the county councils and district councils had been substituted. When your Committee were appointed, the members of these new bodies had not got tight in their saddles, and this House, and your Committee, both felt it was well that those bodies should have time to maturely consider the grave issues put before them in Bills like these. Let me point out to hon. Members who have not the honour of being Irishmen——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think it would be better not to go into matters arising upon a Bill not now before the House.
SIR PENROSE-FITZGERALD: The hon. Member cast a slight aspersion on the Committee by suggesting we ought to have gone on with this Bill; and I am
486
giving reasons why we did not commence our inquiry earlier, and thus have secured the possibility of concluding the Bills. I am stating that the county councils, having been appointed so recently, it was necessary, in order——
MR. SPEAKER: I did not understand the hon. Member to say anything in criticism of the first Committee having lasted so long. What he complained of was that, having disposed of one Bill, they did not go on with the others. It would be out of order to go into the reasons why the Committee sat so long.
SIR PENROSE-FITZGERALD: I was dealing with the accusation of incompetence. I have shown we sat thirty days, and that had the Bill been submitted to us earlier in the session we might have been able to deal with all three.
MR. T. M. HEALY: "Impotence" was the word I used.
SIR PENROSE-FITZGERALD: I think I have said enough to show that the Committee have honestly and straight-forwardly carried out the injunctions of this House, and after the expression of my opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Louth is just, I hope we may be allowed to proceed to other business.
MR. CARSON: This is a very important matter. The promoters were under a statutory obligation to promote this Bill, and the section of the Act of Parliament which imposed that obligation prevents them from annulling or varying certain contracts for the working of railways in Ireland until that statutory obligation has been disposed of by Parliament. They have, in fact, to continue the old arrangements at very great expense to themselves. They came to Parliament with this Bill under a statutory obligation, and the question now is, whether they are to be considered as having discharged the obligations placed upon them by the Act of last year. I hardly think that the motion before the House is a sufficient disposition by Parliament. It certainly Mould be a cruel thing to the promoters and shareholders to tell them later on that they have not discharged their statutory obligation, and to put them to the great expense of bringing the

487
Bill forward again. The addition of the words of the hon. Member for North Louth would make the matter perfectly clear. It might be argued, however, that as the motion now stands it is in no sense a disposition of the Bill by Parliament, but a withdrawal at the will of the promoters themselves. The promoters objected to withdraw the Bill; they were asked to do so several times, and declined. I am very anxious that this matter should be made clear, so as to save expense. I had something to do with sending this Bill to a hybrid Committee, and I would suggest to the Chairman of Committees whether the use of some such words as that "the Order for the Bill be discharged" would not be more apt, and not leave the matter open to the very scathing criticisms which lawyers always pass on the Acts of this House. It may not altogether satisfy the promoters, who have spent thousands of pounds in trying to fulfil these obligations, but it certainly would make their position more definite and clear.
Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: I think we are all agreed as to the course it is desired to pursue, and the question is, how best to achieve the end. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, I must point out that there is no order which could be "discharged." I submit that if the House accepts my motion, the House will order the Bill to be withdrawn. That will appear on the Votes and Proceedings to-morrow, and then the application made by the promoters to Parliament will have been disposed of by the House of Commons. Although I am very anxious to meet the views of my right hon. friend in the fullest possible way, I have not been able to discover any other plan than that I have suggested, viz., that the House itself should order the withdrawal.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Great Southern and Western Railway Bill and the Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Bill be withdrawn.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [LORDS.]
  Read 3a, and passed, with Amendments.
PETITIONS.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Halifax, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
  Petition from Penzance, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition from Whickham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Copy presented,—of Accounts and Estimates for the years 1896–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.)
  Copy presented,—of Calendar History and General Summary of Regulations for the year 1900 (with Tables) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FIRE BRIGADES.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 8th March; Mr. Pym]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. No. 299.)
  LOCAL TAXATION (ENGLAND) ACCOUNT, 1898–9.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 301.)
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND.)
  Copy presented,—of Part II. (Accounts of County Councils and Lunatic Asylums; Part III. (Municipal Borough Accounts, &c.); Part IV. (Accounts of Metropolitan Vestries, District Boards, &c.); Part V. (Accounts of Commissioners of Sewers, &c.); Part VI. (Accounts of Highway Authorities in Rural Districts); and Part VII. (Summary) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 302.)

  EAST INDIA CURRENCY.
  Copy presented,—of Despatch of the Secretary of State for India in Council to

  489
  the Governor-General of India in Council, dated the 25th July 1899, respecting the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Indian Currency [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  AFRICA (No. 7, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Correspondence respecting the African Liquor Traffic Convention. Signed at Brussels, 8th June 1889 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES, 1899–1900, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE (IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BUILDINGS).
  Estimate presented,—of the additional Amount required in the year ending the 31st March, 1900, for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, with copy of Treasury Minute explanatory of the arrangements for purchase and utilisation of the Imperial Institute Buildings [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. (No. 300.)
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE (INDIAN SECTION).
  Address for "Portions of the Annual Report of the Indian Section of the Imperial Institute for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1899, and of the preceding two years, emboding the more important details of the working of the section, and the results obtained in the scientific investigations of selected natural products from India carried on at the Imperial Institute."—(Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree.)
  BREWERS' CASKS.
  Return ordered, "of all the correspondence which has passed between the Board of Trade and the local authorities in England and Wales, relating to the testing and stamping of brewers' casks used as measures in trade, under the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, from and including the first day of January 1894, up to the present time."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
QUESTIONS.

  UNDER-AGE RECRUITS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for
  490
  War whether he has now full information as to the case of Private Joseph McCombie, who was accepted as a recruit in the Gordon Highlanders in 1897, although he was born in 1882, and therefore only fifteen years old at the time of enlistment, or three years under the nominal regulation age of enlistment of eighteen; whether, seeing that an error of practically three years in judgment of age has been made, a reprimand will be inflicted on those responsible; if he can state the reason for the objection on the part of the War Office to require positive proof of age by the production from the recruit of a birth certificate, or, failing that, of a written permission to enlist from parent or guardian, as is done in the case of boys joining the Navy; and whether the present constant disregard of the regulations tends to bring Army orders into disrepute, and acts detrimentally on the best interests of recruiting.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The facts are as follows: McCombie gave his age on enlistment as eighteen years and eight months, and the measurements supported this statement. More than a year afterwards his parents applied for his discharge, proving that he was only sixteen years and seven months when enlisted (not fifteen years, as stated in the question); but as he was by this time seventeen years and ten months old, the General Officer held him to serve. In reply to the remaining paragraphs, I have to say that an attempt was made recently to establish a system of verification, but in nearly half the cases examined it was found impossible, from various causes, to identify the recruit by means of the registers. The boys of the Navy are enlisted at much earlier ages, and are received from their parents or guardians. In the case of McCombie, no regulation has boon disregarded, and no one will be reprimanded.

  QUEEN'S REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it is the case that a new edition of "Queen's Regulations for the Army" is about to be issued; what are the years in which the last five editions have been published; whether regulations can be devised which would command longer continuity; and whe-

  491
  ther, seeing that regimental and other officers have been hitherto compelled to provide themselves with the latest editions of the regulations at their own expense, the present issue can be provided for them without charge.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A new edition of the Queen's Regulations is in course of preparation. Editions were published in 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1898. Every effort is made to reduce the number of alterations in these and all other regulations, but a considerable number of changes are unavoidable, and it is with the special object of relieving officers of the incessant posting up of the copies in their possession that an annual edition is issued. It is not proposed to distribute the Queen's Regulations to officers free of cost. The retail price of the book is eighteenpence.

  COMMANDS AT NAVAL BASES.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, at what Naval bases, other than Esquimalt, have junior Royal Engineer officers been authorised to communicate direct with superior authority elsewhere, and to report independently on matters relating to the garrison and defence of the place; and, if so, what is the object of thus preventing their official communication passing through the hands of their superior officers on the spot responsible for the safety of the place in war.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Neither at Esquimalt nor at any other Naval base do Royal Engineer officers communicate direct with or report independently to the War Office on matters relating to the garrison and defence of the place, except when, as at Wei-hai-wei, such an officer occupies an independent command. With that exception, an officer of the Royal Engineers communicates through his commanding officer. But a General Officer commanding may, under Paragraph 198 of regulations for Engineer services, authorise an Engineer to communicate direct on services not requiring a reference to the General Officer commanding.
  SIR J. COLOMB: My question was, have these officers been authorised to correspond with the superior authority.
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is a phrase very difficult of interpretation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's questions are very argumentative. The superior authority may be the General Officer commanding.

  NAVAL BASES STORES.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what department of the Royal Engineers is responsible for supplying Naval bases with submarine stores and appliances; and what Naval bases, other than Esquimalt, has this department failed, during a period of years, to supply with such stores.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Director-General of Ordnance is responsible for the supply of stores. There has been no failure to supply the authorised equipment of submarine stores and appliances.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Does that answer apply to the present time or the past?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Director-General of Ordnance informs me that he is responsible, and is not aware of any failure.

  INDIAN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a memorial, signed by Indian judicial authorities of the highest position, urging the separation of judicial from executive functions in the Indian administration; whether he will state what action he proposes to take on this memorial; and whether, looking to the fact that the Government of India anticipates a surplus of Rx.4,759,400 for 1898–9, and of Rx.3,932,600 for 1899–1900, the time is opportune, from a financial point of view, for dealing with a reform which has been long prayed for by the Indian community.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The memorial to which the question refers has been received, and I propose to forward it to the Government of India, requesting them to consider it and to report to me the conclusions at which they arrive. Until I shall have received their reply, I can say nothing as to the

  493
  desirability of the proposed change, or as to the views of the people of India on the subject.

  CHIEF JUSTICESHIP OF MADRAS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Justice S. Subramana Iyer has been appointed to officiate as Chief Justice of Madras; and, whether there is any legal objection to such appointment being confirmed.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: My answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As regards the second question, I am advised that Section 2 of the High Courts Act, 24 and 25 Vict., cap. 104, requires that the person appointed Chief Justice of a High Court (otherwise than in a temporary vacancy under Section 7 of the Act) must be a barrister, a qualification which the officiating Chief Justice does not possess.

  BENGAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India why the agricultural statistics for Bengal are incomplete or wholly wanting, as stated on page 119 of the Blue Book on the Moral and Material Progress of India.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Over the greater part of Bengal the land revenue is permanently settled, and the revenue establishments in the interior are slender. Consequently, full and accurate agricultural statistics are not, and never have been, available for the province. Where the cadastral survey has been carried out, information is being collected. On the page mentioned in the Parliamentary Paper, the only figures absolutely wanting are those relating to live stock and to the irrigated area. Under all other heads approximate figures for Bengal, based on the best available information, are given.

  MADRAS LAND REVENUE DEFAULTERS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the correspondence with the Madras Government regarding land revenue defaulters is now concluded; and, if so, whether he will lay that corre-
  494
  spondence upon the Table, as agreed in June, 1896.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The correspondence is concluded; and I will lay it on the Table if the honourable Baronet will move for it.

  OPIUM SMOKING IN CALCUTTA.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information that opium smoking shops still flourish in Calcutta and carry on an illicit business quite openly; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for the newspaper cutting he sent me, but I have not otherwise received any information that the Calcutta opium smoking shops are carrying on an illicit business quite openly. No licences for such shops are granted in Calcutta. The subject of the hon. Member's, question will be brought to the notice of the Government of India.

  VENEREAL DISEASE IN THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an ordinance in reference to venereal disease has lately been passed in the Straits Settlements; and whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence on the subject, as promised on the 8th May 1898, together with a copy of the ordinance.
  THESECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBRRLAIN,): A Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements, on lines suggested by me, dealing with the subject of the hon. Member's question, and the protection of women and girls. It will shortly be passed, with slight amendment. The correspondence will be given at once.

  TRINIDAD IMPORT DUTIES.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has sanctioned a resolution, passed by a majority of five to three of the unofficial members of the Legislative Council of Trinidad, in favour of the imposition of a surtax of 10 per

  495
  cent. on all imports from countries granting bounties on sugar; whether the unofficial members of the Legislative Council of Trinidad arc nominated by the Crown, and not elected by the people; whether the total value of imports into the colony from the Continent of Europe is only about £200,000 a year; and what proportion of this amount represents the imports from bounty-giving States.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is in the negative, and to the two following questions in the affirmative. According to the 1897 returns—the last available—£166,000 out of £178,000.

  TRADING MONOPOLIES IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if Her Majesty's Government have received information that the Transvaal Government have created further trading or commercial monopolies within the Republic; whether the South African Republic, on 14th December, 1898, sold to Messrs. Tranmer and Company the exclusive right to manufacture carbide of calcium, without reference to the ownership of the patent previously registered within their territory by British subjects; is the grant of such a monopoly, without regard to patent rights, authorised by the London Convention; was the Transvaal Government aware that the French patent for the manufacture of carbide, acquired at considerable cost and duly registered in the Republic, was owned by Messrs. Read, Holliday, and Sons, Limited, of Huddersfield, at the time when a monopoly was granted to Tranmer and Company, who possess no patent; is the effect of such a monopoly that patentees or their assignees cannot work their patent without the licence from the monopolist, although the latter has no patent; and can the monopolist manufacture without acquiring the patent registered in the Republic; if so, why does the Transvaal Government maintain a patent office and accept fees for registering patents when they will not allow them to be worked, owing to the exclusive right to manufacture having been sold to persons who have no ownership in the process.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: During the last three years the Transvaal Govern-
  496
  ment have granted a number of concessions for the manufacture under favour-conditions, such as protective duties, of articles for which a demand exists in the country. Amongst these is the concession to Tranmer and Company for the manufacture of calcium carbide, to which the hon. Member refers. It does not appear, however, that an exclusive right has been granted to Tranmer and Company, and I apprehend, therefore, that the holders of a patent in the Transvaal for the manufacture of calcium carbide continue to have a perfect right to exercise their patent rights without interference from the concessionaire. Whether the latter could legally manufacture calcium carbide without acquiring the patent is a technical question as to the process of manufacture which, I am afraid, I am not able to answer. If, however, exclusive rights have been granted to the concessionaire, as to which I shall make inquiry, the situation is different. The concession would apparently be open to the objections urged against the dynamite concession in my despatch of the 13th of January, which was published in Blue Book c. 9317, and would be a breach of Art. XIV. of the London Convention, even in the absence of any previously acquired patent rights.
  MR. DAVITT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who Tranmer and Company are, and whether they are British subjects?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say as a matter of fact. I have heard they are German subjects.

  TRANSVAAL PAPERS.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In my absence the hon. Member for Rushcliffe asked a question as to certain Papers, and I have now to announce that Papers as to the accounts of the British South Africa Company have been laid on the Table, and I hope they will be delivered To-morrow. There has been so much pressure on the printers, however, that I cannot be certain. I also promised further Papers as to political reforms in the South African Republic. They also will be distributed to-morrow, and some copies will be available in the Vote Office to-night should any Members wish to have them.

  SLAVERY IN NIGERIA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the legal status of slavery, abolished by decree of the Niger Company, will remain abolished in the territories of the company when the charter is revoked.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative.

  FALKIRK LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSING.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether ho has, as promised, made representations to the North British Rail-way Company as to the dangers and delays connected with the Wallace Street level crossing at Falkirk, and what reply has been given, if any, by the railway company; if he is aware that the railway passes through one of the busiest streets of the town, and that according to observations taken on 12th June last there passed over the crossing 3,000 persons; and 1,400 over the bridge, 55 cattle, 56 machines, 5 horses, and 78 carts; and, if he will take steps to have this danger to the lieges remedied as early as possible.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to answer for him as follows: Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade communicated with the company upon the subject of this level crossing, and they have a reply which I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member. The line at the point referred to is not a statutory railway, and the Board have no powers whatever with regard to it.

  CATTLE-CARRYING TRAFFIC—DISPOSAL OF CARCASSES WASHED ASHORE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed at the last meeting of the Cork County Council, protesting against the ratepayers being saddled with the expense of the removal and burial of carcasses washed on shore from cattle-carrying vessels; and whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Trade appropriates all unclaimed wrecked property, steps will be taken to re-
  498
  lieve the ratepayers from the cost thus incurred.
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): The Board of Trade has received a copy of the resolution referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. Local authorities have, under the Diseases of Animals Acts, always been liable for the expense of burying or destroying carcasses of cattle washed ashore, and my right hon. friend is not prepared to promote legislation for the Amendment of those Acts.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no foreign carcasses are used for any purpose in Ireland, except as a food supply for the troops?
  MR. HANBURY: No, I am not aware. It is not in my Department.

  BOY SAILORS.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether shipowners have as yet to any, and, if so, to what extent, signified their intention of availing themselves of the proposals for the carrying of boy sailors included in Section 6 of the Mercantile Marine Fund Act of last Session; and whether any, and, if so, what number of boys have been enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve under the provisions of the scheme.
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): No special intimation has been made to the Board of Trade by shipowners generally as to the extent to which they are likely to avail themselves of the provisions of the section to which my hon. friend refers. So far, twelve firms have, since the 1st April, enrolled boys as probationers in the Royal Naval Reserve under this scheme, and the number of boys so enrolled is 112.

  RAILWAY SHUNTING.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is now understood, on the part of the railways of the United Kingdom, that they are prepared to replace steam capstans on their systems for shunting purposes by hydraulic capstans, which can be stopped at once, and serious accidents thereby prevented or diminished greatly in number.
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): No general promise has been received from the companies, but it is believed that the matter is receiving favourable consideration. Evidence on the subject has been given before the Royal Commission on Accidents to Railway Servants, but, as the honourable Member is aware, the Commission has not yet reported.

  THE CASTLEFORD POSTMAN.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the auxiliary postman, George Naylor, of Castleford (Yorkshire), who had, previous to the 9th July, 1899, served a full year as an assistant postman, but was reduced on that date through revision of duties, is entitled to annual leave for that period of assistant postman's service; and on what grounds the surveyor of his district, who has been applied to, refuses to grant it, seeing that Naylor had already been allowed to sign the leave sheet, and had the revision taken place a fortnight later, he would have actually taken his holidays.
  MR. HANBURY: The auxiliary postman referred to was granted leave of absence in respect of the year ending 31st December last, because he was, during that period, acting as assistant postman with five hours' daily duty. The leave sheet for the current year was prepared early in the year, before the change of duties now made was sanctioned; and as the auxiliary postman is now performing only three hours' duty a day he is not entitled to leave.

  CLASSIFICATION OF LONDON SORTERS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why, although the system of classification in the sorters' classes of the London postal service was abolished in accordance with the Tweedmouth Committee recommendations, it is continued in regard to sorters taking their annual leave; and if he will consider the advisability of removing this inequality at an early date, so as to carry out the Committee's recommendation in this matter in its entirety.
  MR. HANBURY: Although the promotion barrier between the first and second classes of sorters has been abolished, the difference in the duties of the two classes still remains. It would be impossible to allow all the men of the old first class to take their holidays at the same time, and the choice of holidays must be so arranged as to provide a sufficient number of men to perform the different duties in each of the old classes. All the men have the privilege of leave within the eight pleasanter months of the year.

  BELFAST POST OFFICE AND POSTMASTERSHIPS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that there has not been a postmastership given to an officer of the Sorting Office, Belfast, for over twenty years; and whether he will favourably consider applications from officers in the Belfast Sorting Office for a vacancy (Coloraine) in the North of Ireland.
  MR. HANBURY: Taking the Belfast office as a whole, the staff cannot be regarded as unfortunate, as during the last eighteen years no fewer than six postmasterships have been conferred upon officers in the Belfast office. The claims and qualifications of any officers of the sorting staff, who may be candidates for any vacancy, are considered with those of others.

  HANLEY POST OFFICE.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what progress has been, or is being made in providing more commodious postal and telegraphic accommodation for the service of the county borough of Hanley.
  MR. HANBURY: This matter has been under inquiry at the Office of Works, and it is understood that the Board are about to recommend a scheme for the erection of a new post office for Hanley on a site in Tontine Street to be acquired from the Corporation.

  BRIEF TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  MR. CLARE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General,

  501
  whether, at the post offices in Manchester, or any of them, instructions have been received to refuse acceptance for transmission of telegrams addressed "R. Lonie, Cadishead"; whether he is aware that telegrams so addressed have been received and delivered at Cadishead without any difficulty or delay for upwards of fifteen years; and that Mr. Lonie is well known to all the postal and telegraph messengers in Cadishead; whether any difficulty has been experienced in delivering telegrams to Mr. Lonie; and whether telegrams addressed as above have been refused on the ground of such difficulty, or for some other and what reason.
  MR. HANBURY: No such instructions as those to which the hon. Member refers appear to have been issued. It is of much importance that, in order to ensure the delivery of telegrams without delay, the address should contain full particulars. In the present case the name of the street should, at least, be given. In the absence of such particulars difficulty may at any time arise, even in the case of a well-known person, owing to changes taking place in the staff of the office, or from other cause.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in some instances post cards addressed precisely in the same way as telegrams, alleged to be insufficiently addressed, have been delivered; whether the Post Office authorities decline to register certain telegraphic addresses, although such addresses might have been used for many years, and whether——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice of the question.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question had better be put on the Paper.

  CLONES POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the Post Office authorities in Dublin have abandoned the scheme formulated some time ago for the erection of a new post office in Clones; and whether he can state the date when the
  502
  people of Clones first complained of the great inconvenience they experience in having to transact their business in the corner of a small grocery shop where it is next to impossible to write out a telegram or obtain a post office order with any privacy, or transact any business without the knowledge of the shop customers.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster-General has not abandoned the intention of erecting a new post office at Clones, and the Board of Public Works is considering whether the best of the sites which have been offered for the purpose can be made to suffice. The earliest representation addressed by the inhabitants direct to the Department seems to have been in 1898, when they objected to a site which was then under consideration. The office is at present held in a shop one half of which is used for the sale of grocery, but no specific complaint can be traced of the particular inconveniences mentioned in the question. The arrangements for a new office shall be pressed forward as much as possible.

  OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the case of eleven remaining gentlemen who, prior to 1866, were appointed by the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery as clerks in his office on the terms of an Act passed in the year 1812, under which their predecessors received pensions amounting to their full salaries, who have been informed that the Treasury are advised that, notwithstanding that the rights of these officers were expressly reserved by the Superannuation Acts of 1852 and 1866, the Treasury are precluded from awarding them pensions at the full rate, and are only able to grant them to the amount limited by the Act of 1866; whether his attention has been directed to the opinion of Sir Horace Davey to the effect that the view of the Treasury was not well founded; and, whether he is willing that the question should be referred to the law officers, in order that the officials in question may have an opportunity of submitting the opinion of Mr. A. Macmorran, Q.C., and Mr. William Graham, which has recently been taken, in which concur-

  503
  rence in the opinion of Sir Horace Davey is expressed
  MR. HANBURY: I am aware of the opinion given by Sir Horace Davey on the case, and that opinion was at the time brought to the notice of the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised that they saw no reason to modify the opinion which they had already expressed. The course suggested by my hon. friend has therefore already been adopted

  SORTING CLERKS' INCREMENTS.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the practice that when the arrestment of a sorting clerk's increment is under consideration the officer affected is furnished with a written statement setting forth his irregularities and late attendances for the preceding twelve months, and invited to submit in reply thereto a reason or reasons why his increment should not be withheld; if so, will he state why the practice has been departed from in Glasgow, where three sorting clerks during the present month have, without any reason or reasons verbal or written being assigned, had their increments arrested; and whether steps will be taken so as to ensure in the future that every officer whose increment is being questioned shall be furnished prior to contemplated arrestment of increment with a written statement showing why the granting of his annual increase is being submitted to question
  MR. HANBURY: In any case where an explanation seems necessary the officer is called upon to furnish one; but there are many cases where a certificate of approved conduct cannot be given in consequence of serious irregularity dealt with during the year, and then no further explanation is needed as the records speak for themselves. The cases at Glasgow to which the question is understood to refer were not cases of ordinary annual increments, but cases in which the question arose of allowing officers to pass the efficiency bar. The certificate that they did not comply with the conditions in regard to efficiency was sufficient in itself, and could not be affected by any explanation from the officers concerned.

  BEN NEVIS OBSERVATORY.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Government has declined to sanction a grant of £1,000 to enable the Ben Nevis observatory, the only high level observatory in the country, to be carried on for a further period of two years
  MR. HANBURY: The facts are not as implied in the question. The Government make a grant to the Meteorological Council of £15,300 a year. They have abstained from expressing any opinion as to what portion of that grant should be assigned to the Ben Nevis Observatory. That is a question for the Meteorological Council, which, I may remind the House, includes a special representative of Scottish meteorologists
  MR. BUCHANAN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say, exactly a year ago, that the Government would endeavour to persuade the Council to make a grant to the observatory?
  MR. HANBURY: We have done so, but apparently they do not think they should do so.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the First Lord of the Treasury give us half-an-hour to discuss the Meteorological Vote?
  (No answer was given.)

  RAILWAYS IN ASIA MINOR.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Turkish Government is proposing to extend the railway from Konieh, across Mesopotamia, towards the Persian Gulf, and to grant a concession with that object to an Anglo-Hungarian syndicate; and if it is proposed to lay any Papers relating to the development of railways in Asia Minor before Parliament.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Her Majesty's Government are aware that proposals have been made to the Turkish Government for a railway of the kind described. But we are not informed that the proposals have been accepted. There

  505
  are no recent Papers on the subject of railway development in Asia Minor which could usefully be laid before Parliament, but Her Majesty's Ambassador has his attention fully directed to this question.

  DANUBE NAVIGATION DUES.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the navigation dues proposed to be levied at the Iron Gates of the Danube by the Austro-Hungarian Government, under the European treaties affecting the navigation of the river, have now been published, and if Her Majesty's Government have been consulted; and if the attention of the Foreign Office has been directed to the observations of Mr. Acting-Consul General Liddell, in his report of 12th June 1899, page 7, on the probable effect of these dues on British capital and trade in Roumania.
  MR. BRODRICK: The tariff of these dues has been published, and will come into force on the 1st of September next. As I informed the noble Lord on the 2nd of May last, the tariff in question was submitted for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and was not considered to be in violation of any treaty rights. Mr. Liddell's report was published by the Foreign Office. The general effect of the new dues upon British trade, shipping, and capital has, however, been carefully considered in connection with reports from other quarters.

  RED SEA LIGHTS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office have information that the Porte will at an early period procure the establishment of the four lights so long desired at the southern end of the Red Sea; and if any steps are yet being taken to establish one or more lights in the Gulf of Aden.
  MR. BRODRICK: An arrangement has been come to between the Turkish Government and the Turkish Lighthouse Administration for the construction and maintenance of the proposed lights, and in pursuance of this arrangement a scheme of dues on shipping has now beer brought forward by the Porte for the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government
  506
  and the other Powers interested. This scheme is inconsistent with the information furnished in reply to my right hon. friend's question of 11th of May last; and Her Majesty's Government are considering what answer should be returned to the Turkish proposals. The Government of India have been requested to prepare, for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, a scheme for the erection of a lighthouse on the island of Socotra.

  BRITISH INDIANS IN JAPAN.
  SRI WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State: or Foreign Affairs whether British Indians are wholly excluded from the benefits of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation which was entered into between Great Britain and Japan on the 16th July, 1894, and has recently come into operation; if so, what are the reasons for this exclusion; what is now the position, since the treaty came into operation, of British Indians travelling and trading in Japan; and, whether it is proposed to take any steps to extend the benefits of the treaty to British India.
  MR. BRODRICK: Negotiations are in progress with the Japanese Government for the accession of India to the treaty.

  DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor-General if he will state whether the words "any school," in Section 4, Sub-section (8), of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, which is incorporated in Clause 12 of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill now before Parliament, include a public elementary school duly certified by the Education Department as suitable for the purposes of the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): The words "any school," in Section 4, Subsection (8), of the Elementary Education Act, 1893, apply to public elementary schools as well as to others.

  THE TRANSVAAL FRANCHISE.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether British Uitlanders who

  507
  will avail themselves of the facilities to obtain the franchise in the Transvaal now being provided by the South African Republic will on returning to their native country be in the position of aliens, and will have to reside nearly six years in this country before they can obtain the franchise here; whether during that period of exclusion they will be ineligible as Members of Parliament, county and municipal councils, and every other local authority; and whether Her Majesty's Government will apprise the British Uitlanders that these serious disqualifications will result from the renunciation of allegiance to the British Crown.
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: I am not in a position to answer the first and second paragraphs of this question until a definite statement of the nature of the facilities to be granted for obtaining the franchise in the Transvaal has been obtained. The papers which have been published contain full information upon the general question referred to in the third paragraph of the question.
  MR. NUSSEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing a Bill next session to enable British citizens who have lost their rights in this country owing to their absence abroad——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That hardly arises out of the question.

  OVERTIME IN THE JAM INDUSTRY.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he will modify his Order as to overtime in factories and workshops in which the washing of bottles is carried on, so as to prevent any risk of its being held in law to apply, contrary to his wish, in the case of the washing of bottles in jam factories.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,: I am quite clear that the Order referred to does not apply to jam factories, and I cannot think that there is any risk of its being held in law to do so. The Factory Department will see that it is not made use of in jam factories.

  MARGARINE MANUFACTORIES.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a Return of Margarine Manufacturers (in continuation of the Return of Session 1892), moved for some two mnnths ago, has not yet been made to the House; and if he could explain to the House how he intends to set the new Act in motion, should it become law, when the local authorities are unwilling, or unable, to make such a Return as the one ordered within two months of the Order of the House.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture is detained elsewhere, and has asked me to read his answer as follows:—
  "I am aware of the fact to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think it need be concluded there from that we shall experience any great difficulty in securing the efficient working of the sale of Food and Drugs Bill when it becomes law. A certain amount of delay in the presentation of a Return is not unlikely to occur when information has to be obtained from several hundred sources in all three divisions of the United Kingdom."

  PROVISIONAL ORDER PROCEDURE.
  MR. CLARE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is usual for the Board, after a local inquiry between two or more local authorities, to give notice to each opposing authority of the granting and issue for confirmation by Parliament of the consequent Provisional Order, if any; and, if so, for what reason, after the inquiry held in Manchester on the 17th of February, 1899, as to giving power for acquiring land in Flixton for sewage disposal, no notice of the Board's intention to issue an Order was given to the Flixton Parish Council, who appeared on the inquiry as opponents of the scheme.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,: When a Provisional Order of the kind referred to is issued, copies of it are forthwith served on the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the lands proposed to be purchased under it, and this was done in the case mentioned in the question. But beyond this, it is not usual to give notice of the issue

  509
  of the Order to opponents of the application for it.

  VACCINATION IN SOMERSETSHIRE.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the increase in the number of children certified as successfully vaccinated in the Axbridge Union of the county of Somerset during the first six months of the present year as against a similar period of 1898; and whether he can state the figures.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It appears from the Return which has been made to the Local Government Board that the number of certificates of successful primary vaccination received by the vaccination officers of the Axbridge Union in the first six months of 1898 was 81, and during the first six months of the present year 415ߞan increase of 334, or over 400 per cent.

  EDINBURGH MUSEUM ATTENDANT.
  MR. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the late William Samuel, an attendant for thirty three years in Edinburgh Museum, was retired on a pension of £52 1s. 6d. per annum in January last, and that he died in April, leaving a widow, and without having received any portion of his pension; whether he has been informed that the said William Samuel surrendered as pension equivalent from his weekly wage sums amounting in all to £58 9s. 4d.; whether he is aware that on April 12th, 1892, the Royal Commission on Civil Service issued a report recommending that in the event of the death of a pensioner before the amount received in pension has reached the whole of the sum deducted from his pay during his service, his representatives should receive the difference between such total deductions and the amount received as pension; whether he has been informed that the widow of the said William Samuel has made application, in terms of said recommendation, to have the sum of £58 9s. 4d, the pension equivalent deducted from her husband's pay, refunded to her, and that this application has been refused; and whether he will now take such steps as he may consider necessary to have the Royal Commission's recommendation
  510
  carried out, and Mrs. Samuel's husband's money refunded to her.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The other paragraphs should be addressed to the Secretary of Her Majesty's Treasury.

  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Report of the trustees of the National Library of Ireland (Kildare Street, Dublin) for 1898 will be laid before Parliament: whether he is aware that the present building is inadequate for the increasing number of books; whether there is any intention to raise the grant of £1,300, given for the purchase of books, as this is the only library in Ireland similar to the British Museum; and whether the Government will comply with the urgent request of the trustees by increasing the staff of attendants and assistant librarians, and generally improving the position of the library for the benefit of the many students who frequent it.
  SIR J. GORST: The Report of the trustees of the National Library of Ireland is published as part of the Report of the Science and Art Department, which will be in the hands of Members shortly. I am aware that further accommodation is required, and application has been made to the Board of Works for the completion of the unfinished wing of the building. A new room has recently become available, and this will in some degree mitigate the pressure. The grant was increased from £1,000 to £1,300 a year for the financial year 1898–9, and for the four following years. It is not probable that any further increase can be made at present. In reply to the concluding paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I find that the staff of attendants has been increased by four since September, 1896, two of whom were added as lately as April last.

  VACCINATION IN SOUTH UIST.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advo-

  511
  cate whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to a resolution passed by the South Uist Parish Council on the 19th instant, asserting that the children whose cases formed the subject of the charges in respect of which Dr. Lamont was in March last unanimously acquitted by an Inverness jury have not been effectively vaccinated, and directing their clerk to take legal steps to have the certificates of vaccination reduced and rescinded and the entries in the parish registers relating to them deleted with a view of placing the names of the children and their parents on the list of defaulters; whether, before spending the money of the ratepayers in litigation with a view to compelling the parents of these children under penalty of fine or imprisonment to submit their children to revaccination, any attempt has been made by the parish council to ascertain whether they object to the operation in any cases in which the medical officer may consider that operation desirable; in how many of the sixteen cases vaccinated by Dr. Lamont, and alleged by the parish council not to have been effectually vaccinated, the local authorities had allowed the statutory age to elapse prior to Dr. Lamont's appointment without taking any steps to enforce vaccination; and whether, in case it should appear that the legal proceedings threatened are vindictive and unnecessary, the official auditor has power to protect the ratepayers by surcharging the members of the parish council with the costs incurred.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): As regards the first, second, and third paragraphs of the question, the Local Government Board have no information except what has been derived from the newspapers, and cannot, therefore, at present either affirm or deny the accuracy of the statements made. As to the last paragraph, the Official Auditor in Scotland has no power of surcharge, his duty being limited to reporting to the Local Government Board any payments which he may consider illegal. The question as to surcharging or not depends upon the Board, and it is impossible to pronounce an opinion till the facts are known.

  SCOTTISH LAW'S DELAYS.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has
  512
  been called to the great inconvenience caused in Scotland in the long delay in giving judgment in recent cases of great importance appealed from Scotland; and whether he can suggest any method of removing the grievance.
  MR. A. GRAHAMMURRAY: I believe that the case to which I understand the hon. Member to refer has now been disposed of. It is unavoidable that from fortuitous circumstances delay should sometimes occur in a particular case, but I am not aware of any general grievance which calls for a remedy.

  CHARGE AGAINST BELFAST CONSTABLES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary on duty in Chichester Street, Belfast, on the 20th inst., were charged by a city official with being drunk, and were immediately placed under arrest and brought to the Belfast Police Office, where they were paraded before superior officers and found to be perfectly sober; and whether the city official has offered any reparation to the constables for the false charge made against them; and, if not, whether the constables will be allowed to have recourse to ordinary civil remedies, open to other Citizens in similar cases.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Lord Mayor of Belfast, who is the official referred to, has admitted that he made a mistake, and expressed his regret for what has happened. The character of the constables has been fully cleared, and I do not consider this is a case in which permission should be given to institute civil proceedings.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this decision, and allow these two constables, who were arrested when on duty on the charge of being drunk, whereas they are now admitted to have been perfectly sober, and were marched to the police office, to have recourse to the same remedy as every citizen——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is arguing the question on the Paper. It has been fully answered.
  MR. DAVITT: Do I understand the official referred to was the Lord Mayor of Belfast?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact he had just come out from a banquet to Mr. Is may?
  No answer was given.

  FARM SALES IN ULSTER.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the true value fixed upon the farm of James Chisholm, near Whitehouse, Belfast, on the application of the landlord, at £480, by the County Court Judge of County Antrim, whether he is aware that the farm was sold by public auction for £900, and on appeal to the Land Commission the highest bidder at the public sale swore he was still prepared to give for the lands upwards of £900, and a gentleman named Mr. Rice swore then he (Mr. Rice) was willing to give £1,000 for same; whether notwithstanding this evidence, and the fact that a judicial rent had been fixed thereon, the Chief Commission decided that £675 was the true value of this farm for which £1,000 had been offered in open court; and if the law will be amended so as to enable the farmers of Ulster and Ireland to secure for their farms offered for sale the full price instead of only a portion of it.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs. The Land Commission Court judically decreed that the true value of the tenancy was £675. The rent of the holding was £40. In reply to the last paragraph, it is not my intention to make a proposal for altering the law with respect to the true value of a holding as between landlord and tenant.

  FAIR RENT APPEALS IN COUNTY ANTRIM.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cases of fair rent appeals from County Antrim were heard by the Chief Land Commissioners during their last sitting at Belfast; in how many of these cases were the appeals made by the landlords; and in how many of them
  514
  were the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners increased by the Chief Commissioners. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of fair rent appeals heard by the Chief Land Commission during its recent sitting at Belfast; in how many cases have their decisions been given; and in what number have the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners been confirmed, reduced, and increased respectively.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed that the number of fair rent appeals heard by the Land Commissioners at their recent sitting in Belfast was eighty-four—all of which were from the County Antrim and in all of which the landlords were the appellants. In twenty-four of these cases the rents fixed by the Assistant Commissioners were confirmed; in two cases they were reduced; and in fifty-six cases they were increased. The remaining two cases had been dismissed by order of the Assistant Commissioners, which Orders were confirmed on appeal.

  RULES OF SUPPLY.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to ask the House to close the Committee of Supply at the earliest possible date, or whether, having regard to the large number of Votes undiscussed, and to the fact that on some of the allotted days the House adjourned at an early hour, he will, without exceeding the number of allotted days, give additional time in the present session to Supply
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg, at the same time, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, inasmuch as no less than seventy-three Votes in Supply remain to be taken, and only one more day of effective discussion in respect of these Votes is left, he will consider, before again moving the Sessional Order with respect to Supply, whether such modification in its terms or working is possible as will secure to the House the efficient discharge of its function of criticism and control of the policy and expenditure of the Administrative Departments.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer

  515
  these two questions at the same time. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Baronet states, that on two of the allotted days the House adjourned before twelve o'clock, but on two other of the allotted days it sat beyond twelve o'clock. On no day, however, have we adjourned early except under conditions which convinced us we should probably get more money by taking that course. Every gentleman acquainted with procedure in this House knows that sometimes you get a great deal in a short time by promising not to sit a long time; therefore I need not dwell upon that fact. I think that if we did adjourn before midnight on those two ocasions the result was not to diminish the number of Votes taken but to increase it. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, it is perfectly true that there are more outstanding Votes at the present time than I should desire, and I hope a great many will be disposed of before the hour for the closure arrives; but I would remind hon. Gentleman that, as far as I know, except the Colonial Vote, which is coming on tomorrow, every great Department of State has passed in review before the House—the Board of Agriculture must also be excepted—and that of the seventy-three Votes left a good many of them, and those the most important, represent Votes not indeed carried by the House, but Votes which have been discussed, and in some instances very fully discussed, by the House. Of course I am anxious to diminish the number of those Votes, but when I try to make an arrangement to carry out that object I am not very earnestly seconded by Gentlemen in other quarters of the House. For instance, I proposed that some uncontroversial Votes should be taken to-morrow before the Colonial Vote. That proposal met with a good deal of opposition from individual Members opposite. I have since received an intimation from the Leader of the Opposition, which I am bound to consider, that he thought that course would be inconvenient. I have accordingly abandoned that course and consented that the Colonial Vote shall be the first. The result may be that we shall not get the other Votes, or else have to sit up very late to get them. I hope the House will second me in getting those uncontroversial Votes, and in thus diminishing the
  516
  number of Votes outstanding before we come to the final day. I am asked whether we have any suggestion to make with regard to a reform of the rule. I think the rule as now set out is one which has already met with a general meed of approval, and I do not think the House will consent to abandon it; but I will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer arid the Secretary of the Treasury, and I think it might be possible to carry out the suggestion of a Committee which sat on this subject in. 1888 and to alter the forms of the Estimates so as to diminish the number of Votes to be taken. I believe that would be a convenient course, and if it met with the general assent of the House, or with the assent of a large number of Members, I think we should find it easier to get through the Estimates more smoothly next session. Other suggestions have been made, and I have adumbrated some of them, but I doubt whether they have received general approval. The House will not readily, I think, consent to alter the rule which says that Supply must be concluded within a fixed time, and that, roughly, it must be taken once a week. I appeal to the hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House who have this rule and all that depends upon it at heart to assist in obtaining as many Votes as possible before the last day on which Supply can be discussed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion of the Committee in 1888 to diminish the number of Votes in Supply did not meet with entire approval, and it was resolved that it could not be carried out until sanctioned by the Committee of Public Accounts?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not prepared to say that was not so, but I would remind the hon. Member that that was before the new rules of Supply came into force.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole subject of the number of Votes was referred to the Public Accounts Committee, who adopted a modified plan which did considerably reduce the number of Votes, and its decision was unanimously accepted by the House of Commons?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the First Lord of the Treasury anything to say with regard to the business for next week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that to-morrow I may be able to give the right hon. Gentleman some indication regarding the business next week.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is there any intention of holding a Saturday sitting?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
MR. BROADHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what his hopes are as to the Lords Lunacy Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very small.
MR. MCKENNA: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Indian Budget?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the Indian Budget will, as usual, be taken on the day the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill is put down.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
Ordered, That the several accounts and papers which have been presented to the House in this session of Parliament relating to the revenues of India be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the Whole House.
Resolved, That this House will upon Monday resolve itself into the said Committee.—(Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1897–8.
Committee to consider the Savings and Deficiencies upon Navy and Army Grants for 1897–8, and the temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to the Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, To-morrow.
Ordered, that the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented upon the 15th day and the 13th day of February last respectively be referred to the Committee.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBTS.)
Committee to consider of authorising the Remission of certain Debts due to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland in pursuance of any Act of the present session relating to Public Works Loans (Queen's Recommendation signified),upon Monday next.—(Mr. Hanbury.)
AGED DESERVING POOR.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 296.)
ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
With an Amendment.
WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  With Amendments.

COLONIAL LOANS BILL.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): In asking leave to introduce a Bill to authorise certain public loans to certain colonies or places, I have to point out that for more than a year there has been a Bill before the House, under the title of the Colonial Loans Fund Bill, for the purpose of establishing a fund similar to the Local Loans Fund, out of which loans may be made by separate Bills to Crown colonies. I was sanguine we might be able not only to pass that Bill in the present session, but also a Bill which my right hon. friend the First Lord described as a daughter Bill authorising certain loans out of the Colonial Loans Fund; but, unfortunately, for some reasons which I find it rather difficult to understand, a good deal of opposition to the Colonial Loans Fund Bill has manifested itself in certain quarters of the House.

519
It is a Bill which does nothing more than provide certain machinery for making loans, and itself authorises no loan whatever; but in making inquiries I gather it is felt to be a new departure of considerable importance; and the proposed Amendments to it are such that it is perfectly obvious that it would be impossible to pass the measure during the limited time that remains of the present session as well as another measure authorising loans to certain colonies. The Bill, as I have said, has been before Parliament more than a year, and, on account of the probability of early legislation, the Crown Agents for the colonies, who have long been entrusted with the issue of loans on behalf of the Crown colonies, have withheld issuing loans for more than a year and a half in the hope of their being provided through the machinery of the Colonial Loans Fund Bill. The result is that there is now a considerable accumulation of such loans. These loans cannot now be issued in the ordinary way, or the market would be glutted. Therefore, although the Government are very reluctantly obliged to say they are unable to proceed this session with the Colonial Loans Fund Bill, I now ask leave to introduce a daughter Bill, substituting only for the purpose of those particular loans the Local Loans Fund as the source from which the money shall be provided. The Bill which I now propose contains a list of loans amounting to a total sum of £3,351,000. I may say briefly that there are loans, already announced, to Barbados and St. Vincent to aid them in meeting the damage done by the hurricane. Then there are loans to Cyprus for irrigation, the construction of a light railway, and the repair of the harbour at Famagusta; to the Malay States, for the construction of railways to connect existing lines which have proved largely remunerative; to the four West African colonies, for harbour works at Accra and Old Calabar, and for railways in the Gold Coast, Lagos, and Sierra Leone, parts of which have already been constructed, and show every indication of a very considerable traffic; to Jamaica, for sanitary improvements and waterworks at Kingston, and for completing the railway and providing it with sufficient rolling stock to deal with the existing traffic; also in aid of revenue and for arrears of interest to the railway debenture holders; to Trinidad, for improving the harbour and pier, with which
520
the Government railways are connected, and a small sum of £52,000 for public works and roads in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The maximum amount to be lent in each case and its object will be stated in the schedule to the Bill. It will rest with the Treasury, in concert with the Secretary for the Colonies, to decide in each case the rate of interest to be charged and the period for repayment. But the Bill provides that the rate of interest shall in no case be less than 2¾ per cent. and the term of repayment not longer than fifty years, according to the purposes of the loan. The Treasury will not concede in any case better terms to a colony than are given to local authorities in the United Kingdom, and in some cases, at any rate, they ought to pay more. Of course, before any loan is sanctioned the colony to which it is to be made will have to provide, to the satisfaction of the Treasury, for meeting the payments for interest and sinking fund of the loan. That describes the Bill I ask leave to introduce, and I need hardly add that any further explanation desired will be given in its future stages.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: From the right hon. Gentleman's description of it the Bill appears to be of a complicated character. Are we to understand that these are all Crown Agents' loans and not new loans undertaken by the right hon. Gentleman or under his supervision or authority? Even so they are numerous, and the House knows so little about them that I think to introduce a large and varied programme of financial procedure within sound of the knell of the session is a rather unusual proceeding. Because this Bill takes the place of another which was very much contested, the right hon. Gentleman must not expect that it will simplify matters too much. I myself am afraid it will be subjected to such a degree of discussion that the prospect of its passing into law—unless it proves much simpler than we imagine—will not be very bright.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: There are only two clauses in it.

COLONIAL LOANS.
Bill to authorise certain public Loans to certain Colonies or places, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hanbury.
COLONIAL LOANS BILL.
"To authorise certain public Loans to certain Colonies or places," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 294.]
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE.
Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
"To continue various Expiring Laws," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 295.]

ROYAL NIGER COMPANY BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time"
MR. PIRIE: I cannot allow this Bill to be read the third time without making a few observations upon it. I will only detain the House for one minute. In 1897 the dividend paid on the stock of the Royal Niger Company amounted to £29,620 16s., or 6 per cent.; in 1898 the dividend was exactly the same; in 1899, according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the dividend was still 6 per cent. In 1897 the £10 shares in the company stood in the market at £10 per share. In 1898 these shares had gone up to £14; in 1899 the same shares arc quoted in the market at from £19 to £21, or actually double the amount they were two years ago. In other words the market price of half a million stock has increased to a million. What has been the new factor to explain this sudden rise in the price of the shares? No new factor has been vouchsafed to this House beyond the following—that this year the Government, a
522
member of which is a shareholder, have been negotiating with the company the terms of the compensation for the abrogation of the company's charter. The result of these negotiations is that the Government are paying back to the company the whole of their capital plus a bonus of £100,000, and at the same time are relieving the company of liabilities amounting to £24,000 a year for administration, while still leaving the company the whole of their trading profits.
MR. BUCHANAN: There are one or two observations which I should like to make on this Bill before it passes the Third Reading. They have nothing to do with the financial aspect of the question, and, for my part, I do not feel that I am fully able to judge of the terms made by Her Majesty's Government. On the whole, the company has deserved well of the country, and its administrative conduct can be pointed to with some pride. I should like, however, to have seen the Colonial Secretary present, because the question I wish to ask relates to the future administration of the country, and not to the financial proposals of the Bill. There were two questions to which I particularly directed attention at the time of the Second Reading, viz., the importation of spirits into the Niger territory and the status of slavery, and I rise to suggest that the Colonial Secretary should follow the example of the company, and abolish slavery both in Southern and Northern Nigeria; and that he should also give an assurance that proper restrictions will be placed upon the importation of spirits into those territories. With regard to the latter question, I believe it has been stated more than once that the cry got up against the company for maintaining a monopoly was largely due to the interests of spirit exporters in this country, and that it was because of the policy pursued by the Niger Company in discouraging and prohibiting, as far as they could, the importation of bad spirits, that a feeling was engendered against them. We want to be sure that the arrangements made by the Colonial Office will be as effective in diminishing the importation of spirits as the regulations of the Niger Company have been. The Colonial Secre-

523
tary has told us that in Northern Nigeria itself the importation of spirits is still to be prohibited; but he would not say, in reply to a question of mine, whether it was to be prohibited by legislation or administrative decree or otherwise. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces some doubt in my mind, because I gather there is to be a customs duty of 3s. a gallon, and spirits will come from territories adjoining as well as from the part of Nigeria that belongs to ourselves. I should like to know what provision is to be made against the importation of spirits from French and German possessions. The Colonial Secretary told us he was engaged in considering a large number of ordinances which were to be made for the purpose of carrying out the proper prohibition of the importation of spirits in Northern Nigeria and generally for the regulation of tariff. I hope those will be laid upon the Table of the House when they have been settled between the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial authorities, because I am bound to state that the neutral zone about which he spoke is one which I find it very difficult to understand. I cannot comprehend how it is to operate in keeping out spirits. We were told that within the neutral zone spirits might be sold but not carried through. I think the probability would be that the inhabitants of Northern Nigeria who wanted the spirits would all flock into this neutral zone, and it would become rather a zone of hard drinking. There was another question I put to the Colonial Secretary to which he did not reply. I asked whether the Niger Company had been able effectively to control the importation of spirits into that territory, not merely by imposing a higher duty than neighbouring colonies, but also by the fact that they imposed a heavy annual licence upon all those who sold spirits in the territory. I understand that an annual sum of £100 had to be paid for the licence. In that way the Niger Company knew very well that the man to whom they entrusted the sale of these spirits was a person upon whom they could rely, or if he failed in his duty they could prevent a renewal of the licence. I asked whether under the new system of government that kind of licensing system would be continued, but no reply was given. Seeing the success which attended that system, it would be of the greatest convenience to know
524
before this Bill passes whether it is to be continued. There are wider questions connected with the action taken by the House in this matter than the mere question of the amount of money to be paid to this company, and it is the duty of this House to see that as far as possible proper restrictions are put upon those two evils, viz., the continued existence of slavery and the importation of spirits. I think it would be a great satisfaction to the House if before the Debate concludes we could get some assurance upon these points.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the conclusion yesterday evening that the company had made a somewhat good bargain. He did not say so, but in these matters we have not absolutely to hear what a Minister says, but to observe the effect of arguments upon his countenance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a most expressive countenance, and I think he fully realised that we were justified in discussing the matter, and that the company had got the best of it. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer almost admitted it. He started the discussion upon a business basis, contending that what we were giving to the company was only right and legitimate and proper from a business standpoint. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was driven from that position, and had to fall back upon generalities about countries having to be exceedingly generous in dealing with companies, and about these gentlemen connected with the company having been such eminent patriots, and having done such very great service to the country at large, that we ought not to look too closely into figures. I venture, with all respect, to entirely differ from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that matter. I think it is a matter of pure business when we take over a company of this sort, and if we want to have an item for patriotism let us put it down at the bottom of the account—so much for assets, so much for so and so, and so much for "moral and intellectual" advantages, after the manner of President Kruger, that have accrued to the country from the action of the company.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): Damages.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, I should like to claim damages, moral and intellectual, taking it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's standpoint. I confess that the gentlemen connected with this company are very different from the gang that had to do with the South African business; but, after all, they are business men, and I apprehend that they are actuated by the usual feeling of a human being when he enters into business, viz., to acquire money. Certainly, these gentlemen have shown themselves exceedingly astute and clever in the matter of making money; they have shown themselves particularly clever in the accounts which they have submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the way in which they have hoodwinked that most able financier. It is desirable that we should understand precisely what is proposed to be done, and I have jotted down what really is the amount we are giving and for what we are giving it. The capital of the company consists of £443,350 in shares. This capital is made up of a sum of £195,000 fully paid up shares, which were given to a French company for their assets; by £115,000 for the goodwill of that company; by issue of shares £133,000, but of this £133,000 they wore returned 30 per cent, in the shape of certain bonds which they could sell in the market. Consequently these patriotic gentlemen themselves laid out of their own money a sum of loss than £100,000. They then obtained a charter. The charter granted them certain privileges, and against these privileges they were bound to pay all the administrative and police expenditure. They at once commenced to keep two accounts, one administrative and the other trading. The administrative accounts show that they lost on an average about £20,000 per annum, the loss on the last year, 1897, being £22,000. The trading accounts show a very different result. From their profits they paid 6 per cent, upon their shares, and from the1897 trading account it will be seen that, after deducting what is owing to them, they have, inclusive of their lands and buildings, which they retain, a sum of £416,317, made up in part of cash at bankers, in part of bills receivable, and very largely
526
in part of goods for sale that they have either in the country, or on the seas going to the country. The charter not only did not give these people a monopoly, but it specifically declared in the fourteenth clause that they were to have no monopoly. That clause was a reproduction of the conditions we had agreed to in the final act of the Conference of Berlin. We had pledged ourselves absolutely not to give any species of monopoly; we had specifically declared that the Niger was to remain open to the navigation and the trade not only of the citizens of this country, but of the citizens of every other country. The company, however, managed to get behind this definite statement of the fourteenth clause, and by a system of sharp practice they did establish a monopoly. That is shown by the fact that according to the last balance-sheet the company paid in customs duties for exports and imports £111,775, while all other companies and all other British citizens paid £260. In fact, it is admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they established a monopoly. That is the position of the company. What are we paying to the company? We first of all issue a loan, and I have never yet discovered how the loan is to be converted into cash. This loan is, to a great extent, simply a mode of keeping books. The company call it a loan, but it is simply a balance in their hands from profits acquired, upon which they charge interest to themselves and pay the interest to themselves. All that has been issued to the public of this loan has been issued without any cash payments, and I find that the shareholders received 30 per cent, of this loan against no species of payment. If you take the two sums, that is, the amount in the hands of the company and the amount of the 30 per cent, which was given on this £443,000, I think it will be found that they issued none of this loan to the public, and they have received no cash in regard to this loan. There is a clause that they are to be paid back in 1938, and so excellent is this loan that we propose to give them a bonus of 20 per cent. We give £115,000 for a portion of certain administrative assets belonging to the company, although the total assets are valued by the company at only £113,000. We are actually giving more than the company has told the shareholders all their assets are worth. Take the item of ships.

527
My hon. friend, the Member for Gateshead, has told us that the company took care to keep the ships that are of any value, and what they sell us are a few old hulks. No doubt we could prove the same thing in regard to other assets. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the fact that we only get half or two-thirds of the assets, and the company seem to have had the pick of the assets. The next item is a sum of£150,000 given for any benefit the company may have in certain lands, mining rights, treaties, administrative stations, and wharves, and compensation for the dislocation of business. I have been anxious to get to know what this land can be, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was surprised to find that it was not land which they possessed at all. It seems to me a very extraordinary thing that they should get a right to the land on both sides of the river for£500. With regard to these lands it has been shown that the company have simply obtained some vague rights of pre-emption, and they have the right to purchase the land against any other individual or company. I may point out that there is a very wide difference between the right of pre-emption and a title to the land itself, and if we buy the land we shall have to pay for it, the only difference being that we have a right over other people. As to the mining rights, the main one is the right of mining in the Empire of Sokoto. This remarkable treaty with the Emperor of Sokoto is not put in, and I gather that really nothing is paid down to the Emperor. We pay him some£300 or£400 a year for recognising us as the paramount power, but I can hardly suppose that the Emperor gave these mining rights to the company as a present, because the company assert that the value of these rights is£1,000 sterling. If they did obtain these rights as a present, they undoubtedly robbed that prince in the most audacious and scandalous fashion. What does "dislocation of business" mean? The company obtained a monopoly, but they would not have been able to continue that monopoly, and we are literally paying for a monopoly which the company have acquired in defiance of the terms of their charter. The fact of the charter having been broken for so many years would give us the right to abrogate the charter, instead of which the Government choose rather
528
to pay this unjust sum of money. There is an amount of£300,000 which represents sums advanced in excess of revenue from customs. The revenue from customs was not sufficient to cover the administrative expenditure, and so they took the money from the trading account. The company had got the charter and certain rights, which seem to have been remunerative, and therefore they were bound to pay the administrative expenses. But because they choose to make two accounts they come and tell us that we have to pay them back all this money in excess. They cannot plead in formâ pauperis, because during the whole time they have had this monopoly, which they got by sharp practice, they have been able to make a large amount of money for themselves. What do we get for this large sum of money? We are simply buying the privilege of paying a deficit each year in the administrative expenditure. We take over the administrative expenditure, and leave the trading business to the company. The cost is £22,000 per annum, and that is a sum we are asked for. I maintain that instead of paying this sum we ought to charge the company something for doing this for them and relieving them of the burden. While this Bill has been under discussion a Supplementary Estimate has been put in by the Colonial Secretary, in which he asks for the sum of£75,000 per annum. The Colonial Secretary told us plainly that he did not anticipate that this would be a good paying concern for some time, and he seemed to think that it might be a good paying concern if he diverted all the trade from Europe to these inland territories which passed along our seaboard. That may be or may not be, but we know that when trade has got into one particular line it takes years to divert it into another channel, and it is a very off chance that this country will ever pay us, or pay even its own administrative expenses. The result of these negotiations is shown in the price of the company's shares. It is a positive fact that in 1897 the£10 shares of this company were quoted at£10. At that time the company had strong friends in the House of Commons, and the public thought it would be a good thing to buy the shares. At the present time those£10 shares are quoted at£20, that is to say, the shares have gone up 100 per cent. No great divi-

529
dends have been paid during that time, but what has occurred? Why nothing has occurred, except these negotiations and this agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that has enhanced the price. Suppose anybody were to come forward to buy up any of the gas or water companies in London? If the shares were at a certain price before the negotiations commenced, and if the result of those negotiations were that the shares went up 100 percent., would anybody say that that was a fair and legitimate price? They would undoubtedly say that we are paying 100 per cent, more than the public believe those shares to be worth. It is, therefore, obvious that we are paying too much, and this is all the more so because we are leaving to the company practically all the valuable assets which they possessed before. It is said that we ought not to take private property without paying its actual value, but what happens in England? Suppose you want to bring in a Bill giving power to the London County Council to buy certain houses. The value of those houses is estimated, and the owner is given 10 per cent. for dislocation of business. Now if the value of this company's assets had been fairly and legitimately estimated, and it was proposed to pay them 10 par cent. over and above that amount for dislocation of business, I should not have complained. But by all this hanky-panky business of buying up excess of expenditure on administration over what is received by the customs, we are really paying, not twice as much as we ought to pay, but almost three times as much. If you really calculate the thing it amounts to this, that we are relieving this company of the obligations they have had up to the present, and we are allowing them to retain nearly the whole of their property. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire referred to the liquor question. It seems to me we ought to have some undertaking with reference to the laws regulating the liquor traffic. We were given to understand that the great aim and object of the British people was to prevent liquor getting into the hands of the natives, and that its sale would be prohibited altogether were it not that the frontiers of other countries adjointed our territory, and that liquor would be smuggled in and sold at a cheaper price. The Colonial Secretary has, however, thrown an
530
entirely new light on what he intends to be the policy of the Government. He told us that it was absolutely necessary in order to obtain trade in that part of the world to pay a certain proportion of the exchange for the products of the country in liquor, and that that was the reason why he could not put an end to the sale of liquor altogether. That throws a new light on the question. It appears that in this valuable property trade is only to be obtained by providing these unfortunate natives with a sufficient supply of liquor to enable them to get drunk. That is a new and very serious view of the matter. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire asked also what was to be done with regard to Northern Nigeria. Liquor is to be imported into Southern Nigeria, but it is to be forbidden altogether in Northern Nigeria. There may be a zone between the two in which liquor might be sold though not stored, but it is certain to dribble into Northern Nigeria from Southern Nigeria, just as it dribbles in from the possessions of other Powers. It is said that the natives of Sokoto, being Mohammedans, do not want liquor. Well, we are supposed to be Christians in this country, and yet a great many Christians, drink a great deal too much. I have been in Mohammedan countries myself, and I know that a great many Mohammedans when they get a chance drink to their hearts' content. But all these natives are not Mohammedans. The Mohammedans settled in the country as the ruling race, but the mass of the natives belong to another religion and they would not be adverse, if they got the chance, to taking drink. If we are told that our only chance of maintaining the trade of Northern Nigeria is to be able to have a sort of currency in gin, where is trade to come from in Sokoto if you cannot pay in the same currency? I think the Colonial Secretary forgot that, and that he ought before this Bill passes to give us a clear and explicit statement with regard to this liquor question, and also a clear and explicit statement on the question of slavery. The Colonial Secretary has just said that the legal status of slavery would not be recognised in the territories to be taken over. These territories contain thirty millions of human beings, fully one half of whom are at the present moment slaves. How are you going to convey to these

531
people that the legal status of slavery no longer exists? They know perfectly well that if they will not work, or if they run away and are brought back, they will be punished. What is the good of telling them that you do not recognise the status of slavery, though you recognise slavery in the sense that one man is made to work for another, and that if he runs away he will be punished? I think the Colonial Secretary ought to tell us that he is contemplating some plan to do away to a large extent with slavery, and not content himself with a mere pious opinion that the legal status of slavery will not be recognised. The Chancellor of the Exchequer attacked us yesterday because, as he said, we did not realise the advantage of taking over this empire of Sokoto. I should be very glad if we were without it. It seems to me we have a sufficient number of subject races to employ most of our means and resources. I by no means welcome as a delightful thing the fact that we are taking over thirty millions of natives, who will, I suppose, be called British subjects. I agree that under the circumstances in which we are placed, seeing the dangerous effect of retaining the charter in the hands of the company, and seeing that the charter has been violated, it is less dangerous that we should hold those territories direct rather than that they should be left in the hands of the company; but that is no reason why we should pay an excessive sum for them. It is on the financial aspect that we have attacked this Bill. We do not recognise the doctrine that we should act not on business lines, but on generous lines. We do not recognise that men should be paid, not for what they have got, but for their excellent patriotic intentions, views, and desires. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe he does his best to get the best bargain he can; but the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had to succumb—because he has himself almost admitted that we are paying too much on a fair commercial estimate, and he asks us to act on a vague generous principle—shows the influence which companies have in this House. We had an instance of that in the Telephone Company the other day, and here is another instance now. This system of lobbying is sapping the House of Commons, and companies expect to
532
get special terms because they have members in this House and in the Government. I think it is very desirable that the attention of the country should be called to this matter, and I consider that my friends and myself have done good service in making it clear to the country that these gentlemen connected with the Chartered Company are very powerful in this House and in the Government, and that they have got not only quite as much as they ought to have got, but more than twice as much as the selling price of their concern.
MR. DILLON: I am glad my hon. and gallant friend has expressed his intention of taking a Division against the Third Reading. The question now before us is whether we are going to vote against the Bill, the general principle of which most of us agree with, or whether we are going to consent to what it is evident to everyone in the House is a monstrous waste of public money. We are placed in this position, that we cannot get rid of the power of this company without consenting to this enormous amount of blackmail, for which not a shadow of justification has been given by the Government. If it were in my power to achieve it I would prefer to kill the Bill, and wait for another year, when perhaps the Government, benefiting by their experience and by the opinions expressed in this House, might make a better bargain. It cannot be too often repeated that all these patriotic men have risked is£160,000 in cash and no more, because all the rest of the stock of the company is not stock for which cash has been paid. What is the state of the company? They have paid for ten years under the charter dividends varying from 6 per cent. to 7 per cent., not on the£160,000 that they risked, but on a capital inflated to£550,000 by the issue of scrip; and after paying nearly 7 per cent. on this inflated stock for ten years they are now in possession by their own confession of assets over and above the assets which they propose to transfer to the Government amounting to nearly£500,000. Where is the hon. Member in this House who would not gladly embark in an enterprise which did so well as that? It is nothing short of an outrage that the

533
taxpayers of this country should be called upon to pay £850,000 into the coffers of a company which has done so extremely and remarkably well; and in my humble judgment, the claim to be generous might be met by half the sum provided in the Bill. It is rather remarkable that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deal with this whole matter from a business point of view, and on business principles, he should argue that we ought not to be niggardly on great questions of Empire, and that we should approach them not from a business point of view, but from a patriotic point of view. His argument was that those men risked their capital primarily for the extension of the British Empire, and not for any return in money. I have said nothing against Sir George Goldie or any of the directors. They may be most high-minded men. I see nothing to be ashamed of and nothing inconsistent with honour and honesty in their risking their money in order to secure dividends. That is perfectly fair; but they must stand on one leg or the other, and if their action is to be put down to patriotic motives, they should be content with small dividends, or no dividends at all. But if it is to be put down to ordinary human motives, and if they are acting as men of business, then they cannot claim that they are acting from motives of patriotism. I put a very clear test to this patriotism. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? One of the main things over which the dispute has arisen has been on the shadowy mineral rights, which may be of enormous value, but which may be of no value whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself declares that it is out of the power of any human being to form the faintest rough estimate of what these mineral rights are worth, or whether they will be worth absolutely nothing. They may be in the end another Rand or Transvaal. But this patriot, Sir George Goldie, who risked his money primarily not for paltry dividends, but for the honour and glory of this great Empire, when he was dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for a million of money for part of these mineral rights. Oh, what an ungenerous Chancellor of the Exchequer who refused to come to terms with this noble patriot who risked his money primarily for the honour and glory of the British Empire and the
534
British flag, who thought only in a minor degree of a return for his money—but who modestly asked for a million of money, and is staved off with the small sum of £115,000! Was ever a patriot so badly treated? I was really doing the Chancellor of the Exchequer an injustice, because if the mineral rights are worth nothing he gives £115,000 for them, and if they prove to be worth something he will have to pay enormous sums in royalties. So that the patriot did very well after all. These gentlemen may be all very patriotic; I do not deny it. But so far as concerns the starting of this African Company, they did it for the same purpose as men start a gas company or a gold mining company. They saw a good thing and they secured a monopoly of the trade of this district, in spite of the terms of the charter, and they have made great profits out of it. There is another point to which I wish once more to draw attention—and that is the accounts which have been submitted and which are most unsatisfactory. There was a most extraordinary change introduced into the method of keeping those accounts the moment the negotiations with the Government were entered into. In 1896, on the profit and loss account of the company the sum of £1,665 was carried to the general reserve account, which was almost the first start of this reserve fund. In the following year £25,963 was carried to the general reserve account, and in the year following that again £39,000 was carried to the general reserve fund, while only £36,000 was distributed in dividends. What is the meaning of that? Finally, last year more than half of the total income is carried to the general reserve account. We can only place one interpretation on such a proceeding—namely, that the company was doing so splendidly that they became ashamed of paying the dividends they had earned, and they were afraid that while they wore pretending to lose money the public opinion of this country would revolt against the absurdity of paying £865,000 for relieving them of the expense of administration. That is the last word I have got to say in regard to the accounts. But there is another point. We are called upon by this Bill to pay the company a sum of £300,000 for the accumulated deficit on the administration accounts extending over ten years. How did that deficit

535
arise? The administration account is separate from the trading account, and was intended to be supported under the charter by the duties on exports and imports charged on the Niger river. When there was found to be a deficit on the administration account all that the company had to do to balance it was to raise the duties, but as they were the only traders on the river the result would have been to slightly diminish trading profits. They kept the customs duties low in order to increase their trading profits and pay higher dividends.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The company were forbidden by the Foreign Office to increase the duties.
MR. DILLON: Well, the Foreign Office has a good deal to answer for. Of course, the Bill will be passed in spite of all we can do. This is not the first time in the history of this House—even in the recent history of the House—when a small body of members have resisted Bills of this kind, and their action was justified in a few years' time. I am old enough to remember—though I was not in the House then—when ten or twelve Irish Members, backed up by the right hon. Member for Bodmin, who, I am sorry to say, supports this Bill, resisted the Bill for the annexation of the Transvaal, for a whole night. And yet within a few years the whole country recognised that the small minority of ten Members was right, and that the large majority which supported the Government was wrong. I am not convinced, by all that has been said, that this chartered company's gift to the British nation is good rather than evil. I view with the greatest possible anxiety the recklessness with which the Government of this country undertakes to annex vast territories, largely unexplored, most unjustly obtained, and inhabited by multitudes of people about whose welfare it would be impossible for us to take any cognisance. Whatever I felt on this subject in the earlier stages of this Bill has been enormously increased in looking over the Papers which were issued yesterday in regard to war and disturbances in the territory of Sierra Leone. These papers show that in that district, which has been for a long time
536
under the direct administration of the Colonial Office, lives has been sacrificed, and almost whole territories have been devastated, and dreadful confusion created by an unjust and cruel hut tax. And we are now told that, in spite of the Special Commissioners' Report, the imposition of that tax will be persevered with, no matter what the people think, and what the consequences may be. Even in view of the wisdom and humanity which have been shown in the administration of the neighbouring territory of Lagos, I have no great confidence in the enormous improvement in the civilisation and condition of the people which we are told will follow the administration by the Colonial Office of these vast territories. While I base my opposition to this Bill chiefly and mainly on the monstrous sum we are asked to vote, and while I will vote against what I consider to be a gross levy of blackmail on the British taxpayer, I am also strongly opposed to these outrageous extensions of territory of the Empire, without any corresponding realisation on the part of the Government of their duty to these unhappy people who are passing under their sway. I conclude by protesting in the strongest possible way against the introduction at this period of the session of a Supplementary Estimate for £75,000. The first evidence of the value of the great property we are acquiring is that we have to vote £75,000 to keep it going for the next eight months! But it is introduced at a period of the session when the Colonial Office has made it absolutely sure that no opportunity would be given us to discuss the Vote. Finally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman for some information as to what measures the Government intend to take to protect themselves from being placed in the position of having to pay any claims that may be made by France against the company after they have parted with all this amount of money.
DR. CLARK: I shall vote with my hon. friend against this Bill, but not on the grounds which have been urged by my hon. friend. I quite agree that the price to be given is large; but if the price had been larger and we had got rid of the company, there would have been something to be said for it. But the monopoly will remain, and the malign influence of the company will remain for

537
ninety-nine years, although we are spending £865,000 in buying out their goodwill. From the time when an astute Scotsman went down and syndicated the West African merchants and got them into one pool, and then came here for the Royal Charter to keep everybody else from the Niger region, we have been hoodwinked. The 13th and 14th sections of the Charter have been entirely disregarded. They prevented anyone coming into the region, and they have used their monopoly in a way that caused a civil war not very long ago. And that monopoly of the whole trade, which from 1885 until now has been brought about by Mr. Miller's action, will continue, for no other persons will be able to get their hand into the Niger territory trade. Not only that, but for the next ninety nine years the growth and development of the colony will be seriously interfered with by the terms come to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to mining royalties. You are compelled to enforce a royalty upon all mining within the territory. We only used to enforce it on the royal metals, gold and silver, but now it is to be enforced on all, and that royalty you have to divide with the company for ninety-nine years, and by the contract you are entering into you will not be able to control your fiscal duties for ninety-nine years. The policy of the Government will militate against the development of the country. We all know that the growth of the Transvaal is due to the absence of the imposition of any royalties at all, and when royalties are imposed it will prevent the development of the mining industry. I shall not now discuss this question further, but will content myself with voting against the Third Reading, because I believe the policy of the Government would be as prejudicial to the well-being of the country in the future as the proceedings of the company have been in the past.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I do not wish to be considered lacking in courtesy to hon. Members by declining to make any reply to them, but I really think I could almost refer them to what I said yesterday with regard to the proposition we make. I quite admit that hon. Members below the gangway opposite regard the Bill from a totally different point of view to the Government, but they have done nothing
538
more to-night than reiterate what has been already said with what I might almost call tedious repetition. No fresh argument whatever has been raised. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire is in favour of the principle of the Bill, and of the revocation of the charter of the company, and he also attached great importance to the measures which the company have taken with regard to the legal status of slavery and the sale of liquor. The company is entitled to every credit for the policy it has pursued with regard to those matters. The hon. Member, however, so mistrusts the authority of the Crown, that he evidently believes that both as regards the legal status of slavery and the sale of liquor, the condition of the territories will be worse in the future than in the past. He cannot understand by what means the sale of liquor can be prohibited, or in what way the administration of the country can be improved by the action of the Government. There are possibilities of administration which are, perhaps, beyond the comprehension of the hon. Member. At any rate, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government have both these matters thoroughly at heart, and have every desire to continue the policy which has hitherto been pursued by the company. The hon. Members for Northampton, Caithness, and East Mayo have repeated their attacks upon me with regard to the price to be paid to the company. The hon. Gentlemen regard the matter from the point of view from which I have not been able to regard it. The hon. Member for Northampton tells us that the company has got the better of us, but I can only say it was never my belief that it was my duty, on behalf of the country, to endeavour to get the better of the company in this matter. I always thought my duty was to act fairly as between the taxpayers and the company, with the full understanding that the company has deserved well of the country, having regard to the fact that but for the action of the company the country would not be in possession of these territories. The hon. Member for East Mayo attacked the motives of those who founded the company, and who carried on its proceedings, and he declines to attribute to anybody else those patriotic motives which he claims for himself. I do not think I need

539
trouble the House with any further observations in reply to such statements, and I hope that the House will now read the Bill a third time.
MR. T. R O'CONNOR: I only rise to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has not answered the main question which was put by my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, as to what he is going to do with reference to the disputes between the company and France. That
is a matter which I certainly think requires some explanation.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I do not see that the hon. Gentleman can ask me either to repeat or extend what I have already said on the subject.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 81. (Division List, No. 309.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Maclure, Sir John William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Doxford, William Theodore

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Arnold, Alfred

Drucker, A.

M'Crae, George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Elliot Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Killop, James

Asher, Alexander

Fardell, Sir T. George

Malcolm, Ian

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finch, George H.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Fisher, William Hayes

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Milton, Viscount

Banbury, Frederick George

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Monk, Charles James

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Garfit, William

Morrell, George Herbert

Beach Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Gilliat, John Saunders

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

Beckett, Ernest William

Goldsworthy, Major General

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bethell, Commander

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J.(St. Geo. s

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Bigwood, James

Graham, Henry Robert

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bill, Charles

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Penn, John

Birrell, Augustine

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Percy, Earl

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hamond, Sir Chas. (Newcastle)

Pierpoint, Robert

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brassey, Albert

Heaton, John Henniker

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Purvis, Robert

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

Howard, Joseph

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Rentoul, James Alexander

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rickett, J. Compton

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ridley, Rt Hon Sir Matthew W.

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Kimber, Henry

Rothschild, Hon Lionel Walter

Charrington, Spencer

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Round, James

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Knowles, Lees

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Coddington, Sir William

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Ed. H.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Leighton, Stanley

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'nsea

Smith, Hon. W.F. D. (Strand)

Cranborne, Viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Spencer, Ernest

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Stanley, E. Jas. (Somerset)

Crombie, John William

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverp'l)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Curzon, Viscount

Lorne, Marquess of

Stephens. Henry Charles

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Lowe, Francis William

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Denny, Colonel

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Strauss, Arthur

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lucas-Shad well, William

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Doughty, George

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Rt Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wyndham, George

Tomlinson, Win. Edw. Murray

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Young Commander (Berks, E.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

Valentia, Viscount

Wolff Gustan Wilhelm

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Walton, J Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Sir William Walrond and

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

Wrightson, Thomas

Mr. Anstruther.

Whiteley, A. (Ashton-und. L.)

Wylie, Alexander

NOES.

Abraham, William Rhondda)

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme)

Harwood, George

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.

Austin. M. (Limerick, W.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Hazell, Walter

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Clackm.

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Holden, Sir Angus

Price, Robert John

Billson, Alfred

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.)

Reckitt, Harold James

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Joicey, Sir James

Robson, William Snowdon

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Labouchere, Henry

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Carvill, P. George Hamilton

Lambert, George

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Channing, Francis Allston

Langley, Batty

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Steadman, William Charles

Colville, John

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lloyd-George, David

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crilly, Daniel

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Davitt, Michael

Macaleese, Daniel

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Dewar, Arthur

M'Ewan, William

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Donelan, Captain A.

Maddison, Fred.

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Doogan, P. C.

Maden, John Henry

Wills, Sir William Henry

Duckworth. James

Mendl, Sigismuud Ferdinand

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Dunn, Sir William

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Woods, Samuel

Fenwick, Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Mr. Pirie and Mr. Dillon.

NAVAL WORKS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(Mr. GRANT LAWSON, York, N.R., Thirsk, in the Chair.)
Clause 1:—
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Amendment which I rise to Popes is to leave out "three" in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, and insert "two," reducing the sum proposed to be voted from £3,100,000 to £2,100,000. The object of this Amendment is to raise, in a formal manner, the question which has been discussed more than once on the preceding stages of this Bill, and to ensure that the scheme of naval works shall be carried out under annual Bills, as the original intention was, instead of under biennial Bills, which is the scheme, I understand, now favoured by the
542
Government. I have fixed upon the figure of two millions as being one which cannot unduly limit the power of expenditure of the Admiralty during the year, but which will compel them to come to Parliament for renewed authority at the end of the year. The annual policy was the signal plan upon which the whole of the scheme of naval works was introduced to the House of Commons four years ago, when the question was more or less discussed. At the Committee stage of the proceedings in 1895, the noble Lord who is now Secretary for India proposed a plan of his own for acquiring some kind of Parliamentary control of an annual character. I have looked into the proceedings, and I think it will interest the House if I state what they were. The noble Lord proposed that the Admiralty should, at the close of every financial year, cause to be made an account showing, firstly, the total cost of each work and the expenditure thereon; and, secondly, the period within which it is proposed to complete such work; such account to be laid before Parliament.

543
Now, in dealing with this motion, I said:
"The course which the Government proposed to adopt was to introduce annually a Bill-not an auxiliary to any previous Bill, but a principal Bill, which would stand alone. In each annual Bill they (the Government) would give a schedule of progress showing the original estimate of the probable expenditure for the work up to the last day of the past financial year, the amount to be expended in the next financial year, and the amount required to complete the work. That procedure would supply all the particulars and information required, and would be much better, he thought, than the procedure suggested in the proposed new clause."
That proposal received the support of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty. He said, in answer to my suggestion:
"That would seem to be a very satisfactory arrangement, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not state in the schedule what works are commenced, how much would be required for the financial year, and also the amount required to complete."
I think, therefore, I am justified in saying that the principle of proceeding by way of annual Bills, instead of by a Bill covering a longer period, received, on that occasion, the support of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would ask him to bear that in mind now, in considering the proposal which I venture to make.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'three,' and insert the word 'two.' "—(Mr. Edmund Robertson)
Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the clause."
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,):I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment It is perfectly true that the first Naval Works Bill was prepared as an annual Bill, and the two previous Bills were in
tended to be annual, although the second has not had that effect. But we have had more experience than when the first Bill was drafted, and I do not agree with the opinion that an annual Bill is the most convenient arrangement from an administrative point of view. The Committee is aware of the great difficulties we have had in framing our estimates of the probable expenditure within the year. I hope that by giving ourselves greater time over which to spread our estimates we shall prove to have made a much more accurate calculation than in the past. That is the principal reason for the change we have introduced, and there is a subsidiary reason, that it is a great advantage, from an administrative point of view, that the works staff, and especially the higher officials, will not be occupied by drafting any Bill next year, but will be able to give undivided attention to the enormous works of which they have charge. The work thrown upon that staff has been heavy, and I would deprecate anything which would increase it considerably. The financial control of Parliament over naval expenditure will be amply secured in the ordinary way by the accounts being audited by the Exchequer and the Audit Department and submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, who will report upon them in the usual course. My right hon. friend the First Lord has already said that we will lay before the House next session in the form of a Return a statement of the expenditure of the current year.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: said he was not quite satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. He considered it would be much safer for Parliament to adhere to the old practice than to introduce the biennial system.
The Committee divided:—Ayes,168: Noes, 95. (Division List, No. 310.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Bullard, Sir Harry

Arnold, Alfred

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bethell, Commander

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford. East)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Bill, Charles

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Banbury, Frederick George

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Chamberlain. Rt- Hon. J. (Birm.

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts.

Brassey, Albert

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Charrington, Spencer

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Howard, Joseph

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Coddington, Sir William

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Priestley, Sir Woverend (Edin.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Purvis, Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Kimber, Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cooke Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Knowles, Lees

Rentoul, James Alexander

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Cranborne, Viscount

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Round, James

Curzon, Viscount

Leighton, Stanley

Russell, T.W. (Tyrone)

Denny, Colonel

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Rutherford, John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Doughty, George

Lorne, Marquess of

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Francis William

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Doxford, William Theodore

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Spencer, Ernest

Drucker, A.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Elliot, Hon. Ralph Douglas A.

Macdona, John Camming

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Maclure, Sir John William

Stephens, Henry Charles

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Finch, George H.

M'Killop, James

Strauss, Arthur

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Fisher, William Hayes

Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

FitzWygrarn, General Sir F.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ.)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Flower, Ernest

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Garfit, William

Milton, Viscount

Valentia, Viscount

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Gilliat, John Saunders

Monk, Charles James

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Morrell, George Herbert

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm

Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St George's)

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Muntz, Philip A.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.-

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wrightson, Thomas

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wylie, Alexander

Hamond, Sir Chas (Newcastle

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyndham, George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Henderson, Alexander

Penn, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Percy, Earl

Sir William Walrond and

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

Pierpoint, Robert

Mr. Anstruther

NOES.

Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme)

Duckworth, James

Lambert, George

Asher, Alexander

Dunn, Sir William

Langley, Batty

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Fenwick, Charles

Leng, Sir John

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lloyd-George, David

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Lough, Thomas

Billson, Alfred

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Macaleese, Daniel

Broadhurst, Henry

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

M'Crae, George

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Caldwell, James

Harwood, George

M'Ewan, William

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

M'Kenna, Reginald

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Hazell, Walter

Maddison, Fred.

Carvill, Patrick G Hamilton

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Maden, John Henry

Cawley, Frederick

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Channing, Francis Allston

Holden. Sir Angus

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

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

Holland, Wm. H.(York, W. R.)

Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

Colville, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Crilly, Daniel

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Crombie, John William

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Davitt, Michael

Joicey, Sir James

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

Dewar, Arthur

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Dillon, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Donelan, Captain A.

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

Doogan, P. C.

Labouchere, Henry

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

546

547

Pirie, Duncan V.

Steadman, William Charles

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Price, Robert John

Strachey, Edward

Wills, Sir William Henry

Reckitt, Harold James

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.

Woodall, William

Robson, William Snowdon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Woods, Samuel

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Warner Thomas Courtenay T.

Mr. Edmund Robertson and

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttle-worth.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am not sure whether it would not be more convenient to move the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper when we deal with the schedule. I desire by my Amendment to object to the dock at Bermuda.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that ought to come on the schedule.
Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I desire to move the omission of this clause, as a protest against the whole of the expenditure. Our bill for naval works and armaments seems to be increasing at an incredible rate from year to year, and it is time some protest was raised. For the last four years we have had these Naval Works Bills. We have had increased Army Estimates and increased Navy Estimates. I think it will strengthen the hands of the Ministers responsible for these Estimates as against the experts who are pressing increased expenditure upon them if we enter such a protest in the House. Naturally, naval experts wish to increase the Estimates as much as possible. ["No."] I am not making any attack upon them; it is only natural that they should exaggerate their own craft as everybody else does, and think the whole safety of the Empire depends on some novel idea which they have discovered and which they think is necessary to counteract something in France, Russia, or elsewhere. What has happened in the course of the last four years in regard to these naval works? In 1895 we had a Naval Works Bill which contemplated an expenditure of under 9 millions. In 1896 that was increased to 14 millions; in 1897 to 20¼ millions, while under this Bill it is proposed to spend 23½ millions, and the First Lord of the Admiralty does not close his mind against further expenditure next year at Wei-hai-wei. So that really in the course
548
of four years we have more than doubled our expenditure on naval works. In the year 1883 the expenditure upon armaments was 30 millions, in the present year it is nearly 50 millions. If you take India into account we are spending something like 70 millions upon armaments in the present year, while if you add to that the expenditure upon past wars as shown by the National Debt, we are spending something between 95 and 100 millions upon past and future wars. This is a very serious state of things. In twenty-five years we have had an increase of 20 millions in the expenditure upon armaments. What has been the increase in our trade? In 1883 our exports and imports were 733 millions; our trade last year was only 764 millions. There is an increase of something like 60 per cent. in our expenditure upon armaments, and only 5 per cent. in our trade.
SIR J. COLOMB: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the trade of the Empire, not of the United Kingdom only?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sorry I cannot at present, but in the course of the Debate I will give the figures asked for. I may, however, point out that the Empire does not subscribe to this expenditure. This is an expenditure which is incurred by the United Kingdom for the protection of its own trade. If the outskirts of the Empire want protection for their trade, let them contribute towards the expenditure. We propose to increase our expenditure upon social schemes—old age pensions, education, and so on; we spend three times as much as it is worth on Salisbury Plain, and twice as much for Nigeria. We cannot go on at this rate. This is a very rich empire, the wealthiest in the world, but there must be a limit to this expenditure upon engines of destruction, or, if you like, engines of defence. The worst of it

549
is that this expenditure has this effect—that the more you spend the more you are likely to have to spend, because if you spend money in this country France says. "Just look at the Budgets in England; look at their Naval Works Bills." Russia says the same thing—"In order to meet all this expenditure on the part of Great Britain, we must increase our Army, we must increase our Navy, we must increase our accommodation." Then there is another scare in this country, and the First Lord of the Admiralty comes to the House, and says, "Just look at the Bill which is now before the French Parliament for the purpose of increasing their Navy"—an increase which has probably been necessitated by an increase which we initiated. We are really taking the initiative, we are forcing the pace, and when bad times come the taxation will be so enormous as to be absolutely oppressive. We do not feel it at present because of the wealth and prosperity of the country, and if no protest has come from the population of these islands, it is because at present they do not feel it. We are proceeding by the method of borrowing. The amount was nine millions in 1895. We said then, "This is spread over a certain number of years." But really that was not the practical effect of it, because we are increasing the amount year by year, and the result is that so far from that being nine millions spread over twenty or thirty years, as the case may be, it becomes really an annual Bill, because you have nine millions in one year, an increase of five millions in the next, six and a quarter millions in the next, and an increase this year of three and a quarter millions. So that, although nominally it is divided over three years, it has the effect of being an annual Bill, and at some time or other somebody has got to pay this enormous bill. I move the omission of this clause in order to call attention to and protest against this enormous expenditure.
MR. BROADHURST: I join my hon. friend in lamenting the extravagant policy which is being pursued by the present Government. The expenditure is going up by scores of millions for the Services and for political friends, and when at an early stage of the session I made a plaintive appeal to the
550
Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that his income was so large, that he should do something for the working people by way of relief of taxation, and a deaf ear was turned to my appeal. With all the enormous wealth of this country nothing has been done during the existence of the present Government to relieve the heavy burden of taxation from the shoulders of the workers, and yet we see such Bills as that now before us at this stage of the session, dealing with millions as though they were hundreds of pounds, and no one knows where it is going to end. The First Lord of the Admiralty is a man of experience in financial affairs and in administration. No one knows better than he that our present great prosperity must be succeeded by times of depression. What will be your financial position when those times come? You will then have some reason to say that nothing can be done by way of the relief of taxation. It is almost a crime that this constant waste, of public funds should go on. If I were going to present a picture as a memorial of the administration of the present Government I should select the picture of the "Rake's Progress." It has been nothing but expenditure—no earnings, increased relief to the classes who do not need it, and wasteful extravagance of millions of pounds in quarters where it is likely to do as much harm as good. You cannot expend money in this way without inciting other nations to follow your example, and so you go on from point to point until nations will ruin nations by senseless extravagance and wasteful expenditure.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who spoke last in a general review of the Budgets of Chancellors of the Exchequers or of the expenditure of recent years. We are at present upon Clause 1 of this Bill. The hon. Member for Carnarvon has suggested that it might be agreeable to the Government that there should be a Division in order to strengthen our hands against the experts who ask for this expenditure. We require no such assistance. I am glad, however, that there is to be a Division taken on this point. It is not only a satisfactory issue, but it is satisfactory to have a distinct issue brought forward

551
on which hon. Members can vote, instead of having a little grumbling hero or there and not knowing whether it constitutes opposition to our proposals or whether it does not. Let us know how we stand. I am glad the hon. Member has given us this opportunity, but let the Committee understand what they arc going to vote for. We are going to vote not on the question whether there ought or ought not to be increased expenditure, but on the specific proposals of the Government as to whether certain docks and machinery be provided for the purpose of docking our warships. Is the hon. Member against this specific proposal? He is prepared to vote, I understand, that our ships should not have adequate docks. I think I hear someone say, "No, no"; but we cannot have docks without money, and we cannot get money without a Vote from the House of Commons. I claim that those who vote against the Bill vote not as a general protest, but against a specific proposal which I think ought to commend itself to every hon. Member. The working classes know that in case of war their interests are concerned as much as or more than those of any other class in the country. The materials they need for their manufactures and their food supplies all depend upon proper protection being supplied, and that protection can only be given by men-of-war, and those men-of-war can only be efficient if there is proper dock accommodation. Therefore the House and the representatives of the working men would each neglect their duty if they voted against the construction of the docks now proposed by the Government. Hon. Members are at perfect liberty to criticise our general expenditure, but that criticism should come on the Navy Estimates. These present proposals have really little to do with any increased armaments. The simple point is that our present organisation would not be strong enough or safe enough in time of war unless these proposals are endorsed by the Committee, as I hope they will be, unanimously.
MR. LABOUCHERE: It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman, after his eloquent defence, that I am going to vote against him.
MR. GOSCHEN: Not at all.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Certainly it is my intention, because I regard the expenditure on the Navy and everything connected with it as a very great deal too much. The argument of my hon. friend the mover of the Amendment is not that he objects particularly to these docks, but that the sum total of the expenditure upon the Navy—docks and things connected with the Navy—is too large, and that if you want docks you must get them out of the sum total, and not come here with a Bill at the end of the session asking us to agree to a loan. My hon. friend is perfectly right in saying that we are absolutely in the hands of militarism. The right hon. Gentleman spurns the offer of assistance made by the mover of the Amendment; we must therefore come to the assistance of the British taxpayer, and object to this large expenditure. Every year there will be greater expenditure upon military and naval armaments, while nothing will be left to spend upon social questions on which the working men think even more strongly than upon these large armaments. For instance, old age pensions. Where are you going to get the money? I was down in my constituency the other day, and naturally I advocated old age pensions for every man, not only at the age of sixty-five, but at the age of sixty. Someone said to me, "Where are you going to get the money?" I replied, "That concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not me." But I can tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer where he can get at least ten millions. Let him reduce the expenditure upon armaments by ten millions, and he will be able to spend that sum more in accordance with the wishes of the working men. We have got into a thorough system of beggar-my-neighbour. We say, "We are going to spend because we think somebody else is going to spend"; somebody else spends because we have spent, and I do not know where the thing is going to end. The First Lord of the Admiralty is not prepared to say that this sum will be the end of the expenditure, or that the Navy Estimates will not go up in future. On the contrary, he says he must ask for so much money this year, for more next year, and for more the year after that. He admits he will have to ask for more in future.
MR. GOSCHEN: I have not admitted that.
MR. LABOUCHERE: No; but that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman. He will not guarantee that as long as he is First Lord of the Admiralty naval expenditure will not go up beyond what it is now.
MR. GOSCHEN: No.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course he will not; we all know that it will go up. To test the future we take the experience of the past. So long as we are in the hands of this militarism it will continue to go up. There are special reasons why we should not agree to this clause. We entirely object to these Loans Bills, whether military or naval, being brought in at the end of the session. Whatever expenditure is proposed ought to be in the Estimates of the year, and paid for in that year. At the present moment you have got spending powers by previous Bills; yon are not going to spend this money in the present financial year. I doubt whether you are going to spend one shilling of this. You are proposing that the House of Commons as at present constituted should give you a free hand to spend money which will have to be paid by the Votes of other Parliaments. Why do you do it? Why not say what you want to spend in the year and ask us to vote the money, and not pledge future Parliaments in this way? Why should we in this country pay largo sums for docks in self-governing colonies? We are always being told that these colonies are burning with a desire to unite with us in defending the Empire. They volunteer in a vague sort of way, when they know nobody will accept the offer, to fight against anybody with whom we may rightly or wrongly be in antagonism; but when it comes to a cash contribution, they are exceedingly costive. I believe one colony has said it will give £30,000 a year, but as a rule they will not pay their legitimate share of the expenditure for the defence of the Empire. Why are we to spend money in these colonies? The colonies will benefit by it. It is not as if the work were to be done at home, and our men profited by the expenditure
554
in that way. I quite admit that as we have commerce we ought to pay a certain amount, but we ought not to spend any money on a coaling station or anything else in a self-governing colony unless we have a real understanding that that colony will bear a share of the expenditure. It is true the work may be necessary for our commerce, but they also have commerce; they have interests identical with our own in such matters. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman wait until next year? He does not want the money, nor will he spend it this year. Why anticipate the future? We know not what the future may bring forth, we do not know what may happen next year. We may engage in a war, in which case we should have to spend very largely; but why ask us at the present moment to vote money, throwing it over a series of years, when not one shilling of the money is to be expended during the present year?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I think the First Lord of the Admiralty scarcely did justice to his own case What is the Amendment? It is to reject Clause 1. What is Clause 1? It only partially relates to new docks. It relates to works which are in course of execution, and to which the greater portion of the money guaranteed by this Bill applies. More, than half those works are works begun by the Party now on this side of the House. If there is a desire to raise the question suggested by the mover of the Amendment, it should be specifically done by indicating the items which relate to the new works. By moving the rejection of the whole; clause you object to works which have been sanctioned by four successive Parliaments, you declare that the money which has been spent should be thrown away and the works not proceeded with, and that being the effect of the Amendment it is perfectly impossible for me to vote for it.
SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: The First Lord of the Admiralty asks the House for some specific objection. I will give him one. I object to the enormous expenditure on Dover Harbour. What good will Dover Harbour be after this money has been spent? There is to be some machinery, but we have had no explanation as to its nature,

555
although it is to cost £60,000. Is Dover to be a new dockyard, supplementary to Portsmouth, Sheerness, Devonport, and the others, of which we have sufficient already? I contend that the proposal with regard to Dover is totally unnecessary in the interests of the Navy, or as a refuge from a victorious enemy. Another specific objection is with regard to barracks. We are asked to spend a very large sum on housing something like 25 percent. of our bluejackets. That is another unnecessary expenditure. If we are to have this enormous number of men continually on shore what is meant by manning the fleet? Either that there are too many bluejackets, or too few ships for the men voted for annually. Instead of spending this money on barracks for men, whether bluejackets or marines, we ought to house them mainly on board the ships of the Navy, where they can always be in touch with seafaring duties. I therefore object to these two items of expenditure, so far as expenditure is concerned. The only urgent part is that for graving docks at Gibraltar and the Cape.
MR. H. J. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman wants to pin us down to the particular items to which we object. That is a device which is often resorted to, and although we perfectly understand how unfair it is, I will mention one or two points out of many. There are charges in two or three places for the provision of sick quarters. Is it not perfectly obvious that when places such as those in question are built you must have sick quarters provided? How was it the provision was not made at the beginning? Why were they not proposed before? Because the whole system is to get the money bit by bit and portion by portion, without the public knowing where all the money is going to. For my own part I entirely agree with what has been said about the colonies participating in this expenditure. We are always speaking about the defence of the country as synonymous with the defence of the Empire, but it is a totally different thing when finding the money is concerned. I am very glad to have this opportunity of recording my vote as a protest against this continually increasing expenditure.
MR. DAVITT: I join with my hon. friend in protesting against what
556
I consider almost a criminal waste of public money. I contend that this money could be employed at home on work which would be far more beneficial to the people of this country than anything which is contemplated under this Bill. I go so far as to say that if the money which has been voted for the last twenty-five years for work of this kind had been spent in warring against the poverty of Great Britain and Ireland we might have had the workhouses of this country tenantless at the present time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman interjected a remark that these naval works were required in defence of the Empire. If that is so, I would like to know why the colonies which benefit by this expenditure should not be asked to contribute something towards the expense. There have recently been offers from Queensland, New South Wales and Canada to help England if you should happen to have a small war in Africa. I venture to say that-such offers do not reflect very much credit upon the colonies, and it would have been far better if they had reserved their offers of assistance until you were engaged in war with some great Power. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that the object of this expenditure is to be prepared for possible war, but where is the possibility of war in connection with Bermuda, where you are going to expend £650,000 on naval works? Do you contemplate a war with the United States? If you do not, why are you going to create these works in that part of the world? Surely you do not mean to say that Russia, Germany, or France would go across the Atlantic to attack you in Bermuda. I find that in this Memorandum these works were not contemplated in 1895, and what has occurred since then which necessitates this large expenditure in Burmuda? If you expect hostilities with France you will have them nearer home than in the direction of Bermuda. I protest as an Irish Member against this continual shovelling of money into naval and military operations. It would be far more in keeping with your professed regard for progress, humanity and enlightenment if you spent the money in warring against poverty in your own country.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: My hon. friend the Member for Northampton, finding a

557
little difficulty in regard to Clause 1, has very ingeniously started the subject of the colonies which has occurred to him as a good one to run in this Debate. As a matter of fact think I am right in saying that there is only one dock proposed which is in a self-governing colony, and when my hon. friend says that the colonies in which these docks are situated are equally interested, that cannot be said about the dock at Simon's Bay. In time of war the great bulk of our trade, which now goes through the Suez Canal, is likely to go round the Cape, and therefore it will be necessary to have a dock at Simon's Bay; in fact, I think more than one dock is necessary at that point. My hon. friend who has just sat down has alluded to the possibility of war with the United States, but it is not altogether fair to this Bill to make that suggestion. I have always regretted our military expenditure at Bermuda; but with regard to a dock there, I think there can be no doubt that it is necessary, more especially when you consider the proposals of a neighbouring foreign Power, which has been building a large number of first class cruisers with the object, in time of war, of preying upon our trade; therefore, you must consider the possibility of fighting cruisers in West Indian waters, and it is necessary to have a dock there to repair our vessels. The possible attack upon our trade in time of war by the first-class cruisers of foreign countries is a matter which must demand the attention of the Admiralty, and it is absolutely necessary that large docks should be built for first-class cruisers in places like Bermuda. Like my hon. and gallant friend opposite, I am anxious that the colonies should make a contribution towards our naval expenditure; but while that suggestion should be constantly pressed upon the colonies, it is impossible for this country to suspend the expenditure until that is brought about.
MR. MADDISON: I am one of those who think that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, with all his knowledge of naval matters, does more harm than good to this country. I join with my hon. friend in protesting against this further increase of the burdens of the people. To begin with, I have absolutely no con-
558
fidence in the way the Admiralty spend their money, so long as the right hon. Gentleman opposite is at the head of affairs. It is all very well to come forward with proposals for this, that, and the other, but there is another class which is generally forgotten, which has some claim upon the Admiralty, and that is the working class. There is no Department of the State where they have got less justice than from the Admiralty, and I am here to say that, not only is this a great waste of money, but it is spent in a most unfair way so far as the working classes—more especially as regards the lower paid workers—are concerned, and those hon. Gentlemen who go down to their constituencies declaring how much good the right hon. Gentleman has done to the working classes by this great expenditure of public money are talking some very queer economics. The great mass of artisans, especially the labourers, have begun to clearly realise that their share of the Admiralty expenditure is a very niggardly and poor one, and no one is more responsible for that than the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. I should like to know when is the most convenient occasion to protest against this constant increase in naval expenditure? If we take the opportunity to do it when the First Lord comes down during a panic to ask for a great sum of money, we are at once told that we are not patriotic, that we do not love the fatherland, and that we are little better than the emissaries of some foreign state. When we come to a more detailed matter, which it is not so convenient to discuss, then we are asked what particular detail are we referring to. I am gravely concerned about this expenditure, and in time the country will realise that a great amount of national treasure is going in one direction. During these last few sessions of Parliament it has been the easiest thing possible to get almost any sum through this House, so long as it was wanted for military or naval expenditure; and just as the House has been liberal in voting these lavish sums for military purposes, it has been just as illiberal in voting money for great reforms, such as the Old Age Pension scheme. Of course, we cannot have it both ways, for the money cannot be going on the Army and Navy and into the pockets of the people, to make their lives brighter in their old age, at the same time. At all costs, and with a full conviction that I am doing my

559
duty both to the fatherland and to the great mass of the people, I am here to protest by voice and vote against these great increases in the Army and Navy expenditure which are going on from year to year, and which are not bringing about that peace which hon. Gentlemen some-times say they want, but which is making peace further distant.
MR. DILLON: The hon. Member opposite, in protesting against this motion, said the effect of carrying it would be tantamount to a decision on the part of the House to stop the works which are already in progress, many of which have been approved by the Liberal Party when in power, and the money which had been expended upon them would be lost. I totally differ from the hon. Member in that opinion, for there is no foundation for it. The Government have in their possession the sum of £4,505,000, and up to the 31st of March they had expended only £3,378,000 on the works, which leaves them £l,000,000 at least still at their disposal for the continuation of those works. That million would enable them to continue these works for a considerable time, and certainly till the beginning of next year. I desire to point out that there is absolutely no urgency. If this Amendment were carried and the first clause negatived, that decision would carry with it no such principle as that which has been laid down by the hon. Member for Denbigh, for the only consequence would be that the Government would be obliged to limit their expenditure between the 31st of March last and
the beginning of next session to about one million of money. Last year, during the whole financial year, they only expended £1,227,000, so that on the same proportion of expenditure as that which was incurred last year they have money enough at their disposal already to last them until the opening of the next session of Parliament. Therefore, I say that no sufficient grounds have been made out for forcing through the House of Commons this enormous loan Bill at this period of the session. Objection was taken at an earlier period to taking this Bill and the Military Works Bill at such a late period of the session, and urgency was pleaded. All those hon. Members who are sound on financial matters will agree that these proposals should have been made when the Budget was before the House, so that we should have then had all the financial proposals of the Government before us. But the Government decided, against all precedent, to hold back these Bills to nearly the end of the session. Putting aside the question as to the merits of the works, and the question of the rapid increase of expenditure on such works, I say that no case of urgency has been made out, and no justification has been offered for the introduction of such a Bill at this late period of the session. Upon this ground alone I shall certainly vote for my hon. friend's proposal.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 48. (Division List, No. 311.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Asher, Alexander

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Butcher, John George

Curzon, Viscount

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Disraeli, Connigsby Ralph

Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B.(Clackm.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Doughty, George

Banbury, Frederick George

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

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

Duncombe, Hon Hubert V.

Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. S.-(Hunts

Chamberlain, J. A (Worc'r)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Charrington, Spencer

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

Finch, George H

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bethell, Commander

Coddington, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Flower, Ernest

Bousfield, William Robert

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Brassey, Albert

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Garfit, William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Gribbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Gilliat, John Saunders

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Round, James

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macdona, John Cumming

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Maclure, Sir John William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Goschen, Rt. Hon. G. J. (St. Geo"s

M'Killop, James

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Graham, Henry Robert

Middlemore, J. Throgmorten

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Milton, Viscount

Spencer, Ernest

Hamond, Sir Chas. (Newcastle)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Monk, Charles James

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

More. Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

Strachey, Edward

Henderson, Alexander

Morrison, Walter

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Tomlinson. Wm. Edw. Murray

Howard, Joseph

Muntz, Philip A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

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

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Valentia, Viscount

Joicey, Sir James

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kimber, Henry

Percy, Earl

Williams. J. Powell- (Birm.)

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

Pierpoint, Robert

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wrightson, Thomas

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Purvis, Robert

Wylie, Alexander

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wyndham, George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rickett, J. Compton

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Lorne, Marquess of

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lowe, Francis William

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Sir William Walrond and

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Allen, W. (Newc-under-Lyme)

Hazell, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Healy, Timothy M. (N Louth)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Holden, Sir Augus

Robson, William Snowdon

Billson, Alfred

Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Horniman, Frederick John

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Labouchere, Henry

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

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

M'Dermott, Patrick

Wedderburn, Sir William

Crilly, Daniel

M'Kenna, Reginald

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Maddison, Fred.

Wilson, Hy. J. (York, W. R.)

Davitt, Michael

Maden, John Henry

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough

Dillon, John

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

Woods, Samuel

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Duckworth, James

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

Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Broadhurst.

Fenwick, Charles

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

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2, agreed to.
Clause 3:—
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I desire to move an Amendment to leave out "120,000" and insert "100,000." This money has been spent upon works at Gibraltar, and nothing has been spent upon the defence of the Bristol Channel.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that there is no money to be spent under this Bill in the sense in which he speaks at Gibraltar.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like to know whether this expenditure is not under the control of the Admiralty, and whether this proposal does not mean that the whole control is in their hands. Is there some kind of joint control over the harbour? Is it proposed that these dues should be settled entirely by the Gibraltar authorities? I think there ought to be some sort of control on behalf of the Admiralty with regard to them.
Amendment proposed—
"In schedule, page 2, line 16, to leave out '120,000,' in order to insert '100,000.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Question proposed, "That '120,000' stand part of the schedule."
MR.AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We will receive our share of the net profits in proportion to the contributions we have made. There will be a joint Committee who will settle with the Treasury.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to move the omission of the items in the schedule which include the Bermuda Dockyard extension. I wish to know why this large expenditure is to he carried out on this little island. I am not aware there is any necessity for it. I believe the dockyard accommodation has been found adequate for all the requirements of your navy in the past, and I do not see why it should not be sufficient for your needs in the future. I am of opinion that you are not contemplating these works with the view to some possible conflict with France in that part of the world. I believe you have some other purpose in view which you do not wish to explain. I am opposed to the expenditure of this large sum on this little island, and therefore I shall divide the Committee on this matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In Schedule, page 2, to leave out lines 42 to 45 inclusive."—(Mr. Davitt.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have little to add to what has already been said on this subject by the First Lord and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. I suppose even the hon. Member (whose speech I think was not made for this Committee) will admit that we must keep a squadron in the West Indies, and it stands to reason that we must have a dock capable of accommodating the largest ship in the squadron. The dock at Bermuda is too small, and the only British dock on the station is in the extreme north of Halifax. I need not labour the matter further, but the Committee will see that this cannot be construed even by the wildest imagination as any provocation to any other Power, and that it is absolutely essential to the efficiency and safety of our fleet.
564
The Government, of course, cannot consent to the Amendment.
MR. MADDISON: The Amendment of my hon. friend is to give to this part of the scheme a kind of anti-American character, and for that reason I am bound to say that I cannot support him. As a protest against this naval expenditure I would be prepared to go a long way, but it is even more important that this scheme should not in the slightest degree appear to be directed against the American Government.
SIR J. COLOMB: The hon. Gentleman is apparently ignorant of the fact that this Vote is to bring up to date a certain dock. There has been a floating dock for something like twenty-five years at Bermuda, but that is now too small for out-ships.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I move this Amendment because I consider that a floating dock is not a proper charge to be included in this Bill. A floating dock is not like a permanent work of masonry, and it has not been our practice to defray the cost of a structure of this kind out of borrowed money. The right hon. Gentleman said the other night that the dock would probably last for thirty years, but our policy has been hitherto to restrict the application of the Naval Works Act to works of a thoroughly permanent character, and put all the other works on the Estimates in the ordinary way, and that is the question which I now desire to raise.
Amendment proposed—
"In schedule, page 2, line 45, to leave out '205,000,' in order to insert '105,000'"—(Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth.)
Question proposed, "That '205,000' stand part of the schedule."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The original intention was to construct a graving dock at Bermuda, but the expense of that was found to be too great, and we therefore proposed to substitute a floating dock. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that this floating dock will last as long as the terminable annuities created under this Bill, and there is even no

565
reason to suppose that the dock will be worn out at the end of thirty years. A large part of the structure will be of a permanent character, the dock will be kept in proper repair, and it will probably last for a much longer period. I therefore see no reason for the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Of course, there will be great risk in getting the floating dock out.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I would ask whether the money for the dock is to be paid before or after it arrives in Bermuda.
MR. GOSCHEN: That will depend on the contract.
MR. DILLON: I beg to move the omission of lines 46, 47 and 48 in the schedule with reference to the proposed expenditure at Simon's Bay. This is a new work of great cost and importance, and I think we are entitled to have an explanation regarding the amount. I do not profess to be an expert in these matters, but I think that Simon's Bay is not a station in the vicinity of which any considerable number of the fleet is habitually stationed. The consideration, however, to which I attach a great deal of importance is that I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that a proposal has been placed before the House of Commons to expend anything approaching such a large sum in the carrying out of naval works in a self-governing colony. I do not think there is any other case on record where that has been done. The principle at stake is a very important one. Many of the self-governing colonies are, practically speaking, independent of the mother country, and as far as I am aware, it has been the fixed policy of England ever since the colonies obtained self-government not to embark in any large expenditure in them. For instance, this has been the policy carried out in Australia and New Zealand, and if the policy now proposed were to be accepted, it would be naturally expected that the most important sites for large docks would be along the eastern coast of Australia and New Zealand. In Auckland there is a dock,
566
but the New Zealand Government have very considerable control over it, and it cannot be regarded as a precedent governing the present case. I object to this proposal in the first place because it is novel, and because it appears to be practically speaking a new departure in policy; and in the second place I object to it because the sum to be expended is so enormous, and that alone constitutes the difference between this case and the case of Auckland. In the case of New Zealand and Australia you have got to deal with colonies which according to universal testimony are thoroughly at one with the mother country; but we are told in that famous historic dispatch of Sir Alfred Milner that the Dutch population at the Cape is disaffected to the mother country. I myself have my doubts about that statement, but any man who objects to Sir Alfred Milner now is regarded with wrath.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now probably anticipating a Debate which will come off to-morrow.
MR. DILLON: I object to spending £2,500,000 of the taxpayers' money in a country which has a constitutional Government independent of this Government, and the inhabitants of which are not well affected towards this country. If we are to accept the contention in Sir Alfred Milnor's dispatch, and if you are to pursue your present policy, I think it is extremely likely that before this dock is finished South Africa will be lost to this country altogether, and you will then be in the position, after having squandered this money, of being left without the country or the dock. I think when we are called upon to face an enormous expenditure like this we are entitled to some assurance that the work executed will be there for the advantage of the taxpayers, and that a foolish and fatuous policy will not be pursued, which would rob the taxpayers of this sum.
Amendment proposed—
"In Schedule, page 2, to leave out lines 46, 47, and 48."—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That the words propose to be left out stand part of schedule."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is not the only case where we have a naval establishment in a self-governing colony. We have one at Sydney on a more elaborate scale than Simon's Bay has hitherto been. In time of peace an enormous amount of British trade passes the Cape, and in time of war the amount of trade passing would be very largely increased. For the protection of trade we must have a squadron in those waters, and we have a very considerable squadron there. We must provide facilities for the repair of the ships of that squadron, and the dock at present at Cape Town is not large enough. Accordingly we propose this expenditure in order to provide dock at Simon's Bay. With regard to the feeling in the Colony towards this proposed work, the hon. Member need be under no apprehension. We have received every assistance from the Cape Government, and two Acts have been passed through the Cape Legislature to give us proper control over the property to be acquired for the works, and I wish to express the indebtedness of the Admiralty for the spirit displayed by the Cape Ministry and Legislature. In fact they are very anxious that this work should be carried out. Then the hon. Member criticised the great expense of the work. That is a point into which we have gone very carefully. We did not enter with a light heart into an expenditure involving two-and-a-half millions. We had a very carefully survey carried out, and the report of the engineer was considered by the Admiralty and modified as far as possible, having regard to the importance of the station. All that we propose to do under this Bill is to erect a dock with the necessary shops and machinery, and to improve the coaling arrangements. At the present time the latter are so deficient that with a spell of bad weather several days might elapse before the fleet could be coaled. I need not point out how dangerous such a state of things would be in the event of hostilities, when the free mobility of the fleet would be of the utmost importance, and when any delay might lead to a great disaster or to the loss of a great advantage. I am quite certain it is impossible to give the necessary facilities for our fleet on a more moderate scale than we now propose.
MR. DAVITT: Will the Admiralty have any control over the way in which the work is to be carried out, and will Kaffir labour or free labour be employed?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Free labour. It is our intention to put the work out to contract, like all our great works.
MR. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman said that he wished on behalf of the Admiralty to thank the Government of the Cape for the facilities they have given. I wish Statesmen in this country generally were more civil to the Government of the Cape, because that might remove some of the danger which I indicated. No language is too severe for the war organs in this country to use towards Mr. Schreiner or his Government.
Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

MILITARY WORKS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.)
Clause 1:—
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I think it may be convenient, and shorten proceedings, if I indicate now what I am quite prepared to do, supposing it is the general wish of the Committee. During the Debate on the Second Reading several hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. and learned Member for Dundee, set great store upon having inserted into the schedule of the Bill the Paper circulated as a White Paper, on the ground that it would give the House more control over the expenditure. I think myself that there is ample opportunity for controlling the sums advanced to the War Office under this Bill, but as they insist upon having that schedule in the Act, I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment on the Paper which stands in the name of the hon. Member

569
for East Aberdeenshire. If I do that, I trust that I may fairly expect that hon. Members will raise their discussions on questions of policy on the Schedule, and not as they would have been driven to do somewhat awkwardly on the earlier portion of the Bill.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I admit the hon. Member the Under Secretary for War has made a very important concession. I think all the Amendments were so framed as to give an opportunity to the House to discuss the information contained in the White Paper. If the hon. Gentleman adopts the White Paper as a Schedule to the Bill, the opportunity will be open to the Committee of discussing the details in the ordinary way.
SIR J. COLOMB: I am glad to see that my hon. friend has, to a certain extent, given way in respect to affording more information, by placing the White Paper in the Schedule. But I really think that we should have some further information about this Bill. I will not go over the ground again, that the War Office has departed from every precedent in regard to these loans, I will not touch upon the four millions at all, but I will take the question of the one million for earth works. If there be some extraordinary reason for objecting to give information in regard to the places on which this million is to be spent, we ought to have it stated in the House. It is a curious thing to withhold information about earthworks. Armaments are not in this Vote at all. The Vote is merely a million for earthworks. It is a mystery, for the Government will not tell us where the earthworks are to be.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman objects, as I understand him, to the item in the Schedule for defence works, he ought to reserve his criticism until we reach that item in the Schedule.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: As I understand it, the hon. Member does not object to the item, but he wants details. There is an Amendment on the Paper upon which that question will be raised, if it is in order. Unless it is in order, however, we shall have to discuss the matter item by item.
THE CHAIRMAN: So far as I see at present, there is no objection to that; but if the Committee insert anything in the Bill, before that particular Amendment is reached, something may occur which may make it out of order.
SIR J. COLOMB: If I wish to reduce this 4,000,000 in the clause by 1,000,000, may I not do so?
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to reduce the whole sum by 1,000,000, certainly. But if he is going to discuss particular defence works, and how this money is to be applied to these, he will only be in order on the Schedule.
SIR J. COLOMB: On a point of order, the hon. Member the Under Secretary for War told us, in introducing the resolution on which this Bill is based, that the money was to be expended on five different classes of work. But unless we get certain information in regard to the nature of that classification, and to the proportion of the money to be devoted to each class, I will propose to reduce the sum by 1,000,000. I want your ruling, Mr. Lowther, on that point.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is almost impossible to give a decision on that point, because I have not heard the hon. and gallant Member. I can only say that detailed criticism must clearly come on the details in the Schedule. If the hon. Member thinks that three millions would be enough, and not the four millions in the Bill, he may move a reduction of a million.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: There is a point antecedent to this. The Under-Secretary for War has now agreed to put in the Schedule the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, but that does not include the million for defence works. I want to move to leave out the million for defence works at whatever time is convenient to the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman objects to spending a million on defence works, the proper time to take it is when these works are reached.
SIR J. COLOMB: Then, I suppose I will be in order to move to reduce this Vote by a million, but not in order to give my reasons for it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have not said that. The proper time to give reasons against a particular Vote is when the particular Vote objected to is reached.
SIR J. COLOMB: I will confine myself to the reasons why I object to this vote on broad general grounds of policy. We have been told that there are five classes of expenditure on which this million is to be spent. These are—principal naval bases, secondary naval bases, coaling stations, commercial ports, and defence works. In my humble judgment, the War Office does not seem to have a particularly clear notion as to the principles which have ruled, and must always rule, naval warfare. How they have reached this classification I cannot say. But I do say, that for a Power having the mastery of the sea, and having already spent many millions upon defence works at naval bases and maritime ports, it requires more explanation than we have yet had, why we want to spend a million more for works alone, without armaments, for our naval bases. The War Office has got to make out much more clearly and distinctly than they have done why they want this million, and on what principle they want it. There is another point; you are coming for a million to be spent at naval ports, but we are not told where these naval, ports are. I want to know whether you are following out the principle established in 1884, and strictly adhered to under the Imperial Defence Act in 1888. All these works must necessarily be either at home or abroad in our territories, or colonies and dependencies. In 1884 the principle was laid down that where we were going to arm or defend a naval port in the colonies, the works and buildings should be provided at the Colonial expense, and the armaments provided by the Imperial Government. And that principle was also applied in the Imperial Defence Act of 1888. I want to know why that principle should be departed from, if it has been departed from. If it has been departed from, then this million must be going to be spent in the United Kingdom.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is now clearly discussing the character of the defence works. The proper time to do that is when the million set down in the Schedule for defence works is reached.
SIR J. COLOMB: I was only discussing whether we have departed from the principle laid down in the Acts of 1884 and 1888.
THE CHAIRMAN: The mistake which the hon. and gallant gentleman makes is that when he is asked to vote this four millions he thinks he is also asked to vote a million for defence works. But until that particular million for defence works is reached in the schedule he cannot discuss it.
SIR J. COLOMB: Then I will defer my observations on that point until the million in the Schedule is reached; but as a solemn protest against the whole matter, I beg to move the reduction of the four millions in the first clause of the Bill, by one million.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'four' in order to insert the word 'three.'"—(Sir J. Colomb.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the clause."
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I am thoroughly at one with the hon. and gallant Member on this subject, and I wish to support him in getting details of the expenditure of this million which I think ought to be given, and which it would be most dangerous to refuse. But I think we should have a rather confused issue if we raised the point at this particular moment, and I will ask him not to press it now.
MR. BUCHANAN: I suppose this is the proper moment for shewing that the Government might have spent their money in a better way than they propose. In the discussion in the early part of the session, we had a promise from the Financial Secretary of War, when this Bill was introduced, that there would be contained in it a sum of £100,000 for barracks in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh.
MR. WYNDHAM: I think the hon. Member should raise that question on the proviso in line 14.
MR. BUCHANAN: If you agree with that, Mr. Lowther, I will not proceed to discuss it now.
THE CHAIRMAN: I see no objection to the discussion on the proviso.
SIR J. COLOMB: Then, with the permission of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. BUCHANAN: The Amendment I wish to move is, after the word "issued," in line 14, to add—
"Provided that out of the above sum not less than one hundred thousand pounds be expended upon barracks in and near Edinburgh."
When, on the 23rd April, we were discussing the Army Estimates and the Vote for barracks, the question arose as to the barracks at Piershill. We called attention to the very in sanitary condition of these barracks and other barracks in Scotland, and my hon. friend near me moved a reduction of the Vote in order to bring the matter to a Division. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office told us that inquiry would be made in regard to Piershill, and as regards the more general matter we had brought up he said, "It may comfort the hon. Member to know that there is a proposal in the Barracks Bill for an expenditure of £100,000 for the improvement of the barrack accommodation in the city of Edinburgh." I asked him if that included Piershill, and he said, "Yes." Upon that announcement the hon. Member for North Aberdeen was induced to withdraw his Amendment. I think we were all somewhat surprised when this Bill was produced, with the White Paper attached, to find that instead of proposing £100,000, there was only £25,000 for Edinburgh and a sum not named for Leith Fort. Our case is this in Scotland, that, while we need a much smaller military establishment than any other part of the country, we think we have a claim that the barracks we have should a any rate be quite up to the average,
574
and not allowed to fall below the average of sanitary and inhabitable condition. The case we made out as to Piershill and other barracks was unanswerable. The Under Secretary for War will admit the fact that Piershill is in a very insanitary condition. Later on, in another discussion, the Under Secretary himself laid down the canon of a good barrack, that it should be a good barrack in itself, with a good practising ground near it, and not more than 100 years old. Piershill is more than 100 years old, there is no practising ground near it, and it is in a very insanitary condition, and you will have to look forward to building an entirely new barrack. There are other strong cases in Scotland, such as Leith Fort, and Fort George, which are very insanitary. I understand that the Government are only keeping men at Fort George until the new barracks at Salisbury Plain are finished. Then, Edinburgh Castle is not in a good condition, although no doubt there is a good deal of sentiment in connection with that ancient stronghold. The extension of the barracks in Edinburgh should be outside the Castle itself, and good, new, healthily constructed buildings should be erected. After having got the promise of the Financial Secretary for War that he would insert £100,000 in the Loans Bill, we naturally concluded that the Secretary for War was going to take steps to put the barracks in Scotland into a proper condition, and we were satisfied for the moment. I hope we shall get some assurance that he is going to fulfil the promise that was made, and that he will modify this Bill in the direction of my Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, at the end of the Clause, to add the words 'provided that out of the above sum not less than one hundred thousand pounds be expended upon barracks in and near Edinburgh.'"—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. PIRIE: I am in entire agreement in one particular with my hon. friend the member for East Aberdeenshire, so far as regards the wish of most Scotch Members that we should not have very large barracks. What we do wish, however, is that the barracks in

575
Scotland should be in proportion to the other barracks in the United Kingdom, and that the sums spent upon them should be adequate. It is an undoubted truth that the barracks in Scotland are the most tumble-down, most ram-shackle places for the accommodation of troops in the whole United Kingdom. I wish that everyone in Scotland should read the figures I am going to give the Committee. The total sum voted in the Bill of 1897, and in the present Bill, is £9,000,000, £5,000,000 of which is to be spent on barrack accommodation and ranges in the United Kingdom. Out of that, in round figures, four and a quarter millions are to be spent in England, and three-quarters of a million in Ireland. The small residue to be spent in Scotland by this great and magnanimous country for the housing of the troops in Scotland is £65,000. I can only call such conduct as that the very height and depth of niggardliness. I do say that, if the Scottish Members were doing their duty to their country, although such things were allowed to exist in the past, they would unanimously insist on having this grievance redressed in the future. I know that some Scottish Members will not rest until we have justice done in this regard. I, myself, lately paid a visit to Stirling Castle, where I found the Government, in order to save a few pounds a year, is giving up the old historical castles of Scotland to uses to which they ought not to be put. I went into the old historical banqueting hall of the Scottish kings in Stirling Castle—a banqueting hall, which in any other country would be a place of interest and affection to the people of the country—and I found it made use of as a dry canteen, with a billiard table at one end and a grocery bar at the other. Such conduct and treatment as that I call nothing less than shameful. Then, in Edinburgh Castle what has been done. A modern ugly building has been placed on the crown of the grand rock, which is an eyesore to the whole city. The barrack building is like a prison, and the story is told that the engineer who designed it was directed to prepare a building with accommodation for so many troops, and that he did not know where it was to be erected, and in fact he had never even been there. Again, take the married soldiers' quarters. They are away from the barracks, and are a disgrace to the
576
city. When there is only £65,000 devoted to barracks in Scotland and £5,000,000 to barracks in England and Ireland, I am surprised that any Government can be found which allows such a state of affairs to exist. Still more am I surprised that the Scottish Members do not stand up and object as strongly as they possibly can to such a stingy wrong and to such unjust treatment.
MR. WYNDHAM: I can quite understand the disappointment expressed by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment at the fact that we are not now under this Bill to make provision for the improvement of Piershill barracks, or to substitute for them better buildings. To a great extent I share that disappointment. I fully recognise that Piershill is not all that a cavalry or any other barrack should be. But I cannot admit with justice that it is insanitary, I have gone carefully into this matter, and I find that all the information placed at my disposal does not show that the barracks are unhealthy. There are no drainage diseases among the troops. I admit that the buildings are very uncomfortable and inadequate, and I wish I was in a position to say that under this Bill we were going to take powers to remedy the matter. But, having said that, I should like to clear up a misunderstanding that has arisen as to what was said by the Financial Secretary earlier in the session. I put it on all fours with an observation which I interjected in the Debate, also in reply to the same hon. Gentleman earlier in the year. He will recollect I said we should want £5,000,000 for barracks, and that we were working out a complete scheme. Well, in that complete scheme there is a sum of £45,000 for Piershill Barracks. The hon. Member may say, "Why, if you recognise that this sum is necessary for Piershill, do you not put it in the Bill?" The chief objection to that is, that we have added units to Infantry and Artillery, but not to Cavalry; and therefore we have had to make first provision for Infantry and Artillery barracks. The hon. Member says that patching will not do, and that for £45,000 we could only repair the barracks. But in order to substitute new barracks, we must have taken £160,000. We were not prepared to take that large sum. As to the sum to be expended in Scotland, no doubt Scotland suffered from our

577
not being able to go in for our whole scheme at once. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen pointed out that, under the Act of 1897 and this Bill, we are only giving £65,000 to Scotland; but under the complete scheme, which includes this Bill and the Act of 1897, there would be £45,000 for Piershill, and sums for the barracks at Hamilton and other places, making in all£120,000 for Scotland. I naturally do not want to ride a principle to death. Still, we must have regard to the principle of concentration, much more than to popularity in particular towns. I must ask the Committee to consider the economical argument. In order to bring all the barracks in towns up to a proper modern standard, we should have to spend millions; bat at Salisbury Plain we have already a site where we can build better barracks, and where also, by means of concentration, the troops can be made more efficient. On these grounds, therefore, of efficiency, concentration, and a regard to the pockets of the taxpayers, we cannot attach the importance we should like to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. WARNER: An extraordinary statement was made by the hon. Gentleman, that this Bill was necessary, because of the increase in the Infantry and Artillery in the Army. Now, we showed the other day that only twenty-four men had been added to the Army and Militia, and the slight increase in the line is not enough to demand new barracks.
MR. WYNDHAM: There is an increase of 9,000 men.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Not at home.
MR. WYNDHAM: Admitting that, for the sake of argument, the hon. Member must see that you cannot put fragments of two battalions in one barrack.
MR. WARNER: If small battalions necessarily increase the number of barracks, that only strengthens our case. The only object in dividing these battalions up, besides as it affects your paper Army, which is absolutely unimportant, is that you should have some representative battalion in each district of the country. That only increases the
578
strength of the case for having barracks in Scotland. I am sorry to hear that this money for barracks is rendered necessary by the breaking up of the army into small battalions. What increase in the army there has been, the most of it has gone abroad, and we have not anything like 12,000 more men than we had five years ago.
MR. BUCHANAN: The hon. Gentleman says that we must go on the principle of concentration, and not on that of popularity. I entirely demur to the statement that I had been mentioning the case of Piershill from the point of view of local popularity or electioneering. Piers-hill is not in my own constituency. I do not like to say much about military matters, not being a soldier myself, and I do not know the ropes very well. But there-construction of Piershill barracks has been urged, time after time, by the General Officer commanding in the Edinburgh district, particularly in respect that they are inadequate for a whole cavalry regiment, and have no exercise ground near them. And I believe that the Commander-in-Chief has backed up that demand, and urged it upon the attention of the War Office, on the ground that it has now been determined by the War Office that one cavalry regiment should be permanently stationed in Scotland. Piershill cannot contain a whole regiment, and you are obliged to keep one squadron at Maryhill. Surely it is indefensible to maintain an old barrack like this, when it will not contain a full regiment. I am told by military men that the fact of there being no exercise ground at or near Piershill affects the discipline of the men, and it takes two or three months for a cavalry regiment, after it leaves Piershill, to be brought into a proper state of efficiency. I do not think a stronger case could be made out in favour of building new barracks than at Piershill. Besides that, we have the promise of the Financial Secretary. In was not an interjected observation; it was part of a speech made by him, and we took it as a promise made to the House. I cannot make out that that promise would be fulfilled by a reference to Schedule B. Schedule B is no part of this Bill, and we do not want it to be. Schedule B is a pious opinion as to what the Secretary for War, or his successor, may do three or

579
four years hence; and to carry out any of the works included in that Schedule another Bill will be required. I therefore cannot do otherwise than divide the House on this proposal.
MR. PIRIE: I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to impute that we were seeking popularity by the course we are pursuing. There are one or two points which I desire to clear up in reference to Scotch barracks, especially the Piershill barracks. I understood it was the intention to withdraw the cavalry regiment. I have seen barracks for cavalry regiments in Ireland to which Piershill Barracks would be an absolute shame. Surely, if in Dublin and other parts of Ireland thousands and thousands of pounds are to be spent on barracks, we might have something more than £45,000 for these barracks in Scotland. We are told that we shall probably get £110,000 or £120,000 for barracks in Scotland, but I would point out that there is £750,000 put clown for Ireland. The hon. Gentleman made use of the argument that concentration demanded that little money should be spent in Scotland. There are people who advocate that the Scottish district should be made the headquarters, but surely we are entitled to receive at least the same treatment as other districts. We have several sites for large camps, and one of our camps is never furnished with the number of troops in the summer which it can accommodate; and until we see our resources made the best use of we cannot do otherwise than continue to raise such points as we are raising to-night. I maintain that the troops quartered in Scotland have a right to the same treatment as those in any other part of the United Kingdom. This neglect of the just demand of Scotland is not only exemplified as regards this point, but very little indeed of the £3,000,000 for naval works will be spent in Scotland.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I desire to draw the attention of the Government to the desirability of establishing barracks in Dingwall. Dingwall is the
county town of Ross-shire. It might be called the cradle of the Seaforth Highlanders. The people there are justly proud of their gallant and distinguished Highland regiment. If it be an object of the War Office to strengthen the Army by the enlistment of Highlanders, there can be no doubt that the erection of suitable barracks for the Seaforths in Dingwall would tend greatly to facilitate the realisation of that object, for it would give an impetus to recruiting in the Highlands. I think that is a circumstance which ought not to be lost sight of by the War Office. What is the present condition of things with regard to Dingwall? You have barracks at Fort George, about thirty miles from Dingwall,—a very inconvenient and entirely isolated station. This renders the transport of the battalions very expensive indeed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I find that the words of the Amendment are "in or near Edinburgh." The hon. Member is therefore out of order in referring to Dingwall.
DR. CLARK: With regard to Piershill barracks, they are in such an insanitary and unsuitable condition that when they are examined it will be found that the cost of putting them into proper condition will be more than they are worth, and you will probably require to have new barracks erected at a cost of £150,000. Whatever the views of the War Office may be, I suppose they will have to deal with the Treasury, and as far as Scotland is concerned we cannot expect to be treated in a fair manner by the Treasury. But this is a matter affecting the health of the troops. The barracks are utterly unsuitable, and we have no business to take men into the army and lodge them worse than we lodge prisoners. I hope the War Office will bring pressure to bear on the Treasury to get them to put these barracks into decent condition at any rate.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 124. (Division List, No. 312.)

AYES.

Allen, Wm. (Newc.-und.-Lyme

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Crilly, Daniel

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Davitt, Michael

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J Blair(Clackm

Caldwell, James

Dewar, Arthur

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Channing, Francis Allston

Dillon, John

Billson, Alfred

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

Donelan, Captain A

Doogan, P. C.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Leng, Sir John

Steadman, William Charles

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macaleese, Daniel

Strachey, Edward

Hazell, Walter

M'Crae, George

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

M'Leod, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hogan, James Francis

Maddison, Fred.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Holden, Sir Angus

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Joicey, Sir James

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Kearley, Hudson E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Pirie.

Lambert, George

Shaw, Chas. E. (Staffrod)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fletcher. Sir Henry

Morrison, Walter

Arnold, Alfred

Flower, Ernest

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Muntz, Philip A.

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

Garfit, William

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Bute)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gedge, Sydney

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Nicholson, William Graham

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Gilliat, John Saunders

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pierpoint, Robert

Bethell, Commander

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Blundell, (Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Bond, Edward

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hamond, Sir Chas. (Newcastle)

Purvis, Robert

Brassey, Albert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hare. Thomas Leigh

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Brook field, A. Montagu

Hatch, Ernest Fred. Geo.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Heaton, John Henniker

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Butcher, John George

Henderson, Alexander

Round, James

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Rutherford, John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd.)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thomas M.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howard, Joseph

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Charrington, Spencer

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Johnston. William (Belfast)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kimber, Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Lawrence. Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Strauss, Arthur

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Thornton, Percy M,

Cox, Irwin Edward(Bain bridge)

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw H.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Curzon, Viscount

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

Valentia, Viscount

Denny, Colonel

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Dilke Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Donkin, Richard Sim

Lowe, Francis William

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Doughty, George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wrightson, Thomas

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Wylie, Alexander

Doxford, William Theodore

Maclure, Sir John William

Wyndham, George

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

M'Killop, James

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

Milton, Viscount

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Monk, Charles James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Finch, George H.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sir William Walrond and

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Mr. Anstruther.

Fisher, William Hayes

Morrell, George Herbert

MR. WARNER: The object of the Amendment which I propose to move is to give the House some idea of where the money voted in this Bill goes to. The Schedule is very meagre and very insufficient, and my Amendment will enable the House to see where the money voted is to be spent, and how much is to be spent on different places abroad. There are a variety of ways of spending money under this Bill, and in some cases, perhaps, money may be spent uselessly, which the House would be sure to find fault with if it had an opportunity. Therefore, I think it is very essential
582
that before money is expended the details should be placed on the table of the House of Commons. There was a case the other day which was very ably, brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth as to the extraordinary manner in which the Engineering Department spent money at Esquimalt. It was only by chance, and by the very careful work of the hon. and gallant Member, that this matter ever came before the House. If my Amendment be carried, the House will have an opportunity of finding out about such jobs as that wich

583
was carried out in that case. Of course it may be said that foreign Powers would know where we are spending this money, but that is an old excuse. The fortifications proposed abroad have been described by the hon. Gentlemen as platforms for guns. These are things that can be so easily seen even by ships passing by, and you have to employ such a large number of men on the works that it is perfectly ridiculous to say that foreign Powers would not find out what was going on. Such an argument cannot really be seriously held. Then again there are several places where we object to money being spent, such as Wei-hai-wei, but if a blank cheque is drawn for this money it may be spent there. We had a long discussion this afternoon as to Nigeria. Have we any guarantee that the banks of the Niger are not to be fortified? This is a serious question, because the War Office has not always been careful, and has put up works where they were not wanted. Even in England we have the Martello towers, and we have had cases ever since of defensive works being put up all over the world which have proved useless. I think the House ought to have a right to investigate the expenditure of this large sum of money, and I therefore propose to add in Clause 1, page 1, line 14, after "issued" the following words, "But no expenditure shall be incurred under this Act abroad until twenty-one days after a Return of such expenditure has been laid on the Table stating the place where such expenditure is to be made." I move the Amendment in order that this House should have some power of complaining about what is proposed to be done if it does not approve of it. There is one argument which may be used against the Amendment, and that is that the House is not always sitting; but no works are going to be suddenly put up. The works are to last for many years, and we ought to now know what we are going to do during the six months after the rising of the House. Next year there will be plenty of time to lay on the Table all the details we require. It would not be necessary to deal with every item, but the sum to be expended and the place, should be given to the House before the money is expended. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, after 'issued' to insert But no expenditure shall be incurred under this Act abroad until twenty-one days after a
584
return of such expenditure has been laid on the Table stating the place where such expenditure is to be made."—(Mr. Warner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I shall not be able to accept the Amendment. I would point out to the hon. Member that his Amendment is a great deal wider than his speech. All his arguments had reference only to defence works, but the Amendment lays down that the House is to take cognisance of and control expenditure abroad. I would point out that I have already put down a great many more details in the Bill than it originally contained. I would also remind the hon. Member that I have promised to give the House every year the approximate amount spent in the previous year, and the estimated amount to be spent in the existing year. A Return is also given to the Public Accounts Committee each year as to barracks, and every shilling spent during the year under that head is accounted for, and through that channel the House will get information as to the manner in which those sums are expended. The Amendment of the hon. Member is really an alternative proposal for control. This Bill is a continuation of the Act of 1897, and we have followed the precedent of that Act, the principle of which was Treasury control. The plan which we now adopt has been pursued for eleven years. It is to pass the scheme and then to give control to the Treasury. Moreover, the House has already affirmed that principle, because it has not only passed the Second Reading of the Bill, which embodies this precedent and not the precedent of the Naval Works Act; but the Committee has this evening passed lines which recite the provisions of the Military Works Act of 1897. And I cannot think that the Committee, having affixed its sanction to one plan of control, will now suddenly add on the top of it another plan which is almost inconsistent with it and could not give the House any more power. The hon. Member has also anticipated another strong argument, and that is that this House does not sit for a considerable period of the year. Supposing, under this form of Treasury control, we give each year full details, it is for the Treasury to judge whether our proposals are economical or not.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I feel very strongly the refusal of the Government

585
to give the House of Commons the information as to these "defence works," and I think that we should mention the fact on this Amendment because there are those among us who do not like to take the responsibility of voting on these words. I do not believe in the necessity for concealment in regard to this matter. Such concealment is not practised by other nations, although it is perfectly true that they keep people away from their fortifications, but that is a different thing from attempting to conceal the places where money is to be spent. It appears to me perfectly idle on the part of the Government to adopt such a policy. Nobody is kept in the dark by it except the House itself, and I myself do not believe that the object of it is to prevent foreign Powers from knowing it, but merely the House of Commons. There are some very delicate matters to be considered when you are settling the places where you are going to put men and guns, and those delicate and difficult questions are just the questions which this House desires to discuss, and I cannot help thinking that the Government has an interest in concealing these matters from the House of Commons. I am so persuaded of the importance of knowing on what class of places it is intended that this defence money shall be spent, that I must support the Amendment of my hon. friend who sits beside me. I will put the matter plainly. My main objection would be met, as would the objections of many hon. Members on this side, if the Under Secretary would make a clean breast of the thing to-night and would tell us what the intentions of the Government are in this matter. The annual Return which is promised will give us no details with regard to the main ground of this large expenditure. I heartily support the proposal contended for by my hon. friend.
SIR J. COLOMB: My hon. friend the Under Secretary has stated that in this matter the Government are following the precedent of 1888. I have not had the opportunity of referring to that Act since my hon. friend addressed the House, but the point is, in my opinion, not so much whether it is contained in the Schedule or not, but whether the House should have the information from authoritative sources. I would point out to my hon. friend that he is wrong if he supposes that on that occasion the House of Commons had not the full information before it when it was asked to vote that money.
586
If he refers to the memorandum of the Estimates of the year 1888–9, he will find a statement there at page 16, showing that it was then considered essential that the House of Commons should know it gives the names of the places and the estimated cost of the works and buildings, and the barracks and the estimated cost of the heavy guns and quick-firing guns and ammunition, etc.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I think that the question we are discussing is a wider one than would appear from the Amendment itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean has given meacue, because he drew a contrast between defence works and guns. I cannot follow the Under Secretary for War in the contrast he drew between the control of this House of Commons and that of the Treasury; but perhaps as that refers to the Military Works Act of 1897, that may be more conveniently discussed on a later Amendment. I think this House ought to have full control over the expenditure, though I am afraid the Amendment before the Committee will be ineffective in that respect. There are two classes of Papers which are laid on the Table of this House, one of which does not become effective until it has lain on the Table a certain number of days, and therefore would not allow that criticism of the procedure which is indicated by my hon. Friend's Amendment.
MR. WARNER: I know very well that this Amendment will not be effective in giving all the control we should like to have, but we get some control by it, and if it is pressed we should get the advantage of knowing what is going on. I know it is only half a loaf, but that is better than no bread, and although the House could not stop this particular expenditure, it could make it unpleasant for the right hon. Gentleman, and that would curtail the expenditure. I moved this Amendment in its present mild form in the hope that the Government would accept it; but if they will not accept these words I will accept any others which will give us the same opportunity.
MR. BUCHANAN: I perceive the object of my hon. friend, but I do not think his Amendment will carry it out. We have no reason to believe anything else than that all the money of which we have no details is going to be spent abroad, but we want more particulars than we have got. What I venture to point out is that if we can get more de-

587
tails, we shall in that way probably get more effective control than we shall by this Amendment.
Question put and negatived
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule:—
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: The Amendment which I desire to move is on the defence works. The Government has drawn a rigid distinction in this Bill between money provided for buildings and that provided for defence works. When we come to the defence works in the Schedule we find there are no data whatever. Comparing the two administrations, we find that of the Navy has in a high degree the confidence of the country, which that of the Army has not. That is due to its being the rule of the Admiralty to give the details of Navy expenditure. It might be worth while for the War Office to take similar steps with regard to defence works. There is no justification, either on grounds of national safety or otherwise, for this concealment. There is no reason why details should not be given. I quite agree that it is inconvenient to raise the question in this way, but as the Bill is drawn there is no other way of doing so. There is no doubt whatever that during the last ten or fifteen years two things have been steadily going on. In the first place, there has been a very large increase in our military and naval expenditure; and, in the second place, there has been, and is at the present time, less desire in the House to criticise that expenditure. I translate that into loss of that minute control which, I maintain, it is so essential that the House should retain. I do not believe that the Treasury is able, unless it is supported by this House, to exercise that control which ought to be exercised over the great spending Departments of the State; neither do I believe that there is any justification whatever for withholding information in respect of those works from the House. I say this House is shirking the responsibility which it alone can exercise, and that every information should be laid before it, in order that it may be able to criticise the policy of the Government.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words—

'1 Defence

£

£

£

works

1,000,000

1,120,000

2,120,000.'"

—(Captain Sinclair.)
Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
SIR J. COLOMB: We have now arrived at the very marrow of the discussion. Does not the Under Secretary recognise this, by taking this million in connection with the new departure in China, where we know expenditure out of Estimates has already been incurred? Taking these things into consideration, I would ask my hon. friend whether he would not shorten the discussion by simply telling us whether the Government intend to spend any portion of this £1,000,000 at Wei-hai-wei, and if so, I do not ask within £100,000, but can he tell us roughly how much? All that is asked is where this £1,000,000 is going to be spent and how. The Under-Secretary for War tells us that it is dangerous to give any information as to the places where these earth-works are to be erected. But I see no reason why the War Office should not follow the example of the Admiralty? People often wonder why the Admiralty is so popular. It is because the Admiralty has long ago learned that to come forward with a plain statement which people could understand is the way to get Votes from this House and applause from the country. This War Office policy of erecting defence works was begun at a time when it was thought that steam would revolutionise the principles of strategy in naval warfare. But steam has not done so, and the principles of strategy in naval warfare remain the same as before. Attacks by hostile fleets or expeditionary forces are just as impossible now as they were before the days of steam, if our fleet is sufficient to match the enemy's fleet, and to render it powerless and destroy its mobility. The fact is that the Government was weak enough to give in to the clamour of Members representing commercial ports to put up fortifications and defence works in those ports. [Cries of "Divide"] I would remind hon. Gentlemen who cry "divide," and are willing to vote a million blindfolded, that, owing to economic conditions, this country will soon be put into a tight corner to get any men for its Army at all, and therefore it is very necessary to inquire very carefully into every proposal which will divert money from improving the position of the soldier and making the service attractive. To return to the question of the defence of commercial ports.

589
As I understand, the essence of the value of a commercial port is that ships should be able to go in and out of it freely, and if the port is only protected by land defence, and a hostile vessel takes up its position in the offing outside the range of the guns, it would prevent that. There is another point worthy of consideration. If the moral effect exercised by our sea supremacy is sufficient to deter a vessel from taking up a position in the offing, no vessel could attack the port. Therefore, however we look at it, we come to this—that we must rely upon the moral effect of our naval power mainly for the protection of our ports and harbours. With respect to Wei-hai-wei, it seems to me that the acquisition of that place, for political reasons, was thoroughly good; but to embark upon permanent expenditure upon it is, in my opinion, a thoroughly bad policy. I urge the Under Secretary to examine very closely the arguments of his advisers, because, in my opinion, the naval view put forward by the War Office is unsound. In the past it was not to be wondered at, because the Navy had been allowed to go down, but there is now no excuse for the present policy.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I do not think this House ought to vote a million of money without having some sort of idea of the extent to which the defence works on which it will be spent will involve garrisons. With regard to Wei-hai-wei, as objection has not been taken to the statement which was made, we must assume that some of the money will be spent upon that place. Since Wei-hai-wei has been occupied—as many think for Parliamentary and political reasons, rather than for reasons of defence—the whole situation there has been changed. In the face of the consolidation of Russian power in that neighbourhood on land, it is evident that no effective naval strength can be exercised in the Gulf of Pe-chi-li which shall have much influence on the power of Russia at Peking. Therefore we have to consider the occupation of Wei-hai-wei, not as an answer to the occupation of Port Arthur, but from the standpoint of a secondary naval base. We do not know, however, whether the War Office are accepting that position, or whether they are extending it. Of course, the policy of our drilling the Chinese police there has gone by the board.
COMMANDER BETHELL: I desire to say a few words in reply to my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. I understood him to say that Wei-hai-wei is of no value.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not say "of no value." I expressly excepted the secondary naval base position.
COMMANDER BETHELL: Wei-hai-wei, at any rate as a secondary naval base, is unquestionably of great value, and in this respect I am in opposition to my hon. and gallant friend below me (Sir John Colomb). It affords a singularly good anchorage for vessels of the largest size, and comparatively few guns will, from the anchor-ago, command the whole of the mainland opposite. I do not believe that it requires expensive fortification.
SIR J. COLOMB: Does my hon. and gallant friend deny that the mainland commands the island?
COMMANDER BETHELL: The Chinese Fleet, from the anchorage, drove the Japanese Army away from the plain behind the hills.
MR. BUCHANAN: I do not want to participate in the controversy as to the strategic value of Wei-hai-wei, but I think it is undoubtedly the fact that the mainland commands the island. During the whole course of the discussion on the question of Wei-hai-wei this session, we have never been able to get from the Government anything like a clear and complete account of what they intend to do. I think we are entitled to some information as to the purposes for which this million of money is to be spent, the places in which it is to be spent, and the amount which is to be spent in each place. On a previous occasion I asked the Under Secretary for War what were the valid reasons why the Government declined to give us some explanation. In one of the previous discussions on the Bill, the hon. Gentleman appealed to the precedent of the Military Works Act of 1897, and stated that we were following that precedent. But the hon. Gentleman is mistaken when he says that that precedent was not challenged; because, upon the Second Reading, this very question was raised by an Amendment by my hon. friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), who submitted that we should not consent to the Second Reading

591
until further information was given. We resisted it to the best of our ability, and we resist it now. But let us go a step further, and see what other arguments are brought forward by the hon. Gentleman. We have had the old, stale argument about the necessity for concealing information from foreign powers. That argument, however, is of no value whatever. Foreign Governments are free to inspect our dockyards in every detail. Their representatives go to Woolwich and see all the work that is going on there; and is it, therefore, to be imagined for a moment that, with the enterprise of the Press throughout the world, they do not know where we are setting up large earthworks, both in foreign and home stations? It is surely desirable that the country, when it is voting this money, should know the purposes for which it is to be spent. Are the War Office authorities afraid of the public and of the House of Commons? If not, why do they deny to us the details with regard to the proposed expenditure of this million of money? As representatives of the people, we are here to exercise control over the money voted, and to examine the purposes for which it is spent. I say, therefore, it is contrary to all constitutional principles that a sum should be voted for a Department, however ably that Department is managed, without any knowledge whatever of the purposes for which it is to be spent. I have no doubt that the War Office is as capable, and certainly as honest, as any other department of the State; but I would not trust angels or archangels to spend millions of money of their own free will. It is contrary to the constitutional principles upon which this House is founded, contrary to constitutional duty, and contrary to all principles of financial control.
MR. WYNDHAM: As far as the finance of this Bill is concerned, the Treasury has absolute control over every halfpenny As to the allocation of the money, the Government rely, not upon the Treasury, but upon their expert advisers. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth has drawn a very marked distinction between the popularity of the Navy and the popularity of the Army, and declared that a great deal of the popularity of the Navy is due to the fact that the Admiralty give the House much fuller details than the War Office in respect of defence works. But if blame is to be imputed for re-
592
ticence—and I do not think it will be—let it be put on the right shoulders. Who dictates the policy of the Government in regard to defence works? It is dictated almost wholly by the naval experts, and it is they who counsel reticence. Then it has been said that for precedent the Government must go back to the Defence Act of Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston has always been held up as a shocking example of following a policy of bricks and mortar to create a moral effect. With such a policy, the more detail given the greater the effect; but that is not the purpose of the Government. We wish to carry out in a businesslike manner the recommendations of those to whom we must look for advice. These defence works are earthworks on which guns are to be mounted; and, without a murmur, the Committee passed Vote IX. for stores, although I explained most explicitly that a sum was taken for guns under the Defence Act. If hon. Members do not want to know what guns are to be provided, they ought to allow reticence to be observed about the places at which they are to be mounted.
MR. BUCHANAN: We asked for the Report of Sir H. Brackenbury, and it was refused.
MR. WYNDHAM: Hon. Members are asking for the most secret document in existence at this moment. We are told, more especially by sailors, that they do not wish foreign fleets to know exactly how many guns, and of what size, are to be mounted at different places. It is also said that we give no particulars as to garrisons in different parts of the world. We have no objection to give the garrisons, but there is the greatest objection to give such financial indication as will enable anyone who chooses to do so to calculate the number and sizes of the guns. I am sorry to find that I cannot respond to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth, to indicate how this one million is to be divided among the various kinds of ports, the classification of which has been indicated. I must ask the Committee to support me in maintaining this attitude of reticence. It is a very grave matter when the Minister in charge of the policy of the Government is challenged again and again to give information which he is informed cannot be given without detriment to the public interest. Within the narrow limits I was

593
allowed on the Second Reading of the Bill, I stated that the greater portion of the three millions would go to make secure our principal naval bases, our secondary naval bases, coaling stations, and commercial ports, and that only a comparatively small portion would be left for the defence of commercial ports. These services are approved by all our naval advisers. I have stretched my tether to the utmost in making this announcement. The hon. and gallant Member has also criticised the classification of the ports, and said that every one of the reasons adduced in support of them are naval reasons. They are the reasons given by the naval advisers of the Government, and the classification is the classification of the naval advisers. It is a naval view submitted to the War Office.
SIR J. COLOMB: Is it not the naval view of what the War Office should do, provided the War Office pay for it, not the Navy
MR. WYNDHAM: There is no such restriction. The two Departments are working in perfect harmony; in this question of defence works the War Office
is acting on naval advice. I have never been reticent as to the subject of garrisons. I have told the House that we aim at having nineteen white and twelve coloured batallions abroad to garrison the stations that are held in order to fulfil the conditions of the Imperial scheme of defence. Therefore, no one need be alarmed by the idea that in passing this Vote I am pledging the Committee and the country to increase the garrisons or the number of garrisons, because the whole scheme is one scheme by which the Department is prepared to stand or fall, believing that if the interests of the Empire are to be adequately safeguarded we must accept the advice of our naval and military experts on matters of such vital importance. When we have the work done it does not matter. What we object to is to give five years' notice of our intentions. When the work is completed we shall not be afraid of its being investigated even by those who may, in an unfortunate hour, become our opponents. But until then we insist upon keeping our intentions to ourselves.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 143; Noes, 48. (Division List, No. 313.)

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hatch, Ernest Fred. Geo.

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

Curzon, Viscount

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Banbury, Frederick George

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Denny, Colonel

Howard, Joseph

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Doughty, George

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Johnstone, William (Belfast)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bethell, Commander

Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Bigwood, James

Finch, George H.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Bond, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Brassey, Albert

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Fry, Lewis

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

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

Garfit, William

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gedge, Sydney

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(C. of Lond.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Maclure, Sir John William

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Gilliat, John Saunders

M'Killop, James

Chamberlain, J. Anstin (Worc'r

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon, Henry

Gordon. Hon. John Edward

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Charrington, Spencer

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Milton, Viscount

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

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J.(St. Geo.'s

Milward, Colonel Victor

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Monk, Charles James

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Morrell, George Herbert

Round, James

Valentia, Viscount

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

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

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Whiteley, H. (Ash'n-under-L.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Rutherford, John

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Ryder, John H. Dudley

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Seely, Charles Hilton

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wrightson, Thomas

Pierpoint, Robert

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wylie, Alexander

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Wyndham, George

Priestley, Sir W Overend-(Edin.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stanley, E. J.(Somerset)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Purvis, Robert

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Thornton, Percy M.

Sir William Walrond and

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Tollemache, Henry James

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Allen, W. (Newc-under-Lyme)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

Asher, Alexander

Hazell, Walter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Caldwell, James

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Rickett, J. Compton

Cawley, Frederick

Joicey, Sir James

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

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

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Lambert, George

Strachey, Edward

Crombie, John William

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Davitt, Michael

Lloyd-George, David

Tennaut, Harold John

Dillon, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Crae, George

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Duckworth, James

M'Ewan, William

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Leod, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Maddison, Fred.

Captain Sinclair and Mr. Buchanan.

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

SIR J. FERGUSSON: I shall not trouble the Committee for more than a few moments, but this is the only opportunity we shall have of urging upon the Government the desirability of improving barracks in the interests of the respectability and the encouragement of morality among the men. We have been told that military experts are not unanimous upon the point of subdividing barrack-rooms, but surely it is rather too much to insist upon absolute unanimity among military experts before you can resolve upon any reform. You cannot expect absolute unanimity among any class of men, but where there is a predominence of sentiment in any one direction it is generally recognised that the minority should give way to the majority. There is a considerable consensus of opinion that it is very desirable that a rather better class of recruits should be attracted to the Army. Nothing would more conduce to that end than that the conditions of residence in barracks should be such as not to shock the feelings of the better class. In my Amendment I do not insist upon having
596
cubicles introduced in barrack rooms as a universal principle, but that the plan should be adopted in certain barracks. The other point is that of temperance rooms. I marvel at the manner in which the War Office is setting its face against the provision of separate rooms for abstainers. Without being in the least an advocate of compulsory abstinence, I do think it is a good thing that young men in the Army should be encouraged to abstain from strong drink. It has been objected that this system would load to "cliquism," but those who control the Army in India, where such provision is made, do not see any such danger. Lord Roberts put himself at the head of the movement, and his successor, Sir George White, not only carried it on, but has advocated it in the strongest terms, while Major General Trotter considers it a most valuable and necessary reform. I urge that in these new barracks this principle should be tried.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 10, after the word 'barracks,' to insert the words 'including

597
recreation rooms for abstainers, and subdivision of sleeping rooms in certain barracks, and.'"—(Sir J. Fergusson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR.WYNDHAM: I think these words are somewhat broad, and might be held to imply an obligation to introduce separate rooms in any barracks proposed under the Bill; therefore I hope the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. My right hon. friend will readily see that the experiment can only be tried at barracks where there are dining-halls. It is the intention of the Secretary of State for War to try the experiment of cubicles in the barracks at Woking and Dublin, and as the experiment of dining-halls there has led to the adoption of the principle in all new barracks, so it may be, and I hope will be, that the experiment there of cubicles will lead to their general adoption at no distant date. I am not in a position to accept the Amendment, because it would tie us down rigidly, but I would ask my right hon. friend to accept my promise that the experiment is to be tried. As to the proposal of a separate club for abstainers, my right hon. friend has himself shown how many officers have advocated this reform, and although there is not now a consensus of opinion, I would put it to him that he might be content to leave the matter in their hands, considering that they have every facility for urging their views upon those with whom the adoption of the policy rests.
MR. PIRIE: My only regret with regard to this Amendment is that it is scarcely strong enough. I should like to have seen an Amendment moved in favour of these Army temperance rooms being provided in all large barracks. There should also be a clear distinction drawn between the two subjects of temperance rooms and cubicles, because of the difference in the relative expenditure involved. A very moderate expenditure would be necessary to provide separate temperance rooms, but the expenditure on cubicles is a very different matter. The statement that the provision of such rooms would lead to "cliquism" in the Army is refuted by the testimony of commanding officer after commanding officer. Perhaps a remark of the Secre-
598
tary of State for War may explain in some degree the position of the War Office upon the matter. Speaking of these proposed new barracks, he said:
"It is quite true that up to the present time military authorities have not seen their way to give the members of the Army Temperance Association that separate room which they so much desire. Sir George White knows that although there may be unanimity in this room upon that point, that unanimity does not exist everywhere."
Reading between the lines it is very clear that Lord Lansdowne was referring to a want of unanimity in this matter in the War Office. There is a general feeling among the Service Members in favour of the Amendment. I say it is the duty of the House to insist upon this reform being carried out.
MR. HEDDERWICK, in supporting the Amendment, expressed his regret that the Under Secretary for War could not see his way to accept it. Temperance should be encouraged in every way in the Army. He believed, however, it was notorious that much of the good work that was done in India in promoting sobriety in the Army was entirely lost when the regiments were removed to stations where, through want of a room for the abstainers, their association was necessarily broken up.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: My wish is, not to gain a victory in Debate, but to accomplish a great Army reform. Separate rooms for abstainers have been provided in the Army in India, and punishments, both summary and at court martial, have greatly decreased, while the health of the Army has immensely increased. I think it is most unfortunate, therefore, that owing to the prejudice at the War Office—possibly against Lord Roberts, who was the pioneer of the movement—the Government feel themselves obliged to oppose a movement which has been so conspicuously successful, and has so much to recommend it. I will, however, withdraw the Amendment, for to have it negatived would retard the temperance movement in the Army for a long time. In seeking to promote the success of this movement I prefer to rely upon public opinion, which has so often been too strong for Governments; but I regret that my hon. friend should be instructed to oppose the motion, because I believe that he is personally in favour of it. I

599
believe, moreover, that if the opinion of the country could be sufficiently aroused no Government would be strong enough to resist the proposal.
MAJOR JAMESON: I have listened with some interest to the right hon. Baronet, and I am bound to say that I have as much at heart the good of the Army, in which I served for many years, as he has. But if the temperance party desire to impart their convictions to the other soldiers, surely the proper way is not for them to shut themselves up in a room by themselves, but to sit side by side with their comrades and endeavour to instil some of their temperance opinions into their minds. But is it not a farce to think that you are bound to have one room for people who drink tea and another for those who drink beer?
AN HON. MEMBER: We have it here.
MAJOR JAMESON: The hon. Gentleman who makes that remark may sit in the tea-room, but I will sit in the other. If there is good in the temperance party, let them mix with so-called intemperate people like myself, who are not total abstainers. I deny, however, that the British Army is intemperate, and I deny that you want any special legislation for the drunkards in the Army. The commanding officer of every regiment is perfectly able to deal with drunkenness, and we do not want Gentlemen on either side of the House to say how they shall be dealt with. It would be casting a stigma on the British Army to separate those who are called temperance people from those who are supposed by the temperance party to be intemperate. As far as I am concerned, I have seen no intemperance in the British Army worth mentioning—far less, indeed, than you see in London and all the great cities. If the Government are going in for local option in the Army I wish them joy of their policy, but I would appeal to them not to go in for fads. It would appear that the temperance party want to shut themselves up in one room while I and others are to wallow in our sins in another.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I rise to express my regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, who is one of the directors of a great distillery company, should have thought it his duty to lecture those who
600
are anxious to promote temperance in the Army.
COLONEL BLUNDELL: I cannot support the Amendment of my right hon. friend. It will not do to tie the hands of the War Office. Let them give a temperance room where they can, but do not bind them to do so. With regard to the cubicle system proposed, I regard it as generally impracticable.
MR. MADDISON: I rise to support this Amendment. It is not, I submit, an attempt to impose a fad on the British Army, unless it is a fad to protect youngsters of seventeen or eighteen years of age from temptation. Everybody who has worked in the promotion of social and temperance reform knows the great difficulties which meet a young man in starting life. Everything depends upon the people he gets amongst to begin with, and, as the right hon. Baronet said, if a room could be set apart for the teetotalers and the opportunity given to them of gathering amongst themselves, good habits would be engendered at the very start and many a young fellow would be saved from evil-doing. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill asked the right hon. Baronet to be content with the influence of the officers whose names have been mentioned, but it is quite obvious that the influence of these officers is not paramount, or the scheme which they thoroughly support would have been put into operation. It has been clearly proved, as hon. Members know very well, that in India the very system which the right hon. Baronet wants to introduce into the new barracks has been in operation for a number of years, and has proved absolutely successful. The War Office apparently agree with a great authority on the Navy in this House, who told us some time ago that if he was in a tight corner he would prefer to have scallywags with him. But does history justify that statement? Havelock's men were not scallywags, and the men who won the battles of the Commonwealth were not scallywags, and one could quote a great many similar cases. The hon. and gallant Member (Major Jameson) has declared that he never saw much drunkenness in the Army, but the facts and figures point in another direction. We know too well that the Army frequently turns out moral wrecks. For

601
my part I shall vote, as I rarely do, with the right hon. Baronet, and with very great pleasure.
MR. DILLON: I only desire to say one sentence in support of this Amendment. I have always opposed large expenditure on military and naval works, but when it comes to a question of improving the sanitary conditions of the barracks or of encouraging men who are inclined, under great difficulties, to practise temperance, I must confess that my strong sympathies are in favour of such expenditure, and I shall therefore support the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.
MAJOR GOLDSWORTHY: I regret that the right hon. Baronet cannot withdraw his Amendment, because after the statements which have been made by the Under Secretary for War there is no doubt that it is unnecessary. I believe everyone in this House is in favour of temperance, but I have no sympathy with those men who are teetotalers simply, as they think, because they get no temptation. Let us have a little backbone, so that the people may see that they can resist temptation. I am certain that there are many Members who, whilst in favour of temperance, would be unwilling to support an Amendment of this description.
MR. DOUGHTY: I think the right hon. Baronet has made out a strong case for his proposal, and I fail to see why the Government should object to the Amendment. Now that we are going to spend such large sums in building new barracks we should take the opportunity to provide recreation rooms for the large and increasing number of abstainers in the Army.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I wish to give my voice in support of the Amendment, and to point out the absolute groundlessness of the contention of the hon. Gentleman below me (Major Jameson) that this Amendment involves the principle of local option. On the contrary, there is nothing whatever prohibitive in it; it is only an enabling provision. Having regard to the evils connected with the military system and the strong temptations to which young soldiers are exposed, it is our bounden duty, as far as we possibly can, to employ remedial agencies. I should, therefore, be delighted if this Bill, containing many things to which I object, had at least one provision which could be supported by the friends of temperance and morality.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 103. (Division List, No. 314.)

AYES.

Allen, W. (Newc. under Ly me)

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Asher, Alexander

Horniman, Frederick John

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Clackm.

Joicey, Sir James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Brassey, Albert

Lambert, George

Strachey, Edward

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Macaleese, Daniel

Tennant, Harold John

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Crae, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Coghill, Douglas Harry

M'Kenna, Reginald

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Killop, James

Williams, John Carvell (Notts).

Doughty, George

Maddison, Fred

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Duckworth, James

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Gedge, Sydney

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Sir James Fergusson and

Hazell, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

William Johnston.

NOES.

Arnold, Alfred

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bethell, Commander

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Charrington, Spencer

Banbury, Frederick George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Collings, Rn. Hon, Jesse

Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Jesspel, Captain Herbert M.

Rutherford, John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

Seely, Charles Hilton

Curzon, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Denny, Colonel

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long. Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Madona, John Cumming

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Finch, George H.

Maclure, Sir John William

Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

Finlay, sir Robert Bannatyne

Manners, Lord E. W. J.

Thornton, Percy M.

Fisher, William Hayes

Milward, Colonel Victor

Tollemache, Henry James

Fletcher, Sir Henry

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Morrell, (George Herbert

Valentia, Viscount

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

Fry, Lewis

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

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Garfit, William

Nicholson, William Graham

Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lnd.)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wylie, Alexander

Goldswothy, Major-General

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Wyndham, George

Goschen, Rt. Hon G. J. (St. Geo.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Purvis, Robert

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Sir William Walrond and

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Mr. Anstruther

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Schedule:—
MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to call attention to the item of £1,600,000 with regard to Salisbury Plain. It is a question of giving the War Office a vast sum of money to deal with without any control whatever. No detailed estimates are laid before the House; we have no particulars as to how many barracks are to be built, or for how many troops, or anything else. We certainly ought to have some details. Two years ago we were told there was no intention of erecting a great number of permanent barracks on Salisbury Plain, as had been done at Aldershot. Now there has been some alteration on the part of the War Office, and the type of Aldershot is to be followed.
MR. WYNDHAM: I would remind the hon. Member that the promise to which he refers was made on the 27th March, 1897; that is before this House had sanctioned the increase of the Army which gave rise to this barracks scheme. When that addition to the Army was made we had to consider where we should build barracks to accommodate the force. It was considered to be very much more economical to build on a site we already had, and that is the course to be pursued. The hon. Member has asked what troops we are building for. We are providing for six or seven battalions of infantry, and for six battalions of cavalry.
MR. WARNER: I am sorry to hear that we have not really got an increase
604
of the Army, but an increase of the units, and that these barracks are apparently for the extra units of the paper Army. I rise to move to insert after the word "artillery" the word "cavalry." My reason for doing so is the great loss there is in horseflesh at these camps and manœuvres in consequence of the want of housing accommodation for the horses. Seven Life Guards lost sixteen horses in the manœuvres last year. The men have tents over them, but the horses are turned out in the open, and that causes, if not the actual loss of the horses, a very great depreciation in their value. As Salisbury Plain is used more for cavalry manœuvres than anything else, this is a very important point, and I move accordingly.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 1, after the word 'infantry,' to insert the word 'cavalry.'"—(Mr. Warner.)
Question, "That the word 'cavalry' be there inserted," put and negatived.
SIR J. COLOMB: I want to know what is the principle upon which the Imperial Government are finding money to build barracks at Halifax. Halifax is a naval base. Esquimalt is a naval base. In regard to the latter, the Canadian Government not only have provided money for the defence of the place, but they actually pay for the garrison. If that principle is good on the Pacific seaboard, why is it not good on the Atlantic seaboard? Has there been any correspondence between the Colonial Office and the

605
Canadian Government asking the latter to apply to Halifax the principle which they accept with regard to Esquimalt?
MR. WYNDHAM: We have been in communication with the Canadian Government upon a number of subjects, and the allocation of burdens between the mother country and the colony must be part of general negotiations. The very fact that Canada has come forward and agreed to do so much at Esquimalt would naturally militate against her being urged to take up the other matter.
Schedule agreed to.
MR. BUCHANAN: The object of my Amendment is to make the schedule more precise. The words are very ambiguous. It was found last year that the words "ranges and manœuvring grounds" were taken to justify the War Office in purchasing the whole of the properties on Salisbury Plain, so that an important purchase amounting to £350,000 did not appear in the public accounts, and it was only by accident, so to speak, that we discovered that this large purchase had been made under the Military Works Act, 1897. It would be very much better that this statement of the purpose for which the money is wanted should be made definite and distinct.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, column 1, line 16, to leave out from 'including' to 'mobilisation' in line 17, both inclusive"—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
MR. WYNDHAM: The reason for the introduction of the words is that otherwise they would not apply to the sums in columns 3 and 4. I could, however, meet the hon. Member's point by putting an asterisk against those columns and a note at the bottom of the page. I will undertake to do that.
MR. PIRIE: Would the hon. Gentleman state where the money on ranges is to be spent, and whether any of it will be in Scotland?
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member will recollect that on the Second Reading I pointed out that it was a matter of negotiation, and therefore it is quite impossible for me to indicate where the ranges will be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to move the Amendment standing in my name, and which I understand the Government will accept.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment, although I think it is already provided for.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 21, at end, to add, 'No building will be undertaken which cannot be completed within the £4,000,000 asked for under this Act.'"—(Mr. Buchanan.)
SIR J. COLOMB: I wish personally to thank my hon. friend for his courtesy and the manner in which he has answered every question. There is one point I should like to put, and that is whether the total sum of £4,000,000 is gross or net; that is, whether credit has been taken for barracks that are to be no longer used, and therefore sold, because there ought to be considerable receipts from that source.
MR. WYNDHAM: It will be seen that these sums apply to new works, and therefore the question of what will be made out of our old property does not arise in the schedule. There is a prospect of getting a certain sum back, but unfortunately in most cases we have only leasehold, and not freehold property.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 296.)

IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. J. W. LOWTHERin the chair.
Clause 1:—
MR. CHANNING: The practical effect of my first Amendment is to exclude from the operation of this new Bill the provisions of the Limited Owners' Residences Act,

607
1870 and 1871, and to confine the extension of the facilities for loans to landowners for improvements to the more especially agricultural and other improvements, such as buildings, bridges, jetties, roads, and other provisions which are of use to those who reside on the estate. This Act very rightly extends the power to authorise loans for useful improvements, which are urgently needed for the development of agriculture. The President of the Board of Agriculture sat with me on a Commission which recommended not only the extension of the powers as given by this Bill, but also the extension of the principle of loans of public money for this purpose, in addition to authorising the repayment of loans to be spread over a larger number of years than under the provisions of the preceding Acts. I contend that a very considerable extension is given to the powers of landowners to carry out improvements, and I would appeal to the House as to whether it is not reasonable to ask that one of the conditions of that extension should be improvements of practical value to those who dwell upon the estates in question. Of course, there are many such improvements, the most prominent among them being the provision of labourers' cottages, etc. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave extremely weighty evidence upon this point, and his evidence is quoted in the second Report of the Agricultural Commission. In that Report, which was signed by the majority of the Commission, and upon which the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896 was based, the Chancellor of the Exchequer advocated a system of loans, and classified the improvements for which loans are urgently required for agriculture, and for the interests of the agricultural population, in this way: First, the erection and improvement of labourers' cottages; secondly, the subdivision of existing holdings; thirdly, the construction of light railways; and, fourthly, general agricultural improvements. The first and second of these objects which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his great experience, based as it is upon his admirable management of his own estates, recommended, are improvements, surely, of far more importance for Parliament to authorise than the provision for the extension of mansion-houses. One of the reasons urged for the passing of the Limited Owners'
608
Residences Act, in 1870, was that it would apply to Ireland and check absenteeism. But is it not pretty obvious, especially in the Eastern counties, that over-building has led to a great deal of absenteeism in England? It has led a great many landowners in the Eastern counties, in consequence of having houses far too large for them to keep up, to let those houses and to turn their estates into mere shooting preserves. Grave complaints have been made by the farmers in those districts that they are handed over to business men who come down from the city, and who have no interest in the district or in the welfare of the people, beyond the desire to take the largest quantity of game they possibly can. Moreover, those people generally get their supplies from London, and are very often a great nuisance to their neighbours, and their presence, so far from benefiting, is injurious to the welfare of the neighbourhood. I would point out that my Amendment in no sense diminishes the powers which landowners now have of charging their estates under the Act of 1870 and 1871, and if it were accepted the only change it would make in the existing law would be that they would not be able to charge their estates for a longer period than twenty-five years, or to charge more than one of their estates, supposing they had several, in order to build a mansion-house. It is very singular that during the period of agricultural depression—namely, between the years 1879 and 1894—the expenditure on mansion-houses was considerably larger than the expenditure upon cottages, £430,000 being charged on estates for mansion-houses in that period, and £377,000 only for providing labourers' cottages. And during the five years of acute depression, between 1889 and 1894, the amount of money expended and charged upon estates for mansion-houses was nearly £170,000, whereas the amount charged for the provision of cottages for the labouring population was only £67,000, or hardly more than one-third, while the expenditure on drainage, which was urgently needed in some parts of the country, amounted to only £12,000. Thus, during the worst period of agricultural depression, we find the landlords spending more money on mansion-houses and loss on urgently required improvements on their estates. These figures

609
show the ground for the limitation I propose. I would ask the Committee once more to remember that what I suggest is not a diminution of the existing powers of landlords in charging their estates for a reasonable provision of mansion-houses, and for the enlargement of their houses for their own pleasure and comfort, but that the special facilities under this Act should not be extended to mansion-houses, and that they should not charge more than one of their estates for this purpose. I would ask, also, whether the building and enlargement of a landowner's house can possibly be such an improvement as the equipment of farms with the most modern arrangements, and it is only by these means that we can succeed against foreign competition, or the provision of small holdings and comfortable cottages for the working population, which are, after all, the backbone of the agricultural community, so that these estates may be worked not only for the happiness of the people but for the ultimate welfare of the landlord himself.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out the words 'an improvement of land,' and insert the words 'any of the improvements mentioned in section 9 of the principal Act, or in section 25 of the Settled Land Act, 1882'—(Mr. Channing)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words 'an improvement of land' stand part of the clause."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I will not go into a full discussion of the history of the improvement of land, but I would point out to the Committee that the hon. Member has ignored the conditions under which money can be borrowed for the rebuilding and improvement of residences, and the general improvement of the estate. They are not borrowed under similar conditions. For the rebuilding or improvement of residences the owner is limited to two years' net value of the income. But there is a still more important limitation, that in cases of loans incurred for the improvement of estates they take priority of all existing mortgages and loans. In the absence of a residence, or where the residence is in bad order, it is clearly desirable that it should be provided or restored. If the Amendment is carried, instead of having more money to spend upon the general development of the estate the owner will have less. It would limit the powers of the owners, and prevent them from putting their residences into such a condition as would be of advantage to the estate and to the locality.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 100; Noes, 21. (Division List, No. 315.)

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Dalkeith, Earl of

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Denny, Colonel

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Doughty George

Lucas-Shad well, William

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Macdona, John Cumming

Barton, Dunbar Plunkett,

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Maclure. Sir John William

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M H. (Bristol)

Fellowes, hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Killop, James

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C

Finch, George H.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert B.

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fisher, William Hayes

Morrell, George Herbert

Brassey, Albert

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Fry, Lewis

Nicholson, William Graham

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Garfit, William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gedge, Sydney

Orr-Ewing, (Charles Lindsay

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pierpoint, Robert

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Chaplin, Rt Hon. Henry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Charrington, Spencer

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Round, James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Leigh-Bennett Henry Currie

Ryder John Herbert Dudley

Curzon, Viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Seely, Charles Hilton

Thornton, Percy M.

Wylie, Alexander

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Tollemache, Henry James

Wyndham, George

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Valentia, Viscount

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arey

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Williams. Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Sir William Walrond and

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.-

Mr. Anstruther

NOES.

Asher, Alexander

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Joicey, Sir James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Strachey, Edward

Doogan, P. C.

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Duckworth, James

M'Crae, George

Tennant, Harold John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hazell, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Mr. Channing and Mr. Courtenay Warner.

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

MR. CHANNING: The next clause that I propose is a purely permissive clause. The Board of Agriculture has to consider each application with regard to a scheme of improvement upon its merits, and I seek in this clause to give them the power if the land-lord's scheme of improvement is unsatisfactory, and if it is within the knowledge of the Board of Agriculture that adequate cottage accommodation on such an estate is not properly provided, to decline to entertain that scheme unless he can amend it in the sense that he would charge his property to a reasonable extent for the provision of cottage accommodation upon that estate. I think the reasons upon which such provision is based are reasons which any practical man would suppose would be in the mind of the Board of Agriculture in dealing with this question. The Board would be neglecting their duty if they did allow estates to be charged up to the hilt without making any provision for the removal of deficiencies with regard to cottage accommodation.
New Clause—
"The Board of Agriculture, before making an order on any application made to them under the principal Act or under this Act to sanction improvements, may by one of their officers hold an inquiry as to the provision of adequate and suitable cottages for the labouring population on the estate in respect of which the application is made, and if the officer holding such inquiry reports such provision to be defective, the Board may decline to make an order unless the landowner shall amend his application so as to include some improvement of the cottage accommodation on the estate."(Mr. Channing.)
brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LONG: I hope the Committee will support me in resisting this new clause. The object of this Bill is to extend the powers of limited owners especially to improve their estates. When a limited owner goes to one of these companies to obtain a loan in order to drain his cottages or to provide a water supply, the Board of Agriculture is invited by the hon. Gentleman to say, "Before you expend this money upon this most desirable purpose which will confer permanent benefit upon your property, we will inquire whether or not cottages are required upon your estate. If cottages are required we will refuse to allow you to expend this money, necessary though it is, unless you are prepared to expend other money." I submit that that is a ridiculous proposal which would have precisely the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman desires. What we want to do is to encourage as far as we legitimately can the expenditure of money in the development and improvement of estates, and I hope the Committee will reject this Amendment.
MR. STRACHEY: I hope the Committee will not shut their eyes to the fact that there are estates where the provision of cottages is very bad, and a landowner might be looking at the question and saying, "If I spend this money on drainage or on improvements I shall get a very good return for it." In many cases tenants are prepared to give a larger rent, or not to ask for a reduction of rent if these expenditures.

613
are made. But it is a well-known fact that as regards cottage property there is no direct increase of rent, although of course there is an indirect advantage. In such cases this Amendment would be very desirable, and I should strongly support it.
MR HAZELL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision with regard to this Amendment. There are many cases in which the cottages are very fair as far as they go, but there are not enough of them. The mere fact that the question of proper accommodation would be inquired into would induce an owner when he desired a loan to look round at the cottage accommodation, and probably include a moderate amount of increased accommodation in his scheme.
MR. SOAMES: The great problem in the agricultural districts in East Anglia is to get a sufficient amount of agricultural labour in the villages, and no doubt the question of the cottages has something to do with it. Landowners who manage their estates well need have no fear whatever of this clause; but there are cases undoubtedly in which there is a tendency on the part of landowners to spend money on other objects rather than on cottages. I therefore desire to join in urging the right hon. Gentleman to consider this clause favourably.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 21; Noes, 96. (Division List, No. 316.)

AYES.

Asher, Alexander

Horniman, Frederick John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buchanan, Thomas Byburn

Joicey, Sir James

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbland)

Tennant, Harold John

Doogan, P. C.

Macaleese, Daniel

Tollemache, Henry James

Duckworth, James

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hazell, Walter

Provand, Arthur Dryburgh

Mr. Channing and Mr. Strachey.

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

NOES.

Arnold, Alfred

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r

Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John

Finch, George H.

Purvis, Robert

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Fry. Lewis

Round, James

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Garfit, William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Gedge, Sydney

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Seely, Charles Hilton

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

Smith, J Parker (Lanarks.)

Brassey, Albert

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lawrence. Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

Lawson. John Grant (Yorks.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thornton, Percy M.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham)

Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverp'l)

Valentia, Viscount

Charrington, Spencer

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

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

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Macdona, John Cumming

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Maclure, Sir John William

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

M'Killop, James

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Curzon, Viscount

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wylie, Alexander

Dalkeith, Earl of

More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Wyndham, George

Denny, Colonel

Morrell, George Herbert

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Doughty, George

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

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson. William Graham

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Isaac Newton William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Pierpoint, Robert

Bill reported, without Amendment.
MR. LONG: I hope I may appeal to the House to take the Third Reading now.
MR. CHANNING: I do not propose to object to the Third Reading, but at the same time I wish to say with some emphasis that the absence of any limitations being imposed in this Bill will compel me to vote against it on its Third Reading.
Bill read the third time and passed.

PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. PARKER SMITH: The Patriotic Fund, I think, has gone in too much of late years for accumulating funds. These funds, which were subscribed for a particular purpose, ought not to be saved, but expended upon the people for whom they were intended. It is a step in the right direction to extend the object of the fund from widows and orphans to other dependents, but there is another step which ought to be included in any extension, and that is making the fund applicable to the men themselves who served in these campaigns. If we are compelled to look beyond the original objects of the fund I think these men should be first to come in for consideration, and I would urge this view upon the Government.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It would be quite impossible to amend the Bill in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. I can only say that the Bill as it stands embodies the unanimous wish of those who have worked upon the subject.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL: There is a sum of no less than £23,189 which is to be wiped off in respect of local loans given to the people of Ireland. The corresponding amount in Scotland is £137. Ten persons alone take £3,000, and a great many have got the whole of their sums wiped off. The only wonder is that anybody in Ireland thinks of repaying any loans at all. It is very unfair that while some people repay the money, other people get let off. I think some little explanation is required, and perhaps it will be given.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. CALDWELL: I have a number of Amendments on the Paper, but I quite recognise that at two o'clock in the morning it is no good moving such Amendments. I shall therefore content myself with simply protesting against the system of Departments keeping these Bills until this stage of the session. I may also say that although the Bill is passed this year, it must not be assumed that it will pass next year.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL [Lords].
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes after Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
    BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
    Committee to meet To-morrow.
LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MENSTONE WATER BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.

    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
    DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, &c., BILL.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    REDDITCH GAS BILL.
    STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [H.L.]

    PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
    WHITEHAVEN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

    LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, with Amendments, and a consequential Amendment to the Bill.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  ELECTRTC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
  House to be in Committee To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Road 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (DANGEROUS TRADES).
  Fourth Interim Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into and report upon certain miscellaneous dangerous trades. Supplementary report and evidence on the manufacture and use of grindstones and on file cutting.
  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Accounts and estimates for the years 1896–1900.
  INDIA (CURRENCY).
  Despatch of the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Governor-General of India in Council, dated the 25th of July, 1899, respecting the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Indian currency.
  AFRICA, No. 7 (1899).
  Correspondence respecting the African Liquor Traffic Convention signed at Brussels 8th June, 1899.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  Calendar, history, and general summary of regulations for the year 1900, with tables.
  Presented (by Command); and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (DIFFERENT MEAL HOURS) (SPINNING OF ARTIFICIAL SILK).
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 20th July, 1899, extending to factories or workshops in which the spinning of artificial silk is carried on, the special exceptions with regard to meal hours contained in Section 52 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour of; of the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Galashiels; the Commissioners of Tillicoultry; the Edinburgh Merchants' Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petitions for amendment of; of the Royal Parliamentary and Police Burghs of Scotland; the Magistrates and Town Council of Dunfermline; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petition of Colonel David Milne Home for return of two documents produced in evidence before the Committee of Privileges on the Marchmont Peerage claim in 1842; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE AT KHARTOUM BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  OYSTERS BILL [H.L.]
  House to be in Committee on Monday next.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1:—
  LORD HERRIES: My Lords, I was unfortunately prevented from being in my place when the Second Reading of this Bill was taken, and I should like, therefore, to make one or two observations upon Clause 1, and, if necessary, to move the omission of the clause. I regret very much that Her Majesty's Government have brought in this Bill, especially at so late a period of the session, and I regret it for several reasons. In the first place, although the amount of money which is to be handed over to the tithe-owner is small, a very serious principle is involved, and as one interested in the rating question, I feel that it is rather important, in the interests of the local taxpayer, that the principle which was adopted when the Agricultural Rates Act became law should be adhered to. I remember that, at the time that Act was passed, the principal argument of those who upheld it was that rates were a tax on capital, and that if a landowner or tenant farmer, by means of his capital, doubled the rateable value of his land, his rates would also be doubled. It was also argued that land was the raw material upon which a farmer depended for his trade, and that for that reason it was unfair that it should be taxed. I took this line myself, and was strongly in favour of the rates being taken off land in consequence of the injury they did to the capital of the farm. But it appears in this Bill that the principle has been extended to those whose capital is not affected in any way, and whose incomes are fixed. The unfortunate thing about this Bill is, that in those counties in which the tithe is highest the relief will be greatest. Let me give you the instance of Essex, where the commuted tithes amount to an average of 5s. per acre throughout the county, and to a total of £250,000 a year. This amount is equal to 6s. per head of the population. In Lancashire, the amount of tithe is only £75,000 a year, and the relief of the tithe-owner in Lancashire will not be great in consequence. The tithe-owner in Essex receives 5s. for every acre in the county, and 6s. 4d. per head of the population. In Lancashire, he only receives 4½ d. per head of the population. In Northumberland he receives Is. 1½ d. per acre, or 3s. per head of the population. In the County of Hereford, it is at the

  437
  rate of 13s. 6d. for every head of the population. Surely, you would think that the tithe-owner who received so large a sum as 13s. 6d. per head of the population was receiving enough; but it is in the counties where the tithes are the highest that the owner will receive the most benefit under this Bill. This will fall very heavily on the local taxpayer, because, if the money were not given to the tithe-owner, it would go to the relief of the general rates. In my opinion the ratepayer has a prior right to it. A good deal has been said as to whether tithe-owners are liable to pay rates. I think it is clear that in the years immediately preceding the Tithe Commutation Act tithe-owners did pay rates. It will be seen from questions which arose, especially in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, that the rates which were paid by the tithe-owners in those days were very high indeed. In 1833 and 1834 the Poor Rate alone was, I believe, sometimes as high as 10s. in the £ I am of opinion that the reason the tithes in Essex and Suffolk are so high, is that when the Commissioners under the Tithe Commutation Act inspected the different districts, they found that the rates were so high that they increased the tithes with a view of protecting the tithe-owner from any danger which would accrue in consequence of these high rates. It is for these reasons, and not through any want of respect for the clergymen, who have so well performed their duties in the various parishes, that I condemn the principle of this Bill. Tithes are no doubt the property of the tithe-owner, but they carry with them the obligation to pay rates, and by passing this Bill you are injuring the chance of the Agricultural Rates Act being prolonged, and only conferring a temporary benefit on the clergy of the Church of England.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not understand that the noble Lord has made any motion, but it would not be entirely courteous to him if I left his remarks unanswered, although he has travelled over ground which I thought was fairly covered during the Debate on the Second Reading. As regards his general criticism of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced, I can only refer him to the statement of the Government. They have introduced this simply as a
  438
  rating question, to remedy what in their opinion is a great injustice, and an injustice which has remained too long unredressed. As to the second point of the noble Lord, that the relief to be given would not correspond exactly with the prospective amounts taken from the Local Taxation Account, county by county, Her Majesty's Government entirely admit that fact; but the point for which we have contended is that it is perfectly within the competence of Parliament, and within the original intention of the Local Taxation Account, to redistribute a prospective advance in this way. I know this view does not command the universal consent of your Lordships. This sum is only a prospective advance. I find that the average annual increase during the past eight years in the whole of the Local Taxation Account has not been loss than £100,000 per anmum, and the total amount proposed to be taken under the Bill is £87,000. Therefore, under no circumstances will this Bill take anything from any county which it ever had before. It simply forestalls to a certain extent the proportion of the prospective increase to which they might otherwise have looked forward. The noble Lord has accounted for the high tithe in Essex by the theory that a special allowance was added to the Essex tithes by the Tithe Commissioners in 1836 in order to make up to the tithe-owner the large amount of rates for which he was liable. That was a point which I endeavoured to deal with in my speech on the Second Reading, and I trust the noble Lord will allow me to assure him respectfully that there is not the shadow of a shade of foundation for that theory. The owner of a farm, when he lets his farm, receives from his tenant a certain rent. What he receives from his tenant is not the letting value of his farm. If anybody wants to ascertain the exact letting value of a farm, he must add to the amount of rent which the owner receives the amount of income-tax which the tenant pays to the Inland Revenue on his account, and which he deducts from the rent. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Essex tithe-owners. They had in most cases made a composition with the tithe-payer. Suppose an Essex tithe-owner had arranged with a tithe-payer that the value of his tithe was £400 a year. In most cases the tithe-owner would say to the tithe-payer,

  439
  "You pay me £350, and pay the £50 which I should have to pay in rates for me." This was not done in all cases. In some cases the tithe-owners decided to receive the composition in full and discharge the rates themselves. But in those cases where this arrangement was not made, in order to arrive at the full value of the tithe rent-charge, the Commissioners had to add to what the tithe-owner received from the tithe-payer the amount the tithe-payer paid in rates on behalf of the tithe-owner. Those two together made the true composition, and the allowance in respect of rates to which the noble Lord has alluded was simply in connection with this arrangement. The Tithe Commissioners have left on absolute record that they never made any allowance for the payment of rates as such, or in other words, they never added anything to the commutation on the ground that the tithe-owner was heavily rated. I trust the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.
  Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 agreed to; Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time is a short one, and one which has not met with any opposition in the other House. It is in the nature of a Departmental Bill for the purpose of remedying certain defects which have been made apparent in the operations of the Congested Districts Board, which has already done so much good in Ireland. Your Lordships will remember that that Board was to a certain extent an experiment, and, in the course of the years during which it has been operating, certain difficulties have arisen which this Bill is intended to remove. The first clause provides that an offer for the purchase of an estate by the Board shall be considered before the estate is offered to the tenants. Clauses
  440
  2, 3, and 4 deal with matters of detail, such as provision for redemption of superior interests in case of purchase of land by the Congested Districts Board and limit of advance. Clause 5 makes a permanent provision of £25,000 a year for the expenses of the Board. The Chief Secretary in the other House pointed out that the real addition to the income of the Congested Districts Board which was proposed by this Bill was about £18,000 or £19,000. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I do not think I need detain the House many minutes by going over the history of the various attempts which have been made to legislate upon the subject dealt with by this Bill, nor do I think I need say much as to the general case for legislation of this kind, because both Houses of Parliament have, by their attitude in regard to the Bills which have been before them, practically admitted that there is a case for this legislation. So long ago as 1888, a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed to discuss this question, and endeavoured to find a remedy for some of the grievances and difficulties which were then admitted to exist. The minority of that Joint Committee recommended that a remedy should, be found by attempting to extend the system of legislation by Provisional Order, and it is largely upon the report of the minority of that Committee that this Bill is founded. In 1897, a Bill on the same general lines as this Bill was pre-

  441
  sented to your Lordships' House, and after being discussed by a Select Committee, was passed through all its stages and sent to the House of Commons. In 1898, a Bill very much the same as the one which was passed by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House was introduced in the House of Commons, and referred to a Select Committee of that House. The Select Committee did not report until so late a period of the session as to prevent more progress with the Bill last year. This year the Bill has again been introduced into the other House of Parliament, and has, after a careful discussion in Committee of the whole House, passed through all its stages. It is that Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time. I think the best course I can take, and the one most convenient to your Lordships, is to briefly indicate the chief changes which have been made by the other House of Parliament since the Bill was passed by your Lordships in 1897. Generally, I may say, that all those changes have had for their object the strengthening of Parliamentary control over projects of private legislation. Notices for Provisional Orders may, under the Orders to be prescribed under the provisions of this Bill, be somewhat shorter, simpler, and less expensive than notices for Parliamentary Bills; but it is in the power of either House to prescribe, by Standing Order, that if these schemes for Provisional Orders are rejected as Provisional Orders, or, rather, if it is agreed that they are not to proceed by Provisional Order, the same notices with some additions may be accepted for the Private Bill which will then be introduced. In the second clause, it is left to the Chairmen of Committees, as before, to decide, according to the character or magnitude of the proposals put before the Secretary for Scotland, whether they may or may not proceed as Provisional Orders, and to those words are added others to further secure that nothing shall be done contrary to the ordinary policy of Parliament. The Chairmen of Committees will also decline to sanction proceeding by Provisional Order if the projects are said to raise any question of policy or principle. The power of dispensing with compliance with Standing Orders, which in the Bill of two years ago was to be vested in the Lord Ordinary of the Bills in the Court of Session in Scotland, is,
  442
  under this Bill, placed in the hands of the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses of Parliament. The main difference in this Bill is in regard to the appointment of the panel from whom the Commissioners to conduct each particular inquiry are to be selected, and as regards the method of choosing the individual Commissioners for each inquiry. There are now to be two panels. There is to be one, called in the Bill the extra-Parliamentary panel, which is to be formed by the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses, acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland. They are to nominate twenty persons qualified by their experience of affairs to act as Commissioners under the Act, and the panel will be reformed at the expiry of every period of five years; but in addition to that panel there is to be what is called the Parliamentary panel—that is, that either House of Parliament may provide, by its own Standing Orders, for the formation of a panel of its own Members, from which the Commissioners for each inquiry may be selected. That panel is not limited in numbers. All that is said about it is that it is to be composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament, and that they are to be chosen by the Chairmen, or by the Committee of Selection under the Standing Orders. There is a provision in the clause that, if possible, when a particular tribunal is to be formed for trial of a scheme in a locality, Members of the Parliamentary panel will be, in the first instance, chosen; but, if it is not found possible to get them to act, then the extra-Parliamentary panel may be drawn upon so as to avoid failure in the inquiry. I am not at all sure that the changes which I have just indicated will be entirely satisfactory. In my opinion, for what it is worth, I still prefer that the first inquiry in the locality should be by the extra Parliamentary panel, but it was perfectly clear, during the passage of this Bill through the other House of Parliament, that there was a very considerable reluctance on the part of Members of the House of Commons to part with their power, oven to the small extent that was proposed. In my opinion, the better method would have been to have had the first inquiry in the locality by persons chosen as I have indicated, and to have left the final control of Parliament to be brought in by means of the Joint Committee, as was then proposed. But, as I

  443
  have said, there was very distinct reluctance on the part of the other House to see any power whatever pass away from it in this respect, or that in any respect the grasp of its Members upon Private Bill business should be loosened. To a certain extent this feeling was accentuated by an amount of professional opposition to the proposals contained in the Bill; and while I think the scheme, as it now appears in the Bill, is somewhat less elastic, and somewhat less satisfactory than that which was first proposed, it has been accepted by the Government, and we shall do our very best to make the scheme operate successfully. I think I have indicated sufficiently the changes made in regard to the formation of the panel, and to the method of choosing members for each inquiry. The other main changes in the Bill will be found in Clauses 7, 8, and 9. Clause 7 deals with the future course of schemes which have been the subject of local inquiry, and, in the case of those schemes, it is now proposed that all the Orders require the sanction of Parliament. The scheme of the Bill of 1897 was that if the Secretary for Scotland, after inquiry, or without an inquiry in cases where there was no opposition, issued an Order, it should have the effect of an Act of Parliament, unless a memorial was presented by the opponent praying that the Order should not become law without confirmation by Parliament. The scheme of the present Bill, as embodied in Clause 7, is that in no case shall an Order have any validity until confirmed by Parliament. The procedure in the course of those Bills which have not been the subject of local inquiry differs, and the form in those cases is regulated by Clause 7, the provision being that, if any alteration has been made since they were first presented, they shall be re-deposited with the Treasury, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, and any such other public Department as may be prescribed; and the Confirmation Bill shall be submitted to Parliament, and shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including the Committee stage, and shall be ordered to be considered in the other House of Parliament as if coming from a Committee. In the case of Bills which have been the subject of a local inquiry, or where the opposition has been withdrawn after inquiry held, or where, although there has
  444
  been no opposition, the Secretary for Scotland has ordered an inquiry, the procedure is to be by a Confirmation Bill, to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. In other words, Clause 9 of the present Bill corresponds to Clause 8 of the Bill of 1897, and, although in various particulars these clauses differ, they agree in this, that if a Confirmation Bill is opposed, it is to be sent to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I do not conceal from myself that this second inquiry was opposed in another place, and a very considerable amount of pressure was put upon the Government to abandon it, and to leave the procedure, even in the case of these Bills, to be, as I understand it, something the same as that which is now provided by Clause 7. I am bound to say that I think there would be serious disadvantages in that course. As I have indicated, I think the Bill, as it now stands, is less elastic and less satisfactory than the scheme which was placed before the other House of Parliament; but, whatever may be its disadvantages in that respect, I am of opinion that to make no provision at all for a second inquiry would be a somewhat serious innovation in Private Bill legislation, and I should view its adoption with great reluctance. There are, undoubtedly, cases in which things are done at the first inquiry which may affect the interests of persons who are absent. I think it is only right that there should be some appeal to provide for a reconsideration of matters in a case of that kind; and as Clauses 8 and 9 are intended to deal with those schemes in which there will be, in all probability, greater opposition, I am of opinion that if you make no provision for an inquiry by Committee under those circumstances, you will put a considerable premium upon, and give a considerable inducement to, the discussion of Private Bills and Provisional Orders either in this House or in another place. I think your Lordships will agree with me that anything which would have a tendency to bring, about that result ought to be greatly deprecated. I also think that if you do away with the second inquiry, you will inevitably bring about this result, that the Chairmen of Committees will be much less willing to allow large and important schemes, which, however, are local in their character, to be dealt with in the locality, and will prefer to maintain

  445
  the system at present in existence, which provides for the inquiry first in one House and then in the other. On the other hand, I am bound to say that I think there is a little too much power placed in the hands of a single objector or of a large corporation, whether public or private, to object to schemes and bring about an increase of expense, and I am willing to consider any method whereby not such an absolute power of objection should be given to an individual objector as is the case at the present time. I know from private communications that the noble Earl opposite, the Earl of Camper down, has been considering this matter, and therefore I have made this observation with a view of explaining to the House that, while I could not myself view with acceptance or favour the doing away with the second inquiry altogether, I am quite willing to consider proposals that may be made for the purpose of preventing such an absolute power being placed in the hands of those who, having had one inquiry, wish to repeat it over again before another tribunal. At the same time, when we are to some extent trying what is in the nature of an experiment, it would not be wise to do away altogether with the power of having a second inquiry. My Lords, I do not think I need explain further the provisions of the Bill. I have not gone over every verbal change which has been made because they are very numerous, but I think I have indicated with accuracy the main changes—the important changes—which have been made since your Lordships saw the Bill last, and I hope this attempt to cure what has undoubtedly been felt to be a great grievance in Scotland will be successful, and that, at any rate, your Lordships will to-night give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot offer my congratulations to the noble Lord opposite on the probable sufficiency or sufficiency of this Bill. In the first place, it seems to me that it deals with a very small fringe of the subject. Again and again has the present system of Private Bill legislation been brought before the two Houses of
  446
  Parliament, and in the other House, at any rate, strong expressions of opinion have been registered that some change is necessary in that system. I believe that a far more effectual system could be provided if it were proposed to deal with the whole of the Private Bill legislation of the three kingdoms, rather than merely with that portion which affects Scotland. So far as Scotland itself is concerned, I must protest that this Bill does not satisfy the just expectations of Scotland. We consider, and we have pressed that view, that in Scotland we should have the control of those matters which are dealt with by private legislation in our own hands, just as we have our own systems of law, education, Church government, and our own Establishment. We think that, in matters affected by Private Bill legislation, we, as Scotchmen, should have the power of dealing with them for ourselves according to Scotch ideas. So much for the general question. My noble friend has explained the various stages of incubation of this Bill, whose germ was to be found in the minority Report of the Committee for which my noble friend himself was responsible. That germ was cultivated in three sessions of Parliament—in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, in a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and in the passage of the Bill through the other House this year. I think the Bill bears, on the face of it, a sign of the many hands that have been at work upon it. I think it is, at the best, but a "cobbled" Bill, and I would earnestly appeal to my noble friend to endeavour, during its passage through your Lordships' House, to remove from his handiwork some of the patches and long tacking stitches which are still to be found upon it. I think, in considering the provisions of this Bill, I may divide its proposals under two heads—its proposals as regards unopposed and opposed Bills. So far as unopposed schemes are concerned, I at once say that I think the Bill will prove effective, and may, indeed, facilitate the passage of such measures. At the same time I feel that the proposals in this Bill give guarantees, so far as unopposed measures are concerned, that they will receive sufficiently careful attention because they have to go first to the Scotch Office, then to the two Chairmen of Committees, and, finally, before the Provisional Order becomes law, even if

  447
  there is no local inquiry, they have to receive the sanction of Parliament. But there is one remark I would like to make on this head in passing, with regard to the position of matters which are at the present moment dealt with by means of Provisional Orders from the Scotch Office itself. I think that, so far as those schemes are concerned, there will be some difficulty, and probably some additional expense, because, as I understand the Bill, while Provisional Orders issuing from other Departments in the State do not come under this Bill, yet Provisional Orders issuing from the Scotch Office in all cases come under the Bill, and therefore the work of the Chairmen of Committees will be considerably increased.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the noble Lord is mistaken. Provisional Orders under the existing system will only come under Section 9, so far as they are applicable. The effect is that Provisional Orders, instead of having to go through a Committee of both Houses, will go to a Joint Committee if there is a Parliamentary inquiry.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: As I read the Bill, and I have read it carefully, it seems to me that all Provisional Orders issuing from the Scotch Office will have to be dealt with under this Bill in future.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Only those which require confirmation by Committee; but this, of course, is a matter for the Committee stage.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I now come to the much more important question of opposed schemes under the Bill, and I venture to ask your Lordships' assent to the proposition that the procedure under the Bill will be more cumbrous, more lengthy, and more expensive than it is in the case of Bills that now have to pass the ordeal of both Houses. Let me cover, step by step, the procedure which opposed Bills will have to pass through. In the first place, you have the issue of notices, as in the case of Private Bills, and I was glad to hear from my noble friend that it was intended to do something to lessen the cost of the issue of notices. This is
  448
  a question which I have already called your Lordships' attention to. I am sorry, however, that nothing to this effect appears in the Bill; I should have liked to see some provision inserted to ensure that something in this direction would be done. The application for the Order has to be lodged with the Scotch Office. It then goes before the Chairmen of Committees of both Houses, and they have to deal with it in a very serious manner. They have to give it their very careful consideration, because it becomes their duty to decide whether it is a proposal which ought to be dealt with by a Provisional Order or go through the ordinary formalities of a Private Bill. These stages must involve expense and fees in the two Houses.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (the Earl of MORLEY): No.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should have thought that if the officials of the two Houses, with their expert advisers, were required to examine into the proposals for legislation, they would require some remuneration for their pains; but, if the chairmen are able to give their services in this respect for nothing, so much the better for the promoters of these schemes. Let us suppose that the proposal is passed by the Chairmen of Committees as being one which may proceed under this Bill, but that there is opposition to it. It is then sent to a Commission which has to sit locally. That Commission, in the first instance, is to be composed of two Members from each House of Parliament. Supposing it were found impossible to secure two Members from each House, then the places on the Commission are to be filled by Gentlemen taken from the extra-Parliamentary panel. Either from one source or another you get your Commission formed, which has to go down and inquire into the subject on the spot. This local inquiry, I venture to say, will not be very much less expensive than the one which takes place at Westminster. I quite admit that the individual expenses of particular local witnesses will be loss, but I think the number of those local witnesses will be greater, and you must also remember that in any important Bill you will have the promoters and opponents of it bringing down expert

  449
  witnesses from London, who will, in addition to their usual fees here, require to be paid extra fees for going into the country and giving evidence. Then it is supposed, I fancy, that a great deal of the work will be done for these commissions by members of the Edinburgh Parliament House; but I do not think you will find those members willing to give their services at fees very much lower than the Members of the Parliamentary Bar here, and when you come to the cases of rich opponents and rich defendants you will have them bringing down to the local inquiries leaders of the Parliamentary Bar here to fight the cases for them; and you must add to that the further expense of the commissioners. Let us suppose that the scheme is passed by the Parliamentary Commissioners, sitting locally. It comes back again to the Secretary for Scotland to introduce a Confirmation Bill into Parliament. The opposition again arises, and the Confirmation Bill is sent to a Parliamentary Committee consisting of two Members from each House, before whom the whole subject has to be gone into again from the very beginning. Who will tell me that the expense of these two inquiries put together will be less than the expense of the two inquiries held within the four walls of Westminster itself? The Bill, if it passes the second inquiry, goes through the ordinary stages and becomes law. To put forward the scheme contained in this Bill as a method to simplify procedure and reduce expense will not command the assent of any thinking person. It may be said to me, "You profess that you are desirous of seeing a change. You have criticised the proposal; have you anything to suggest in its place?" I would suggest as a remedy the very thing which my noble friend has objected to—namely, that the second Parliamentary inquiry should be done away with altogether. I will give my reasons for that opinion. In the first place, you will have a Parliamentary inquiry sitting locally which will have heard all the evidence.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Not necessarily a Parliamentary inquiry locally; it may have been by the extra-Parliamentary panel.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am going to suggest presently that the extra-Parlia-
  450
  mentary panel should disappear altogether. You would probably have had a Parliamentary inquiry locally, and have had the question thoroughly gone into by the two Chairmen of Committees. You will have had the matter well sifted before them, and they will have decided that the scheme in question is not of first-class importance. I understand the whole object of the Bill is that all measures of first-class importance should be compelled to go through the ordinary procedure as it exists at the present moment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is not the definition of the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The Bill says that—
  "If the Chairmen report, and it appears from such Report that either of the Chairmen is of opinion that the provisions or some provisions of the draft Order do not relate wholly or mainly to Scotland, or are of such a character or magnitude, or raise any such question of policy or principle, that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order, the Secretary for Scotland shall, without further inquiry, refuse to issue the Provisional Order, so far as the same is objected to by the Chairmen or Chairman."
  If that does not mean that the Chairmen are to decide whether a Bill is of sufficient magnitude to require Parliamentary inquiry under the present system, I do not know what it means. It does mean, in my opinion, that they are only to pass those Bills for action under this proposal which seem to them not to be of first-class importance. That is a matter on which I should be glad to hear the views of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in this House. Opinion in Scotland is certainly very strongly in favour of the omission of this second inquiry, and I have to-day presented a petition from the Convention of Royal Burghs supporting the omission of Clause 9. I would remind my noble friend that on the Division in the House of Commons the number of Scotch Members who voted in favour of the omission of this clause was 36, and only nine against. I think that shows that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the omission of this second inquiry. The first inquiry should be a Parliamentary inquiry, and I would pro

  451
  pose that Clause 4, which provides for the formation of an extra-Parliamentary panel, should also be deleted. It is said that it would be difficult to find Peers and Members of Parliament who would be prepared to serve on this local Commission. I do not agree that any difficulty would be experienced. Peers and Members of Parliament will, I believe, be quite ready to serve on the Commission, and probably more willing than they would be to sit here in this House. The sitting will probably be shorter to begin with. If an excuse is wanted for Members of either House declining to serve, it will be found in the fact that there is an extra-Parliamentary panel. I estimate that there will not be much necessity for many of these Commissions during the session. I have in my hand an interesting Return which was presented to the House of Commons last year. It is a Return giving all the details with regard to private Bills for the last seven years prior to August 31 1897. I find that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the average number of private Bills for the seven years was only twenty-two per annum. Of those twenty-two private Bills which received the Royal assent, only eleven came before the Committees as opposed Bills. I think it is only fair to assume that of the opposed Bills a considerable proportion would be schemes which would not be considered to come within the operation of this Act at all, and which would have to go through the ordinary form of procedure. If these figures may at all be relied upon as showing the amount of private Bill applications in the future, as regards Scotland, I should say that there will not be more than half a dozen proposals annually to form subjects for local inquiry, and probably two or three of these will be grouped together. I earnestly press careful consideration of the suggestion that the second inquiry at Westminster should be eliminated from the Bill. I want to say a word as to the proceedings before the Chairmen of Committees, because it does seem to me rather difficult to understand from the Bill exactly what those proceedings are to be. In the original Bill which my noble friend introduced into this House any one single opponent was allowed to raise opposition before the Chairmen of Committees. That provision has disappeared from this Bill, and the clause now stands as follows:
  452
  "The Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons (in this Act referred to as the Chairmen), shall, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, determine all matters of practice and procedure which will enable them to take into consideration the draft Order, and to report thereon to the Secretary for Scotland. Provided that with a view to such report the Secretary for Scotland shall forthwith inform the Chairmen of any dissents from or objections to any of the provisions of the Order which have been stated in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time."
  What I want to know is, is it simply intended that the Chairmen shall consider the provisions of the scheme as they appear on paper? Are they merely to be required to take a primâ facie view of the case, as presented on Paper, or are they to make themselves acquainted with the facts? I think this is a very important point. Judging by Clause 17, it seems as though it were intended that they should go beyond a primâ facie view as presented on Paper, because Clause 17 says:
  "If any objection to any draft Order is made to the Chairmen on the ground that the undertaking proposed to be authorised by the Order will destroy or injure any building or other object of historical interest, or will injuriously affect any natural scenery, the Chairmen shall consider such objection, and may, if they think fit, either report to the Secretary for Scotland that such objection raises an issue or issues which ought to be dealt with by private Bill and not by Provisional Order, or refer such objection to the Secretary for Scotland or to the Commissioners, as the case may be, who shall give to those by whom it is made a proper opportunity of being heard in support of it."
  I do not see how the Chairmen are to: form a satisfactory opinion on these points without having some evidence before them as to the particular facts of the case. It ought to be made clear what the duties of the Chairmen are to be. If it becomes necessary for them to take evidence, either on the subjects contained in Clause 17 or on other matters, then the stage before the Chairmen becomes a serious one, and one which will materially add to the expense. I am sorry I am not in a position to take a more active opposition to the Bill. I know it is useless to attempt to throw the Bill out, but I have felt compelled to register my opinion that if this

  453
  Bill is passed the procedure for opposed Bills will be found more complicated, more lengthy, and more expensive than the present system.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I propose in the observations which I shall make on this Bill to follow the example of my noble friend who introduced it, and not argue in any sense as to whether the Bill is expedient or desirable. I take it that that has already been settled in both Houses of Parliament. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks entirely to the details of the Bill, and to the points in which this Bill differs from the Bill of 1897. My noble friend opposite began by criticising the Bill on the grounds that it did not leave the whole of the procedure of Scotch Private Bill legislation to the Scotch people themselves. We are dealing now with legislation, and not with administration, and there is no legislative body in Scotland which could properly deal with the mass of business which has to be dealt with by Private Bill legislation. Therefore, that contention seems to me wholly futile. Your object is, as I understand it, that your legislation shall be confirmed at Westminster, but that the procedure should be rendered as cheap and as convenient as possible. This Bill differs in one most essential point from the Bill of 1897. That Bill gave Parliament practically no control over the private legislation of Scotland. I say that advisedly, because it did not provide for a Confirmation Bill. My noble friend opposite does not approve of confirming Bills, but my own opinion is that it would not be right for Parliament to give up the control which it at present has over Private Bill legislation. I would call attention of the House to the fact that you are dealing, not with administrative work, but with legislative work. Every Private Bill alters the public law in some particular, and in favour of some individual or company, and gives them powers and privileges which they have not got under the general law.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I only object to the second inquiry. I do not oppose a Confirming Bill.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: The House of Commons now agrees, and we have in this measure provided for a Confimation Bill. I know my noble friend has a difficult task in endeavouring to reconcile the two opposite views—the one which would keep the control as far as possible in the hands of Parliament, and the other which would enable an outside tribunal to deal with this matter. It is an extremely difficult and complicated question, and, if I do not think this Bill has dealt with it in a wholly satisfactory manner, I do not wish to in any way accuse my noble friend or his advisers of want of ingenuity or ability in framing it. Practically, the Bill before us is an extension of the provisional order system with certain variations. Those variations are twofold. First, the local inquiry is to be conducted by a special tribunal of a rather curious and mixed character; and, secondly, when the Confirming Bill comes to Parliament it is to be dealt with in one inquiry by a single Committee instead of two, an economy which I am in favour of. This process does not apply to all the Bills which originate in Scotland; it only applies to those Bills which are taken by the Chairmen out of the purview of direct Parliamentary interference. You, therefore, have a certain number of those Bills dealt with by Provisional Orders. I confess that it seems to me that a much more simple method could have been adopted—namely, the extension very largely, if you think fit, of the power of the Secretary for Scotland to issue Provisional Orders in the ordinary way. Under this system you would have an inquiry by an official of the Scotch Office, instead of an expensive local inquiry. I believe that you would in that way greatly diminish the expenses on unopposed Bills, which I admit will be less under this Bill than under the present system. The great blot on the Bill now before your Lordships is that it is absolutely incapable of further extension. I should have preferred a system which would have been capable, if opportunities arose, of extension over the whole of the United Kingdom, and I believe the system of Provisional Orders, as at present worked, would be capable of that extension to a very large extent. I am anxious not to indulge in any carping criticisms of the Bill, but I think it is right for me to state to the House any difficulties which seem to be in the way of the working of

  455
  the machinery which it is proposed to set up, and I feel compelled to refer to the duties which will be placed on the Chairmen of Committees under this Bill. The Chairman of Committees occupies a somewhat peculiar position. He is only appointed for the session, and I have some doubts whether, when Parliament prorogues, he has any position at all. That may be a more or less academical question, but what is not at all an unimportant point is this—that he never acts as of himself. Every decision and every act which I take, as Chairman of Committees, is an act of the House, and one which the House can, at any moment, criticise and modify. Everything I do should, be done as an officer of the House, and as the mouthpiece of the House. I quite admit, my Lords, that this Bill greatly improves the provisions which deal with the duties of the Chairman of Committees. In Clause 2, it says distinctly that the two Houses shall determine all matters of procedure and practice which will enable their chairmen to take into consideration the draft order, and I attach considerable importance to the fact that a copy of the report which shall be made by the chairmen is to be laid as soon as possible before both Houses of Parliament, because this brings the action of the chairmen at once within the knowledge of Parliament, and Parliament can then take any step to alter the decisions arrived at. There are other duties of a somewhat independent nature placed upon the chairmen of committees, and I hope your lordships will not for a moment think that I am at all desirous of shirking any duty, or of assuming any responsibility which the House may think fit to place upon me. Nothing is further from my wish, and I can assure my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill that it will be my desire as far as I possibly can to assist in enabling the Bill to work satisfactorily. It is not my wish to raise any difficulties in the way of carrying the Bill into effect. It is right, however, to point out that difficulties may arise. I think my best plan, if your Lordships will bear with me a short time, will be to trace an Order in its progress from the time the petition is lodged with the Secretary for Scotland until it finally passes through your Lordships' House. The first process is in Clause 1, which makes provision for the lodging of a petition for a Provisional
  456
  Order with the Secretary for Scotland. After this Bill has passed, no one in Scotland can, under any condition, come directly to Parliament for any purpose except in the case of Estate Bills. I should like to know whether my noble friend thinks it is necessary, having in view the fact that in Clause 1, sub-section 1, it is imperative that any public authority or persons desirous of obtaining Parliamentary powers shall proceed by presenting a petition, to retain, at the end of Clause 2, the fifth sub-section, which says that except under the provisions of this section it would not be lawful to apply to Parliament by Private Bill for powers which may be obtained by Provisional Order in terms of this Act. It seems to me that, having in view the earlier words of Clause 1, the words in the fifth section of Clause 2 are unnecessary. It may be a prejudice, or some superstitious fear of violating the Constitution, but it seems to me undesirable to place in a Statute words to the effect which I have just read. There is one objection, and one preliminary objection, for which I see no solution—namely, that every Order, whether it is clear that hereafter it must be turned into a Bill or not, must go through the preliminary stage of presentation to the Secretary for Scotland instead of going direct to Parliament. It, of course, originates in a difficulty which has been found when any scheme for private legislation has been in process of manufacture—the extreme difficulty of separating those schemes which ought to proceed by Provisional Order from those which ought to proceed by a Bill. But there is this fact, that where it is quite obvious that a scheme must be hereafter turned into an ordinary Parliamentary Bill, it must, all the same, in the first instance go through the Secretary for Scotland as a petition for a Provisional Order. Now comes the question of the second clause, which seems to me to raise a very important point. The second clause lays down that after the petition has been lodged, and the order drawn, it shall be sent to the two Chairmen of Committees to consider whether it is a proper subject for an Order, or whether it should go through the ordinary process of a private Bill in Parliament. I need not say that that is an extremely responsible, and, I think, a somewhat difficult task for the Chairmen to perform. I do not,

  457
  however, say that it is an insuperable one. I take it that, as a rule, or at any rate when this scheme first comes into operation, the Chairmen of the two Houses will, in case of doubt, be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Private Bill procedure. But what are the cases which the Chairmen are to rule must go through the ordinary Private Bill process? They must be "of such a character or magnitude, or raise any such question of policy or principle, that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order." The words "such character or magnitude" are rather difficult to interpret, and I should be glad to hear the views of my noble friend in charge of the Bill on this subject. Take the case of large housing schemes. large drainage schemes, or large municipal schemes of any kind which would involve an expenditure of many millions of pounds. Would the Chairmen be bound, owing to the magnitude of those schemes, to decide that they should be dealt with by Private Bill? This is a difficult point, but one which, will, I suppose, right itself in time. With regard to the words in the clause, "or raise any such question of policy or principle that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill," I would point out that the chairmen have power to approve of a certain part going on by Provisional Order, and certain other parts being cut out and proceeding by Private Bill. Take questions of police, questions of local government, and sanitary matters. There may be a very important provision in one of the large Municipal Bills which deals with sanitary matters or with police matters in a manner very different from the general law. I take it that in that case the chairman would be bound to cut the clause that dealt differently with these matters than the ordinary law out of the Bill. I should like to ask whether promoters would, in that case, be entitled to bring in the clauses which the Chairmen had decided should not be proceeded with by Provisional Order as a separate Private Bill, because in that case you might have a large municipality with a Provisional Order under the Secretary for Scotland, and at the same time a private Bill being conducted in the same session. This is a difficult matter, but, as I have said, I do not think the problem is an insuperable one. I have no doubt, as time goes on, the custom will become stereotyped, and we shall get to know
  458
  what matters it is desirable shall proceed by Private Bill. My noble friend opposite asked what would be the character of the inquiry before the Chairman of Committees. That is difficult to say, and I can only give the noble Lord my impression, which is, that the inquiry will be merely a reading of the Bills, and, if there is any doubt as to certain points in them, information will be sent for. I can hardly think it will be necessary to hear witnesses. If it were, it would add another and very expensive stage to the Bill, and would give myself and my colleagues, at a time when we are extremely busy, far more than we could do. Unless there were special circumstances that required further explanation, I take it that it would be easy to ascertain in which direction the Bill should proceed. There is one point I should wish in this connection to call the attention of your Lordships to, and it is rather an important one, though one of detail. It is the question of time. I do not think it will be possible, under any conditions, to allow these petitions to be presented at any time during the year. It will not only be extremely inconvenient, but, what is far more important, it will not be safe or fair to those who may wish to oppose the Orders. At the present time it is well known by every one that Private Bills have to be deposited at a certain period of the year—the end of November. At that time solicitors and agents are on the look out for all schemes that are afloat. It would lie extremely undesirable to keep these people on. tenterhooks all the year round, and keep them constantly on the lookout for notices of Orders which might possibly escape their notice altogether. I think it is important that there should, be some fixed period of the year when these petitions should be deposited with the Secretary for Scotland. There is another point. Supposing the Orders are, under the direction of the Chairman of Committees, to be turned into Bills. It follows that they must be deposited, before the session begins, otherwise you will have wasted a session and also valuable labour. I would, therefore, suggest that it would be necessary to have the petitions for the Orders deposited some time in December, not very much, if at all, later than the Bills are now deposited, especially if, in accordance with this Bill, the Chairmen are, in addition to.

  459
  the Bills, to have before them the dissents and objections to the provisions of the Order which may be sent to the Secretary for Scotland. I would suggest to my noble friend, for his consideration, whether it will not be necessary to make provision, in Clause 2, or in some other convenient clause, in the event of a dissolution or prorogation, for the continuance in office of the Chairmen of Committees till the beginning of the following session, otherwise there might be a period when important work would be going on with no one to attend to it. In the progress of the Order the next point is that the Order has to pass what we call the Standing Orders. The examiner is to certify that the Standing Orders have been complied with. I presume the examiner is to be one of the examiners of the House, and it does not seem to me that it will be very difficult, if the proper times of the year are taken, for him to perform this work, but I anticipate that he will have to journey to Edinburgh, or wherever it may be, to certify that the Standing Orders had been complied with. But the dispensation of the Standing Orders rests entirely with the two Chairmen, without any appeal from them. It is not the responsibility in this matter which I should be very much afraid of, because I take it that in most cases the Standing Orders may not be of a very important or crucial character, but I suppose it would be possible for an opponent to oppose before us the dispensation of the Standing Orders, and in that case, of course, it would be necessary for us to hear their agents as we do in the Standing Orders Committee. In the case of the two Chairmen differing as to the dispensation of the Standing Orders, there is no provision in the Bill by which that difficulty can be solved. Now comes the local inquiry. If the Chairmen consider that the Order ought to be dealt with in Parliament as a Private Bill, it goes its usual course; but if, on the other hand, it is sent back to the Secretary for Scotland to be dealt with as a Provisional Order, the first stage, after the certification of the Standing Orders having been complied with, is the local inquiry. I was somewhat surprised to hear my noble friend opposite speak so strongly as to the expense of local inquiries. I agree with him that it may even be much more expensive to take expert witnesses to the
  460
  localities where the inquiry is to take place, than to bring the ordinary witnesses to London, but I would ask your Lordships to remember that the argument cuts at the root of all reforms of Private Bill Legislation, which have invariably tended in the direction of local inquiries. Whether the proposed inquiry is the best one we can conceive is for your Lordships to consider. As to the question of an extra Parliamentary panel, I differ from the noble Lord opposite, who stated that that part ought to have been omitted from the Bill. In my opinion, such a panel will be absolutely necessary, but in the nomination of the panel, although I am not unwilling to perform any duties the House may assign to me, I apprehend some difficulty, for in effect it will mean that I, knowing little or nothing of Scotland and Scotch affairs, will have to accept the nominees of the Secretary for Scotland. Again, I am not so sanguine as my noble friend that it will be an easy matter to find a sufficient number of Peers to perambulate Scotland to hold these local inquiries. If the inquiries are to take place during the session they will take Members from their duties at Westminster; if during the recess, your Lordships know the difficulty there will be in getting Peers to sit. Moreover, it does not seem to me to be the duty of Peers to travel about the country and inquire into matters of this kind. I have been able to impress upon noble Lords that it is their duty to attend Committees here, but I cannot say that I should look upon it as their duty to make these inquiries outside the walls of Westminster Palace; and I would suggest, for my noble friend's consideration, whether, if it is decided to maintain this Parliamentary panel, the Peers should not be chosen by the Committee of Selection. It does not seem to be part of my duty as Chairman of Committees to choose this panel, especially when we have a body in both Houses who are better fitted to perform it. I should like to call my noble friend's attention to the words in Clause 5:
  "The Chairmen shall, with due regard to the character and magnitude of the provisions in the proposed Order or Orders, appoint four Commissioners for that purpose, and shall at the same time nominate one of the Commissioners as Chairman."
  I do not see the least meaning in those words. Does it mean that I am to

  461
  graduate the capacity of the Committee to the importance of the Orders? I think, if that is all it means, it had better be left out, because it is clear that whether I or the Committee of Selection will have to choose the Commissioners it will be in all cases our duty to choose a suitable Committee. I therefore suggest that these words are perfectly without meaning and unnecessary. Even if my noble friend's surmises are correct, and we are able to get Peers and Members to take these long voyages into Scotland to inquire into these matters, the composition of the Committee is a matter of importance and causes no little anxiety. It is necessary, in addition to having the actual members of the Committee, to have a really experienced and competent Chairman. I am very much afraid, if you look at this House—of course, I cannot speak as to the House of Commons—and deduct Ministers and ex-Ministers, noble Lords who are too old to undertake these duties and noble Lords who are abroad, you have not a very large number of noble Lords left who have special ability to act in these matters, and they are generally men who are chairmen of their county councils or employed in public business of great importance, which would render it absolutely impossible for them to undertake the duties laid down in this Bill. I do not wish to be desponding about this Parliamentary panel, but so far as I can tell from my experience, I am not at all sanguine that you will, at any rate in this House, get very satisfactory results from this clause. Therefore, my Lords, I am strongly of opinion that the extra Parliamentary panel should be maintained. In fact, it appears to me that it would be almost better to have allowed the Bill to remain as it was when it left your Lordships' House in 1897. I should like also to know if my noble friend has considered whether these Committees are to be assisted in any way by counsel or clerks of experience. Of course, Committees in your Lordships' House have constantly the opportunity, if they so desire—which is not often—of consulting my own counsel, and they have experienced clerks who can at once instruct them and give them any information they require. Though this is rather a question for the General Orders, I throw it out for the noble Lords' consideration, and I would suggest the desirability of appoint-
  462
  ing some standing counsel. Now we come to the fourth stage of the Order, where it blossoms into a Confirmation Bill. If unopposed it shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee, and shall be ordered to be considered as if reported from a Committee. There is no Committee stage in the House, and therefore, if any Amendments are made, they must be inserted when the Bill is reported to the House. As I understand, in the case of an opposed Bill, the Bill will go through all its stages and will be referred to a Joint Committee. I think this will save a great deal of expense and time, and be satisfactory. I do not, however, agree with my noble friend opposite that there is no cause for a second inquiry. In the first place, we are not quite certain how the tribunal which makes the first inquiry will work out; and I would suggest that during a certain number of years, while the Act is in the experimental stage, it is necessary, in order to avoid injustice, that there should be a Court of Appeal, or rather a Court of Rehearing from the local inquiry; and I therefore am decidedly in favour of the proposal to refer the Confirmation Bill, in the case of opposition, to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I think the second inquiry is rendered necessary because Amendments and agreed clauses may be introduced at the first inquiry which may prejudicially affect the interests of third parties who may not have been injuriously affected by the Order as originally framed. My noble friend said one reason why the second inquiry would be unnecessary would be that the Bill would have been not only inquired into locally, but would have been carefully read by the Chairmen of Committees. That is quite true. But your Lordships must remember that the Chairmen have no opportunity of hearing any evidence. They have no means of knowing whether anyone is injured, or whether any interest is prejudiced by anything in the Bill. Though the Bills may not be many, and although they may be small, surely that is no reason for saying that in small Bills an injustice should be possible. I think there is very great danger, if you have no such Committee as that, of having questions relating to Private Bills constantly raised in the House, and I cannot possibly conceive of a worse tribunal for deciding questions

  463
  of this kind than the House, which must, of necessity, act on ex parte statements and without having the evidence before them. On this ground, I am decidedly in favour of the second inquiry, as provided in the Bill. I would ask my noble friend whether, in Clause 8, it might not be desirable, even if there had been no opposition and no inquiry held, that there should be some means given of enabling an opponent or supporter of a Bill, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary for Scotland, to appeal to Parliament, because it might happen that the Secretary for Scotland had introduced important Amendments, or made the granting of the petition for the Order conditional upon the promoters complying with certain conditions which might have a very evil effect on either the opponents or promoters. I cannot find in the Bill that the Secretary for Scotland has any power to refuse a petition, neither can I find that he has power to modify the Order except on the recommendation of the Chairmen or certain public bodies. I cannot help thinking that I am wrong in this matter, but I have read the Bill carefully and cannot find that any powers are given to the Secretary for Scotland in this direction.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: They are in Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: In summing up I should like to refer to the duties of the Chairmen. In the first place, they will have to road petitions and see if the Order is to be proceeded with as an Order or as a Bill. That means rather careful reading, because they may, as I have said, reject part of a Bill. We shall have to read the Orders without the advantage of seeing the agents as we do at present. It will be somewhat difficult to avoid refusing to allow the insertion in an Order of any matters that are against general legislation. So far as that goes, it will almost inevitably result in the Chairmen having to be more particular in reading these Orders than they are at present. The second point is that they are, if they think fit, to dispense with the Standing Orders if they are found not to be complied with; and. thirdly, they are to choose the extra Parliamentary panel, and, in connection with the Secretary for Scotland, the Commission which is to try
  464
  this case. Then, when the Orders come into your Lordships' House, they are again to carefully read them, with the modifications introduced, and make recommendation to the Secretary for Scotland. I am afraid this will add considerably to the work, because we shall have to read not only all the Bills as they come in, but we shall have to report. Moreover, we shall not have the same powers which we now possess of discussing the Bills with promoters. I was rather staggered, on reading Clause 17, to find that I was the guardian of the buildings of historic interest and the picturesque beauties of the Highlands, and I am sure this duty would be much better left to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland. I do not see how it is possible for the Chairmen of Committees to decide a question of this kind, which is entirely one of taste and evidence. I would suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should be substituted for the Chairmen. Clause 16 saves the present power of making Provisional Orders whether by the Secretary for Scotland or the Board of Trade. As I read the clause, the present powers of the Secretary for Scotland to make Provisional Orders remain exactly the same, except that the Bills, when they come to Parliament, shall be referred to a Joint Committee instead of having to go through two Committees. Sub-section 2 of this clause saves the powers of the Board of Trade, but here let me point out an anomaly. The Board of Trade have now power to give Orders for harbours up to £100,000. Under this Bill, however, the Secretary for Scotland would be able to frame an Order for a harbour of any size he liked, providing the Chairmen did not say it was big enough to go to Parliament. It certainly seems an anomaly that the Board of Trade, who are experts on this subject and the harbour authority for the country, should be restricted in this particular manner, while the Secretary for Scotland, who has no expert advisers, would have authority to give an Order for a harbour costing half a million or a million of money. That is a point which requires looking into. I must crave your Lordships' pardon for having mentioned so many matters which are more fitting for Committee, but I have called attention to them on the Second Reading because I have no right to address your Lordships when the House is in Committee. I have

  465
  in my observations endeavoured to avoid unnecessary criticism, and I assure your Lordships that, although I think they will be responsible, and in some cases very difficult, I shall be most anxious to perform those duties which the House chooses to put upon me under this Bill. I shall be only too glad to co-operate with my noble friend in endeavouring to render the operation of the Bill satisfactory. I see some difficulties in the way of the working of this now scheme of Private Bill procedure; but on the whole, with the exception of the panel, about which I am in doubt, I think the general scope of the Bill is more satisfactory than the Bill which was before your Lordships' House in 1897.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: After the Debate which has taken place on this Bill, and more particularly after the full and exhaustive examination of the Bill by the Chairman of Commiitees, it is not necessary for me to offer more than a few observations to your Lordships at the present stage on this subject; but there is one point I wish to bring under the consideration of the House. This is a Bill on which it is extremely desirable that we should have the assistance and advice of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, who has better means than we have of forming a judgment upon the merits and demerits of the Bill. We shall be deprived of the advice and assistance of the noble Earl if he is in the chair during the Committee stage, and, therefore, I hope some means will be found whereby the noble Earl will be in a position to give the House the benefit of his help upon the details of the Bill, and also to move Amendments in the direction which he has foreshadowed. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the forms of your Lordships' House to give an opinion on this matter with absolute certainty; but I think, if we were to take the Committee stage pro formâ, and discuss the Amendments on Report, we should be able to obtain the assistance of the noble Lord, and that would be a very great benefit to the consideration of the Bill by the House. I should like to know the opinion of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in regard to this proposal. If he consents to it, I will move the necessary motion. Like the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, and others who have
  466
  spoken, I greatly prefer the Bill in its present shape to the shape in which it was presented to us on a former occasion. I think it is absolutely necessary, for the protection of petitioners and objectors, that this House should retain in its own hands the control of all legislation which has reference to property; and it seems to me, also, that it must necessarily be wrong and unfair to the official himself to impose upon the holder of a political office the duty of dealing with legislative details which must expose him to a great deal of solicitation and trouble. This Bill avoids that difficulty. The fact that the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of Committees are placed in a foremost position with regard to this matter, gives the House and the country considerable security that matters will be dealt with under proper control, and in a proper manner. With regard to the panel, I rather agree with my noble friend (Lord Tweedmouth) that there will not be such difficulties as is supposed in obtaining the panel. I think the number of Bills will not be great, and I venture to hope that you will find sufficient Peers and sufficient Members of the other House who will be willing to make the necessary exertions, and go to Scotland when required; but there is a special mention in the Bill of Scotch Members of Parliament. It is provided that nothing is to disqualify Scotch Members from sitting on such Commissions. I think that is a very proper provision, but I hope there is no insinuation in it that Scotch Members are to be preferred for this purpose. In dealing with Private Bills, I do not know whether by accident or design, the Chairman and the Committee of Selection, in choosing their Committees, take care to seldom place on those Committees Peers who are connected with that portion of the kingdom to which the question to be discussed relates. I think, as a general rule, that is a wise course to take; and if there is anything in these words which is likely to indicate that Scotch Members are to be preferred in the consideration of Scotch questions, I should enter a strong protest against it. I shall only refer to one other matter, namely, the second inquiry. As the Bill stands, after an Order has been considered locally by a Commission it returns to Parliament, and a Confirmation Bill is to be laid on the Table. I am, of course, speaking of the case of an opposed Order. If a peti

  467
  tion is presented, the Bill, subject to the Standing Orders, is to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That gives an opponent the absolute power to insist upon a separate inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses. Having been defeated before the Commission, he has a right to demand a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. I cannot say with my noble friend (Lord Tweedmouth) that I should be willing to do away with that second inquiry altogether—I think it would be a great mistake to do so, for the reasons which were given by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, if for no other reason; but, at the same time, I think we are going a little too far in giving an opponent, who presumably has been defeated at the first inquiry, the right to insist on a second inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It may be pointed out that at the present time, under a Provisional Order, everyone interested has a right to ask for a Committee in either House of Parliament, but this is not quite the same as the case of an ordinary Provisional Order. This matter will have been considered by the Chairmen and the Secretary for Scotland, and they will have arrived at the decision that it is a matter which is not so important as to require to be dealt with by a Bill, and have authorised an inquiry by Provisional Order. That inquiry will have taken place, and it seems to me a little too strong to give an opponent the power to insist, at his own free will, that there shall be a second inquiry by a Joint Committee of the two Houses. A solution has occurred to me, and it seems a very simple one. It is, that when this petition is presented, the procedure should not be left, as it is now, to the opponent himself, but that the House should decide, after seeing the petition, whether it was desirable to further inquire into the allegations of that petition, and if they should decide that there were primâ facie reasons for further inquiries, or if Amendments had been introduced after the first inquiry, there should be a second inquiry. I shall submit an Amendment to this effect for the consideration of the House at a later stage. Clause 17 did not belong to those who framed the Bill, but was the work of Mr. Bryce, a private Member in the other House, and he is responsible for
  468
  the form which it at present takes. I think a very natural and proper suggestion might be that this question should be referred, with other questions relating to the Order under consideration, to the Commission appointed to inquire into the other matters.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I only rise to say that I strongly concur in the views expressed by my noble friend opposite as to the extreme desirability of the Chairman of Committees being in a position to discuss this Bill, and I hope some means will be found for giving effect to this suggestion. However, if the proposal of the noble Earl is adopted, that the Committee stage should be taken pro formâ, and the Amendments moved on Report, no noble Lord—not even the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—will be able to speak more than once, which will be most undesirable. The only way out of the difficulty would be to resolve that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should be allowed to speak as often as he liked on Report, the same as in Committee.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord opposite (Lord Tweed-mouth) said that Scotchmen should be allowed to decide these matters entirely amongst themselves, but he did not say distinctly what sort of substitute he would place in the Bill to take the place of the present provision. That may be some new form of Home Rule which we may yet have to have explained to us. I will make him this offer, that if he will move to reject Clause 17 at the next stage I do not think I shall put any particular obstacle in his way. With regard to the future stages of this Bill, I have consulted my noble friend, the Chairman of Committees, since he has spoken, and I think I am right in saying that most of the objections which my noble friend has taken are points of detail and of drafting. I will confer with him before the Committee stage is taken, and I think I shall be able to meet his views on many of the points. The Committee stage will be taken on Tuesday and the Report on Thursday. By that time the noble Earl will be out of the Chair, and any of the points he has, raised which have not been dealt with in

  469
  Committee can be taken up on that occasion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am sure everyone must desire to have the assistance of the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, who is able to give us the soundest advice in regard to this Bill. The same difficulty which has been present in the mind of the noble Earl occurred to me, and it has been suggested to me that there is no Standing Order of the House which will prevent the Chairman of Committees from leaving the Chair, and standing by the Table to address the Committee in a similar way to that adopted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he addresses the House. If that is possible, I think it will solve a difficulty which is a very serious one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I am not aware of any reason why the Chairman of Committees should not take part in Debate and express his opinion. If there is no precedent for it, I think it will be most convenient that we should make one.
  On Question—agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; and to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 184.)
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Monday next (The Lord Privy Seal [V. Cross]). (No. 183.)
QUESTIONS.

  OUTRAGES BY SOLDIERS IN INDIA.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they intend to take to prevent outrages by soldiers in
  470
  India and the Colonies, such as that which caused the death of Mr. Talwattee; and to ask the Under Secretary for India whether, on the 14th February last, the India Office was entirely ignorant of the following cases:—
  1898. January 16.—Poona, Arjuna shot by Gunner W. E. Piper.—Times of India.
  1898. February 27.—Poona, Private McQuillan, Royal Irish Rifles, cut the throat of a dooly bearer.—Champion.
  1898. March 23.—Satara, Mr. Rowecroft, a military officer, slapped on the face for insufficient salutation Mr. Sohoni, first assistant master Satara High School.—Mahratta.
  1898. April 10.—Poona, two soldiers, Durham Light Infantry, drove through the cantonment firing an air gun, hit a tailor and a woman and a man.—Times of India.
  1898. April 24.—Allahabad, H. L. C. Killick, East Surrey Regiment, out shooting peafowl with another, with Lee-Metford rifles and bullets. Killick cut Janak Singh's arm with a hunting knife, he bled to death.—Pioneer.
  1989. May 7.—Karachi, five soldiers committed to sessions for wounding a policeman on duty.—Jagat Samachar.
  1989. June 5.—Kussowlee, two European soldiers demanded liquor of a carter, on refusal threw cart, bullocks, and whiskey down the cliff.—Champion.
  October 2.—Nasirabad, a punkah coolie attached to sergeants' mess of Royal Fusiliers, thrown into a well by two soldiers, September 25.—Champion.
  1899. January 28.—Punjab, Asghar Aly, magistrate and civil servant, assaulted on Punjab Railway, December 31, 1898, by four commissioned officers.—Moslem Chronicle.
  and to ask if the Indian Government will amend or remodel the Indian Government Resolution No. 4625, of

  471
  August 31, 1897, and the Bombay Government Resolution No. 1507, Judicial Department, of March 2nd, 1899. I had hoped, my Lords, and I still hope, to be able to speak to this notice without uttering anything which could give any offence, and I had every reason to believe that I should receive a very satisfactory reply, for I was indebted to the noble Earl for an introduction to one of the military authorities at the India Office, and everything promised well for a reply which would have effaced the ill-effects of the reply given in this House in February last; and one which would encourage the efforts now made in India to diminish the evils complained of. But since Friday last a disturbing element has intervened, the Parliamentary and Permanent Under Secretaries have become for me Purdeh-Nisheen, and have retired into their zenanas; and I am obliged to infer that the Secretary of State is the disturbing cause, and that he has taken offence at the list of outrages on the notice Paper, coming as it does shortly after he had made a statement similar to that made in this House in February last. Should the reply to what I am going to say be less satisfactory than I expected, or than the inhabitants of India have a right to expect, I must point out how the saddle should be put upon the right horse, and that is the Secretary of State for India. After this caveat I can proceed as I originally intended. In again bringing this subject before the House, my first duty is to explain, not for your Lordships, but for those outside the House, and especially for the Press in India, that the noble Earl, the Under Secretary for India, is not to be blamed or made responsible for the brevity or curtness of the replies with which he is furnished by the India Office. I next desire to correct a statement which I made when I spoke in February last. I have received a letter saying that I had been misinformed, and that O'Hara, the Dum-Dum murderer, was not the same O'Hara as the one who was hung for shooting a sergeant and a soldier. This point has not much importance except for the sake of accuracy. If there were two O'Haras it destroys the point of what I said as to the escape from punishment of the Dum-Dum O'Hara, but it tells in favour of the military administration that the Dum-Dum O'Hara did not succeed in re-entering the Army
  472
  after he had been dismissed from it. On the other hand, if there were two O'Haras, the military authorities have had two murderers to answer for instead of one. With regard to the list of outrages by soldiers in the course of last year I have been careful to word the notice so as not in any way to let it appear that the noble Earl was aware of any of these cases. I have put them down, because they must show that I am not complaining of an imaginary evil, and because even quite recently the Secretary of State for India seemed to believe that these cases were very rare. I am not disposed either to blame the India Office on account of its ignorance of these cases. I did not know of them all myself until a list was sent to me with newspaper extracts. The cases are spread over several newspapers, some of which are not received at the India Office; and I can exonerate the India Office at the cost of another Department. In well-conducted public offices, like the Foreign Office and Local Government, the clerks examine carefully the minutes of both Houses, and also the newspapers, and inform the heads of Departments and the Under Secretaries of anything that concerns their office. But I found on June 12th that a letter published in the Morning Post on the 7th had not yet attracted the attention of the Colonial Office, although it was headed, "Northern Railway, Ceylon." With regard to this list of cases the Barrackpore case in May, and that of the boy shot by Private Knight in August, have been omitted, as they have already been discussed in this House. These cases speak for themselves. I shall not take up the time by mentioning how many were acquitted or how few convicted. With reference to the third case, I will, with the leave of the House, read an extract from India, of April 21 this year:—
  "Professor Augustus de Morgan had superintended the reprinting of a famous 'Treatise on Problems of Maxima and Minima solved by Algebra,' by Ramchandra, late teacher of science, Delhi College, a volume expressly stated to be reprinted by order of the honourable Court of Directors of the East India Company, for circulation in Europe and India, in acknowledgment of the merit of the author, and in testimony of the sense entertained of the importance of independent speculation as an instrument of national progress in India. De Morgan wrote to the Dean of Ely, about forty years ago, a

  473
  letter (reprinted in India of December 23rd last): 'Had I been publishing independently of Government, I should perhaps have added what Ramchandra meant me to add—as I judge by his mode of telling it—that he had been beaten in the public road by a man in a British uniform, for not making a salaam as he passed. We talk a great deal about the ways and means of preserving India; but few know that this treatment of educated and civilised natives is always going on. We are constantly sending out to India a parcel of boobies who have no idea of the people they have to govern, and who will each of them make a few hundred malcontents among educated men who are reverenced by the mass of the people.' "
  I have not yet read of any redress having been offered to Mr. Asghar Aly, who was assaulted, and his eyes blackened, because he was going to a stationmaster to complain of the treatment he had met with from four commissioned officers, whose rank makes this a worse case than the others. I hope that the Under Secretary for India will have some satisfactory information to give on this point. In this year six outrages, three of them by soldiers, have taken place between March 23rd and April 9th, reported by the following papers:—
  Amrita Bazar Patrika., March 23rd.—"Toll Manager of Jhelum, telegraphed:—'Abused, assaulted, and ears pulled out by police inspector on demanding toll.' "
  India, March 24th.—"Private Joyce, armed with a razor, cut at every native, four wounded."
  India, March 24th.—"Mr. J. N. Ross, in a dispute as to land, killed a native, one of the two whom he had arrested."
  Times of India, April 4th.—"Rangoon outrage on Church Parade by West Kent soldiers."
  Times of India, April 5.—"Gunner Love, separated from his two soldier friends, attempted rape of a village girl (by another report actually committed it); a scuffle ensued, the soldier's gun went off, and a man was killed."
  Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 9th.—"Mr. Cunning, manager of a tea estate, gave a cooly boy of twelve or thirteen a severe beating, from which he died."
  Some newspaper, I cannot now remember or ascertain which, asked why I have not referred to outrages by civilians. The reason is that they are fewer, and that they do not cause the same ill will against the Government as those committed by soldiers. An Indian paper, however, reminds civilians that there is a Bengal Regulation X. of
  474
  1804, and Section 2 of XX. of 1825, under which civilians might be tried by court-martial. Those who ask for measures of prevention may fairly be expected to have some suggestions to make. In February last I suggested trying soldiers by court-martial instead of by juries, and this has been partly carried out by a military Order, dated Naini Tal, April 12th, 1899, No. 224, for cases of soldiers infringing rules relating to shooting passes. With regard to court martials, everything depends upon the colonels and other regimental officers being convinced that the Government is in earnest. If the telegram from Allahabad, published last Friday, July 21st, be correct, that conviction had been borne into the minds of the officers, as a severe sentence was passed. On the other hand, at Rangoon, as has been stated in some newspapers, a soldier was about to make a statement, but was stopped by a captain. I hope the Under Secretary will be able to give the House some information as to this point, and as to the progress of this inquiry by General Protheroe. The Government can show that it is in earnest by letting it be known that wherever a court martial trifles with justice, or acquits against the evidence, on the first occasion the colonel of that regiment will be put on half pay; and, on the next similar occurrence, the colonel will be dismissed the Service. In cases such as the Rangoon outrage, or the Kandy murder, confinement of the regiment to barracks and the barrack yard, and putting the officers under arrest until evidence was forthcoming, might secure the desired result. The next suggestion I would make is founded upon what took place when Mr. Talwattee was murdered, namely, that in future soldiers off duty, going or coming back from any games, and passing through a native quarter, should always be accompanied by a subaltern commissioned officer, and not, as in Mr. Talwattee's case, by a corporal only, who would be no restraint upon them. A third suggestion was impressed upon me by a friend, an ex-Bengal civilian, that the soldiers are greatly over fed during the hot season, and that if supplied with a less inflammatory diet outrages would be fewer. I have been reminded of what I had forgotten, that one of Mr. Kipling's stories in "Soldiers Three" says exactly the same thing; in it he says that a regiment sometimes gets hysterical like

  475
  a girls' school. This is a reform which can be easily carried out by the regimental officers, and I have reason to believe that it has been considered by the military authorities. The fourth suggestion is contained in the notice. I will read to the House the Bombay Government Resolution mentioned in it, and your Lordships will be able to judge whether the warnings to villagers not to molest soldiers are not rather of a wolf and the lamb description. No doubt the soldiers have some warning in the rules issued to them, which I have already referred to, breaches of which are to be tried by court martial, but at present the Government Resolution seems one-sided. It is as follows:—
  "BOMBAY GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION.
  "No. 1,507.
  "Judicial Department,
  "2nd March, 1899.
  "District magistrates should cause it to be made known generally to villagers that British soldiers are permitted to go out shooting game in the district, but Government have issued instructions, so that any injury to the person or property of the inhabitants may be prevented. Should any person be aggrieved by the conduct of soldiers who may be out shooting, their proper course is to make a complaint to the magistrate empowered to receive it. They are not permitted to take the law into their own hands, or to molest or threaten soldiers who are not committing any offence, but are out shooting in accordance with the permission given to them. The village officers in each village should further be warned that they will be held responsible that these instructions are known and observed in the village.
  "(Signed) G. G. H. FAWCETT,
  "Under Secretary to Government."
  I would now point out that there is great risk of accidents, if soldiers are allowed to shoot with Lee-Metford rifles; many parts of India are level plains, and more populous than this country. Shot guns ought to be kept for the good conduct soldiers allowed to shoot, to prevent accidents. A short time ago I met a Christian Bengalee in the house of a dignitary of the Church; he was not a convert but the son of a convert, and of a well-known Bengali family. I asked him what remedy he could suggest for these military outrages. He said: "Raise the moral tone of the soldiers." I replied that you must first raise the moral tone of the officers; and my Bengal civilian friend says, "You must raise the moral tone of the race." It is, perhaps, more the conceit that wants lower-
  476
  ing, than the moral tone raising; a great country or a great people does not require a Tyrtæus. Oliver Goldsmith began it, and Mr. Rudyard Kipling has excelled in that line. I admire Mr. Kipling's writings very much, and though not acquainted with him, in order not to offend him, I shall use no words of my own, but quote a paragraph from the Bombay Indian Spectator criticising his last utterance:
  "Egotism sometimes takes the form of excessive laudation of one's own race, and nationality, called by whatever name, the underlying feeling is the same—namely, one of supreme self-complacency. Mr. Rudyard Kipling's latest poem, 'The White Man's Burden,' is one of the most glaring instances of such egotism. It would seem, from this poem, that the white man has been carrying the burden of the whole universe on his shoulders at considerable self-sacrifice and discomfort to himself, and all for the benefit of the 'half devil, half child,' whom he has kindly brought under subjection. In a large sense the greatest burden-bearers in the world to-day are not the white men. It is the 'half devils, half children,' whose skins are browned or blackened by the sun that carry the twin artillery of the white man—his gin and his gun—wherewith he 'civilises' or shoots them down, according as they fall in with his ways or rebel against them."
  It is no use preaching to alter the present feeling of the troops, and the best thing the Indian Government could do would be to offer Mr. Rudyard Kipling publication at their own expense, and a large reward for a novel which should tone down the song of the white man's burden. If Mr. Kipling should decline the task, the Indian Government has another and a better string to its bow, and might ask Mr. Thorburn to enter the lists, and show how Mr. Kipling's song lured on the Americans into a bog, and how almost every step taken by the United States since the beginning of their war with Spain has been dogged by retribution. Mr. Thorburn's recent novel, "Transgression," is as good as any other of the many good Indian novels. He is the Bengal civilian who got into a scrape at Simla last winter for taking at their word those who invited discussion on the Afridi campaign. As for the part of the question that concerns the colonies, Ceylon appears to be the only one requiring attention in this respect, for I have not heard of any military outrages in the Straits Settlements or in Hong Kong, probably because the Malays and the Chinese are better able to defend

  477
  themselves. I hope that the Colonial Office will be ready to adopt in Ceylon whatsoever measures may be adopted by the Indian Government. I also hope that the Under Secretary for the Colonies will now be able to explain how it is that a clerk of the Magistrates' Court could be murdered in the town of Kandy by daylight, in the presence of his wife and sister-in-law and of witnesses, European and Singhalese; and why a soldier named Conolly, who has been accused, was allowed to leave Ceylon without being confronted with persons who might have recognised him and disproved his alibi. I hope that my noble friend, the Under Secretary for India, will recognise and admit that I have used very dispassionate, indeed colourless language, and have simply placed facts before the House. This I have been able to do, because I know that the Viceroy is bent upon preventing these outrages, and that some of the best officials in the India Office are now thoroughly awake to the necessity of action, and that apathy has been dispelled by the Sunday mid-day performances at Rangoon.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the noble Lord has placed on the Notice Paper a very long list of outrages alleged to have been committed by soldiers in India upon natives of that country, but the noble Lord has himself admitted that he has not made careful inquiry as to the acquittals and convictions in these cases. It would be an easy matter to compile a long list of cases drawn from newspaper reports of crimes committed by those of any profession among Her Majesty's subjects, drawn from the same class as soldiers, and I do not think the noble Lord has convinced your Lordships that soldiers in India are guilty of more crimes than the same class elsewhere, or any section drawn from the same class of the population. On the contrary, if the noble Lord will examine the returns which are laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament he will find that since 1878 the proportion of courts-martial on soldiers for offences has been very steadily decreasing. In 1878 there were 114 at home and fifty-six abroad, while in 1897 the figures were only fifty-four at home and thirty-four abroad. I think your Lordships would agree that
  478
  the conduct of Her Majesty's troops has been steadily improving and not deteriorating. With regard to the cases quoted by the noble Lord, two of them have been brought officially to the notice of the Secretary of State, and he has replied to questions about them in another place. As to shooting passes, they are most carefully guarded. Orders are only issued to men of extremely good character, and every precaution is taken to prevent any collision with the natives, and I can only say that all that is possible is done to prevent any outrages of the kind referred to by the noble Lord. They are extremely cowardly, and are repudiated by the men's comrades in the Army. There is no evidence that they are on the increase, though there may be isolated cases of violence. The Secretary of State at this moment is taking precautions to have himself informed of all cases which are brought before the Civil Courts against soldiers of the British Army. I will not go at length, into the proposals which the noble Lord made as to remedying what he complains of; I leave that to the Secretary for War. It will be for him to say whether he could justify such an increase in the number of officers as would be necessitated if a subaltern was in each case to accompany the men when they go through a native village. As to the suggestion that the British soldier should be given peas and porridge instead of beef and beer, the noble Marquess will be able to tell the House what effect that would have on recruiting for the Army.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I was glad to hear from the Under Secretary, what I felt quite sure would be the case, that not only is there no reason to apprehend that there is a serious increase of crime committed by soldiers in the Army, but that in point of fact those crimes are tending to decrease; and, although there may possibly have been some instances, some particular cases, which everyone will greatly deplore, still there is no reason to believe or suggest that there is a general deterioration among our soldiers in India. It would be most unfortunate that such an erroneous impression should get abroad. No doubt circumstances may have occurred lately which required the attention of the Government. That attention I am sure—indeed, we have heard

  479
  that it is so from the Under Secretary—will be given to the subject, and if it is found that there is any necessity for their interference, I must say I feel confident the Government will take any steps that may be necessary for the protection of the natives. I cannot, however, believe that the conduct of the soldiers in India is such as to give rise to any general apprehension of deterioration. On the contrary, I believe that their conduct deserves approbation.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I rise merely to express my concurrence in what has been said by the noble Earl. We must all regard with the utmost reprobation acts of ill-usage perpetrated by Europeans, whether soldiers or civilians, upon the natives of India. It is for civilians a disgrace to the nation to which they belong; but when these acts are perpetrated by soldiers, they not only bring disgrace upon their country and countrymen, but upon the honourable profession of which they are members. I am glad to concur with what has been said by the Under-Secretary as to the improvement which has taken place in the conduct of our soldiers in this respect. I believe that at this moment acts which not many years ago—I do not speak of crimes or outrages, but acts of perhaps rough usage and brutality—would have been regarded as comparatively venial are now regarded as well by the military as by the civil community as deserving the utmost abhorrence and reprobation. As I believe that no pains are spared by the military authorities and the commanding officers to prevent these occurrences, I wish to join the protest of the noble Earl against such reports as those which the noble Lord has placed upon the Paper being regarded as authentic proof of the conduct of the troops in India. He has not told us as to these cases whether there were any legal proceedings, or whether, if there were, any convictions followed. I, for one, should certainly want to know a great deal more about these cases before I should be inclined to accept them as being authentic. My impression is that the amount of crime committed by British soldiers in India is steadily diminishing. Courts-martial are diminishing; and, in particular, the offence of drunkenness—so closely connected, I am afraid, with military crime—is showing a marked tendency to
  480
  become less. As representing the War Office, I have only to add that no pains will be spared to prevent any act of ill-treatment being perpetrated by soldiers upon the native population of India.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.