Sitting of 22 June 1900

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, have leave to sit this day during the Sitting of the House. —(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BIRMINGHAM (KING EDWARD THE SIXTH) SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
  Order for Third Reading Read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third, time."
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I rise to move the motion which stands in my name, and I should like at once to say that I take this course not because I wish in any way to cast reflection on the educational efficiency of the great schools of Birmingham— on the contrary, I do not suppose there is any educational system in the country which is better administered, or more successful, than the schools which are.

  745
  governed by the governing body of the Birmingham schools, and I may say that they are the envy of many other towns in which there is not by any means so complete an organisation, beginning with the Board schools and going up to the University—but my reason for objection to the Bill is totally different. I object to it because I think it is highly undesirable that by a private Bill a very grave alteration should be made in the general law of the country. Until this Bill was introduced I do not suppose there was a single case in which a body administering public funds and entrusted with the care of public money was not directly under the control of some Department representing the interests of the public, and I think it is specially needful that with regard to largo and excellent schools of this kind the voice of the public should be heard in regard to the administration of its property. The system is one which exists through the whole of our political and public organisations, beginning with the Public Accounts Committee, where public funds have to be administered. This is purely a business arrangement, and it does not cast any stigma upon the authorities who are thus put under control, it merely ensures the bringing of fresh and impartial minds to bear upon proposals made for improving the work of the trustees, or for dealing with the corpus of this property. Another objection which I make to this departure is, that if an alteration is needed in the law of the land it should be effected by a public Act applying to all foundations alike, and provided with all necessary safeguards, and not by a private Bill applying only to one place. On a former stage of this Bill the Chairman of Ways and Means related to us a very remarkable instance of the value of the public control which I wish to see retained. It was a case in which the M.C.C., a body essentially appointed for the purpose of securing high and honourable conduct in the prosecution of our great national game, desired to purchase certain property from the Clergy Orphan School. The two bodies came to an agreement, fixing the price of certain land at £16,000, but when the matter came before the Charity Commissioner the sum was raised to £40,000, showing conclusively that men of most perfect honour and of the highest capacity might be deceived as to the value of the pro-
  746
  perty with which they wore dealing. In the Bill now before us there is no safeguard such as would prevent a similar mistake being made in dealing with the property of this foundation. The provision substituted for the safeguard is that if three of the Governors object to any particular transaction they may appeal to the Board of Education. But that does not in the least meet the difficulty. It is not the case of the fraudulent or improvident trustee that we have to deal with. We have to deal with the possibility that an honest mistake may be made by the whole governing body, and we want, therefore, the safeguard of an impartial and external mind to review these transactions. The action of the promoters of this Bill is essentially undemocratic, for it gives to wealth and political influence a power of dispensing with the general law which humbler bodies cannot exercise. It is suggested that the Court of Chancery should have some kind of undefined power, but the clause introduced by the Chairman of Ways and Means simply says, "the general jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery." But the clause would only apply in the case of such gross misconduct as would justify the Attorney General in laying an information before the Court, and that is not what is wanted. What is wanted by those who regard this Bill as a precedent for future legislation is to secure the external control of some impartial persons as a matter of administration, and not as a matter of litigation. Then, we object to the remarkable limitation by which the qualification for trustees is that they shall be residents or ratepayers carrying on business within a convenient distance of Birmingham. Again, the trustees propose to take power to appoint their own auditors. I do not suppose there is a single public body in this country which has this power: even the Auditor General is an independent authority, and I believe that educationalists are consistently in favour of insisting upon an outside audit of the accounts of elementary schools. Before I sit down I wish to make a personal observation. An hon. Member the other day said I was not opposed to the Bill. I fear he rather misconceived the upshot of a very hasty conversation I had with him. What I intended to convey to his mind was that I did not object to the educa-

  747
  tional provisions of the Bill, for some of them I admit are admirable, but I did object to the fact that the Bill gives a private privilege which, if given at all, ought to have been given by public Bill.
  *MR. BOND: I wish to second the resolution. I do so with reluctance, but I think the question of the practice of the House and of public policy is involved. I found myself on the opinion of Sir Erskine May, who has said—
  "It has been questioned whether a public Act may properly be repealed or amended by a private Bill; and undoubtedly such provisions demand peculiar vigilance, lest public laws be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places."
  I think the House will agree with that view, and will admit that when a Bill of this kind is brought before us, by which it is proposed to confer peculiar and exceptional privileges upon a particular place or charitable foundation, we ought to inquire very carefully whether a case is made out for a departure from the regular procedure in such matters. This Bill is in effect a scheme for the regulation of the foundation of a great and important educational institution in the city of Birmingham. With many of its provisions I do not quarrel, but I think it will be generally recognised that an endeavour to remodel an educational foundation by way of a Bill rather than by the usual and accepted method of a scheme carried through under the sanction of the Charity Commission, is an exceedingly unusual and rather hazardous departure. There is very little in this Bill which could not have been done in the ordinary regular way. The greater part of it is a repetition of the provisions of the existing scheme, under which great educational work has been done, and the only reason for coming to this House at all is that on two points it is sought to alter the general law in favour of this particular institution. This educational endowment claims the privilege of not having its scheme altered except upon the application of its own governing body, whereas nearly all the educational institutions of the country which come under the operation of the Endowed Schools Act can have a fresh scheme on the initiative of the Charity Commission or the Board of Education. That, however, is a comparatively minor point. The really important point is
  748
  that the governors of this school claim to be exempt from that proper control over the disposition of the funds committed to their charge which exists in the case of every other charitable foundation within the limits of England and Wales. That is a perilous departure, and one would like to know upon what grounds it is defended. I am within the recollection of the House when I say that no attempt has so far been made to defend the provision beyond the putting forward of certain allegations that the Charity Commissioners are an interfering body—that they interfere in trivial and trumpery matters, and that the foundation of King Edward's School is so admirably administered that safeguards deemed necessary for all other foundations may be safely dispensed with in their case. But the fact is that the Charity Commissioners have no power to interfere, except in important matters, when leases of more than twenty-one years are being granted, or when it is proposed to alienate the property of the charitable endowment. It is a matter of common notoriety that there are many charities in this country equally as well managed as this Birmingham endowment, and one does not quite see why an exception should be made in favour of a particular city or a particular institution in that city. And there are reasons, which should influence the House in being particularly careful not to grant an exemption in this particular case. The governing body of King Edward's School is composed mainly of representatives of the Corporation. The control and disposition of the property of this charity rests largely with the members of the Corporation, and knowing as we do how active and enterprising is the Corporation of Birmingham in matters of reform and of the development of the city, we must see it is highly probable that dealings may take place between the governors of the charity and the City Corporation. These gentlemen would find themselves in an exceedingly difficult position, a position in which the financial interests of the charity might be at variance with the financial interests of the Corporation. I think that that is a position in which they ought not to be placed. We were told the other day that the governing body of the school were tired of the Charity Commissioners—a statement which elicited a sympathetic response

  749
  from various quarters of the House. But whether they are tired or not, under this Bill they would no longer remain under the control of the Charity Commissioners. They would be placed under the control of the Board of Education, and all this trouble would have been saved and much debate would have been avoided if only the governors had been willing to accept the transfer of the powers of the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education without trying to limit those powers in one or two important particulars. I hope I have made out my case that this Bill involves a departure from the practice of the House, which might load to mischievous consequences, and I trust, therefore, that the motion which I have the honour of seconding will be carried.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'That this House declines to proceed with a private Bill specially exempting one Foundation from the State control imposed by the general law upon all Charitable Foundations, including the Universities and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.'"—(Mr. Humphreys-Owen.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I interpose in this debate not because the locality I have the honour to represent is very proud of and deeply interested in this school, but because I want to remove the question from the local questions of Birmingham to the list of what I would call broad questions of public policy. I have taken some part in this House in developing our system of local government, and I am strongly opposed to centralisation, which, I believe, is one of the greatest dangers that we have before us in reference to our vast and over-charged administrative Departments. I have also been opposed for the last twenty years to the policy, and especially to the educational policy, of the Charity Commissioners, but I do not wish to introduce that element into the present consideration. I should, indeed, be the last to cast any reflection either on their personnel or their business capacity, for I shall never forget the assistance I received from the then head of the Charity Commissioners in carrying through Par-
  750
  liament in 1894 the Parish Councils Bill. Whatever criticism I have to offer is entirely one of policy. The real question on which my hon. friends differ from the policy of this Bill is that it is exceptional legislation — that it is legislation on behalf of one community and one foundation which does not extend to other foundations and other communities. My hon. friends think that any alteration in the law should be made by a public Act applying to all charities alike. I defend the Bill upon that ground. If the general law lays down certain conditions applicable to every individual of every corporation, it is clearly right that the general law alone should qualify it or modify it, but this Bill is founded in its inception and administration entirely upon exception. I defend this exceptional legislation as a matter of convenience. It would be absolutely impossible to deal with this question in any other way. We must deal with each individual case on its own merits. The Charity Commissioners have 23,084 charities registered under their control, and last year they made nearly forty thousand Orders. It would be impossible to introduce any general law and say that the whole of them should be exempted. Each must be looked at upon its own merits. The overwhelming majority of charities possibly ought not to be exempted; the very constitution of the trust and the circumstances in which it is carried on show that it is necessary to have a centralising and controlling authority. If you admit the principle of exemption, then I allow that Birmingham is not the only place entitled to have exemption; in fact, one gathers from the press that there are many bodies in Lancashire and Yorkshire which are likely to make early application to Parliament for similar exemption. But somebody must break the ice, and someone must go first to the necessary expense to obtain the sanction of Parliament, that these cases may be considered on their individual merits. Complaint has been made of the interference of the Charity Commissioners. I understand that the King Edward School in Birmingham has 700 leases under its control. Is it wise that the trustees of property of that description should be controlled in all their operations by a central authority sitting in London, who must be, and are, absolutely ignorant of all local conditions of the case, and that

  751
  they should be exposed to enormous delays and to very considerable expense? The nature of this Birmingham charity ought to be considered. This charity has an income of nearly £50,000 a year. There are two high grade schools for boys and girls, and eight grammar schools; we have, in fact, a complete educational system which I venture to say cannot be surpassed in any other city in the kingdom. The board of governors is to consist of twenty-two members, Eight of these governors are to be elected by the Corporation of Birmingham, and five are to be nominated by the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London and Birmingham, and by the teachers of both sexes in the schools. Another condition is that nine other members of the board shall be citizens of Birmingham. Cannot a body elected like that be trusted? In the light of public opinion in Birmingham, can it, not be trusted to manage the affairs of the Birmingham foundation school, and does it require to be checked by an outside body? It is, after all, not an unchecked control. It is practically subject to the control of the Board of Education, with one qualification with reference to the management of their property, and it is that if any three members of the board of trustees object to any resolution of the other body of trustees, they have a right of appeal to the Board of Education, whoso decision is absolute and final. If the promoters of the Bill had inserted a clause that any one member of the board of trustees should have a right of appeal, I think that no harm would have been done. What was the danger apprehended by the proposers of the Bill? The danger was misappropriation or misjudgment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: Incapacity.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Well, incapacity and misappropriation. I venture to say that the board of governors elected in the way I have stated are quite capable of dealing properly with the funds of the trust. But there is such a thing as public opinion in Birmingham—in fact, nowhere is it keener—and I am certain that any misappropriation of the funds, or any folly with regard to education on the part of the trustees would meet with a very sharp condemnation from the public opinion of
  752
  Birmingham. But another check has, on the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, been inserted in the Bill during its progress through Parliament. I may say I am not quite satisfied with the wording of the clause, but the object is that the Court of Chancery shall remain in possession of its inherent right, as the guardian of all charities, to interfere in the case of any breach of the trust. Therefore, any individual in Birmingham will have the right, in the event of any misuse or abuse of the trust, to ask the Attorney General to tile an information in order to prevent it. The ingenuity of check has been exhausted in this Bill. The scheme is enormously superior to the present one, and it will greatly improve the efficient working of this great foundation. I rather detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk on the occasion of the last debate a spirit of rivalry and scepticism with reference to the Board of Education. He alluded in a tone somewhat of dissatisfaction to the fact that the Board of Education was represented in this House on the Ministerial Benches, while the Charity Commission was not. But that is one of the grounds for the superiority of the Board of Education; we have all along desired that the Board of Education should be represented in this House by a responsible Minister. Because I believe the time has come for decentralisation not only in education, but in a great many other departments, because I desire to strengthen the local authority of the schools by giving them more power and responsibility, and because I believe the Bill will be to the advantage of the schools, I intend to vote for it.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has approved of legislating in this matter by means of a private Bill. He has told us there are 22,000 charities registered in the books of the Charity Commission; fancy having 22,000 private Bills to deal with them.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I did not propose we should have 22,000 private Bills. I distinctly said that the overwhelming majority of these cases should remain subject to the general law.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that there are exceptions already under the Charitable Trusts Acts, but in all those cases where the foundation is exempted from the control of the Charity Commission it is only because they have been placed under the Board of Agriculture. In opposing this Bill I am not acting officially on behalf of the Charity Commissioners. We felt it our duty to call the attention of the House to the Bill and its peculiar provisions, and having discharged that duty we leave the Bill to the instructed intelligence of the House. Speaking as a Member of the House and not as a Charity Commissioner, I desire to call attention to some very peculiar provisions of the Bill, and to state the reasons why I shall vote against it. In the first place, there is no provision, so far as I can see—as there is in the existing scheme—for the gradual replacement of capital expended on buildings. The House will have on this occasion to judge on the merits of the case, and not on the merits or demerits of the Charity Commissioners. I think it is eminently wise that the interests of future generations in charitable endowments should be protected by the continuous care of some outside body. That care now exists under the general law, but if this Bill passes that will cease to be the case. I see no reason why an exception should be made in the case of this particular foundation. The only justification that has been offered for this Bill is, in fact, that this school is very rich. Surely that is a reason why the governors should be sorry rather than glad to be exempt from the protection of the general law. Then, I think it is a very bad thing that the law of real property should vary, as it will do if this Bill passes, because a conveyance of lands belonging to this charity will be good as regards this charity, but will convey no title in the case of charity lands in any other part of the kingdom. Finally, I think to allow this Bill to pass will be to set a bad example. It will encourage other endowments and foundations to come hero by the same system of private Bill legislation to obtain exceptional legislation for them. That is a twofold evil. It wastes the funds of the charity in the promotion of Bills in Parliament, and it wastes the time of the House. We will have, if this Bill passes,
  754
  a continuous succession of Bills brought in by schools to set up special conditions for themselves. The Leader of the House has spoken of four debates on this Bill, but if Are encourage such Bills as this there will be 400 debates.
  *MR. LOWE: I do not propose on the present occasion to enter at any length into the merits of this Bill, because the grounds upon which the Members for Birmingham unanimously support it have; been laid very fully before the House on several previous occasions, and the issue we have to decide to-day is precisely the same as that which has been settled by the divisions which have already taken place on the subject. The only difference is that the case for the promoters has been made very much stronger, and many of the objections which have been raised against the Bill have been disposed of by the alterations which have been made in Committee, all of which alterations tend in the direction of giving a larger measure of control to the Board of Education, and of retaining the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. I would only repeat what I have said on previous occasions, that the main purpose and object of this Bill is not to get rid of any reasonable amount of control in regard to fundamental matter's, but simply to enable a local and representative board of governors, who are all men of the highest standing, and who have no personal interest to serve, to manage their own property, which includes a very large number of leases, without being hampered and delayed by having to submit every detail of their operations to the approval of the Charity Commissioners or any other outside body. It is not the case that there are no other charitable endowments which are free from the control of the Charity Commissioners. As has already been pointed out, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the schools of Eton and Winchester, were exempted from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act. It is true that they have since been put under the control of the Board of Agriculture, but that control is nothing like so irksome or inconvenient as that which is exercised by the Charity Commissioners. And there are half a dozen other schools which were expressly exempted from the Endowed Schools Act, which have not to submit to outside control, and which have

  755
  as full power over their property as these governors would be allowed under this Bill. As has been already shown, their manner of dealing with the property is safeguarded in every way by the right of appeal given to any three members of the board, and there will always be a sufficient number of independent members on the board to exercise that right, as is evidenced by the fact that there will be five representatives of the Universities perfectly independent of the representative governors and the other governors nominated by the City Council. To object to the governors being Birmingham men seems to me to be perfectly incomprehensible. I believe that that is a distinct point in their favour. It must be perfectly clear to anyone who knows Birmingham, that we can always get a sufficient number of men of high standing, intelligence, and integrity to be governors, and to manage the affairs of this foundation without going outside. It has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite that it is an objection to the Bill that these governors have power to appoint their own auditors; but I would remind the hon. Member that not only have the accounts to be published in the local newspapers, but they must be submitted to the Board of Education for approval. It was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham that conflicting interests might arise between the Board of Governors and the Corporation of the City of Birmingham. Why, the interests of both these bodies are the interests of the people of Birmingham, and both are elected to look after the interests of the people whom they represent, so that both will have the same interests at heart, and there is no likelihood of any conflict taking place between them. My hon. friend the Member for Thirsk referred to the provision which was contained in a former scheme of the Charity Commissioners, requiring that a certain replacement of capital should be made. I am able to inform him, however, that this is fully provided for by the Bill, and that the Bill does not interfere with any arrangement which has been come to in the past. It has been said by several hon. Members that the Bill should not be passed because it would form a bad precedent, and that other schools and charitable bodies will not be slow to follow the example set by the governors of these schools. For my part I consider that, instead of that being
  756
  a drawback or objection to the Bill, it is a distinct point in its favour. The country as a whole is proverbially rather slow to move, and it frequently requires one of the more robust and energetic portions of it to show the way to the others. And if, as I think, and as seems now to be generally admitted by the majority of the House, this Bill will have the effect of remedying a manifest injustice, or at least a manifest inconvenience, it will form a most useful precedent for endowments in other large towns, and the constitution and powers of other governing bodies of a similar kind will probably in course of time all come to be remodelled, in accordance with the rules of justice and common sense which this Bill lays down. Then it is said that this Bill proposes to make an alteration in the law which should not be brought about by a private Bill, but should be secured by a public Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury, speaking the other day in reference to the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, said that if you want to bring about any great reform or pass any complete and comprehensive measure of legislation, you must proceed by steps and do it piecemeal. If there is one alteration in the law to which that doctrine would apply almost more forcibly than to any other, it is that which is now under consideration. We all know what a large amount of opposition and discussion has been provoked by the very modest proposal to abolish the control of the Charity Commissioners in this one particular case. But what would be the effect if a Bill were introduced to abolish the Charity Commissioners all round? There would be no end to the discussion that it would call forth; every known expedient would be resorted to, to prevent its passing into law, and its promoters might think themselves very fortunate if they got it through in anything under five years. It seems to me, then, that these are essentially cases which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, should be dealt with separately, each one on its own merits, and not by any general law. You cannot possibly lay down any hard-and-fast | rule that can be applied to the case of all charities, because each one differs from the others most materially and in many important particulars; and whilst it might be most unwise to remove the control of the Charity Commissioners in regard to some small endowment in some out-of-the-

  757
  way country town, it might be the essence of wisdom to do away with their powers in the case of a large charitable endowment situated in one of the chief cities of the kingdom, such as that which we are now dealing with. I submit, then, that if this Bill is passed it will not only be a great benefit to these schools, and very much calculated to promote their future welfare, but that it will also form a most useful precedent. I hope, therefore, that the House will not stultify itself by going back upon its former decisions, as to the desirability of passing it into Law.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: This is a matter of very great importance, not only in itself, but because of the precedent it will set. The crowded condition of the House at this time of business is proof of that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who is most anxious for this Bill, will not think that those who oppose it desire in any way to charge the promoters of the Bill or the Corporation of Birmingham with being dishonest or incapable, or anything of that kind. If there is one corporation more than another which comes before this House with a good reputation in regard to all matters of local government, that public body is the Corporation of Birmingham. Still, admitting all that, I must urge the importance and value of an independent authority, like the Charity Commissioners, exercising supervision. The powers of the Charity Commissioners, are very large, not merely as regards malversation or dishonesty, or anything of that kind, but against possible mistake and error. Those who have studied the reports quoted by my hon. friend know perfectly well that cases can be shown of trustees acting bona fide, but making mistakes. There was the extraordinary case mentioned the other day in the House which occurred in London. A large portion of the very valuable property of Lord's cricket ground was on the point of being sold by the trustees of a certain charity, and they had almost parted with it when the Commissioners intervened, and got £20,000 more for it than the trustees were prepared to accept. May I remind my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham that in the evidence given in regard to this school before the Committee presided
  758
  over by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, it was stated that the corporation of that city put gentle pressure on the trustees of the school to part with that property, and if the Commissioners had not intervened the corporation would have forced them to part with it under the Artisans' Dwellings. Act for much less than they were able to obtain when the matter was gone into in a different way, and the property was exempted from that Act. Nobody on that occasion charged the corporation with being dishonest or stupid. It was a mistake made by business men. Surveyors and valuers fell into the mistake, and it did not in the least reflect on the business capacity of the Corporation of Birmingham. It shows that even an able and intelligent body like a corporation is all the better for having a second opinion, and that it should submit its own proposals to a body independent of all local interests, and able to approach the subject in the manner the Charity Commissioners are able to do. I believe it could be shown that all those cases which have been placed before the House, and which have been called exceptions, are not exceptions at all. They are all schools which have been dealt with by special Acts of Parliament. I may venture to say, in conclusion, that the supporters of the Bill have not really satisfied the public opinion of this House, because they have not had the courage to submit the Bill to a Committee. On the Second Reading they promised a clause which many hon. Members entirely misunderstood, and which my right hon. friend stated then, and stated now, is in reality not worth the paper it is written on.
  THE FIRST LORD OF TUB TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There are two quite distinct questions which Members of the House have got to decide before making up their minds in connection with this Bill. The first is the one which the noble Lord addressed himself to— namely, Is the arrangement proposed by this Bill better or worse than that for which this measure is a substitute? In other words, is this great charity likely to be better managed under this governing body than under the restrictions which necessarily and from the nature of the case are now imposed upon it? That is a question on which I venture to say there is very little difference of opinion. Does any-

  759
  one seriously believe that the new governing body of this great institution will mismanage the property? Nobody doubts that the management will be conducted under far more favourable circumstances than those which at present hamper it. On the merits of the Bill, I say that the change which it is proposed to make will be a very beneficial one. But there is another question on which I venture to say there is a much greater difference of opinion. It is the question not whether this is an improvement as regards King Edward's School, but whether it is right to improve this particular school without also improving other institutions under similar circumstances; in other words, is it proper to deal with this institution by way of an exception, instead of waiting for a general measure freeing all schools at the same time, if they are to be freed, from the control of the Charity Commissioners? It is on that point that I have formed a strong opinion, and I should not have troubled the House had there only been the first of the two points I have referred to. The second point is much wider than the first, and I think I am bound to say a word to the House in regard to it. In the first place, let me point out to the House that there is a great misconception in some quarters—amongst those Members who complain that this is a private Bill introduced by a local authority without any reference to a central authority. That is not the case. The Bill was referred to the new Education Department, and upon it that Department passed judgment and introduced Amendments. The new Education Department are of opinion that the Bill runs on general lines they are prepared to approve of in other cases which resemble this one. Therefore, we are not legislating at random about a single case, but on general educational conditions which have been considered by the central department of the Government which this House has entrusted with the duty. In the next place, I ask myself is it possible to proceed in these matters in the way my right hon. friend and others refer to. They appear to think that we ought never to touch these schools at all, or that we should legislate for the 22,000 important charities which are at present under the Charity Commissioners. It is manifestly impossible, in my judgment,
  760
  to proceed by a general Act which shall be applicable to 22,000 cases, or half that number, or quarter that number, or even an infinitesimal fraction of that number. Every case must be tried on its merits. I have no doubt that there are, outside Birmingham, other great educational institutions which may be treated, and they probably will be treated, as it is proposed to treat King Edward's School. In those cases the Education Department will apply the same principle which is applied to this Bill. In future, private Bills dealing with those institutions will be submitted to the Education Department, and I have no doubt the House will be prepared to sanction similar measures to that which on this occasion they will sanction for King Edward's School at Birmingham. There is, therefore, no ground for supposing that we are proceeding by way of making an undue exception in this matter, or indeed that it is possible to proceed on such broad lines and such universal lines of general legislation as some hon. Members appear to desire. For my own part, I believe that the consideration of each of these great educational endowments should be on its merits, and that this is the only way which is likely to produce good results. Whether a Bill should be brought in as a public or a private measure seems to me to be a very subordinate matter, of mere technical interest, and under these circumstances I think it would be a most unhappy precedent if on the Third Reading and after the fourth discussion the House should reject the Bill.
  MR. ASQUTTH: The question at issue is one which goes to the very root of our Parliamentary procedure, namely, whether the restrictions which have been deliberately imposed by Parliament under the general law of the land in the administration of charitable trusts is to be whittled away in piecemeal fashion by successive attempts on the part of local communities to emancipate themselves from those restrictions. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of Birmingham, which is a very important place, and which for more than a generation has been the laboratory of a number of very interesting municipal experiments. I must say that I have not been convinced by any argument which I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman of the

  761
  proposition that a law which is good enough for the rest of England and Wales is not good enough for Birmingham. The vista which the right hon. Gentleman held out of the various charitable trusts of the country, or the communities for which those trusts exist, coming forward to this House with a succession of similar proposals to get rid in their particular cases of the responsibility imposed by the general law of the land is something which I cannot contemplate with satisfaction. If it be the case that the safe- guards provided by the Charity Commissioners are too rigid and inelastic in their nature to remain, as they have been now for a great many years, part of the general law, that is a difficulty which ought to be dealt with—and can only be properly dealt with—by general legislation. So long as those safeguards have been deliberately imposed by Parliament, so long as nobody contends that a case has been made out for an alteration of the general law, I think that, in the interests of our Parliamentary procedure—and, what is of still more vital importance, in the interests of uniformity of the law with regard to the administration of charitable trusts throughout the country — this House ought to look with suspicion on a measure of this kind. On these grounds I shall be compelled to vote against the Third Reading.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has laid down a principle which he will find it inconvenient to practise in future, and which I am certain he has not practised in the past. It is that there should be absolutely no exception to the general law of this country. The Charity Commission apply the same restrictions in the case of a great institution dealing with £50,000 a year and 700 leases, and administered in the atmosphere of a great manufacturing and keenly intelligent town, as they apply in the case of some petty Tillage charity. Naturally, great irritation is produced in the case of the great institution by restrictions which are perfectly right and proper for the petty village charity. Let me take as another instance the question of the municipal law of this country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if this was the first time on which the House had had the common-sense to deal with various cases on their different merits.
  762
  Nothing could be more absurd than to put forward a proposal to put all charities on a Procrustean bed, and cut them all according to the same pattern. That is not a precedent which has been followed with regard to municipal corporations. There is not a municipal corporation of any importance which has not special legislation. A Committee was appointed to consider all cases of deviation from the general law on their merits; and since then variations have been permitted in the case of nearly all the great municipalities, according to local circumstances. Surely it is impertinent to come down here to try and frighten the House with the idea that we are now creating a new precedent with regard to charities. I do not remember any private Bill which has been fought with greater persistency than this extremely innocent Bill. And yet, except for the point with which I have just dealt, there is no general public interest involved in the matter. If hon. Members are pleased to suppose that the people of Birmingham are less capable of managing this charity successfully than the Charity Commissioners, who live in London and know nothing of the local circumstances, even then the people of Birmingham would be the only sufferers. There are only three bodies concerned. First, there are the Charity Commissioners, who declare themselves glad to get rid of the charity, though their representatives do not act in that spirit. Their representatives have come down here and said that, having stated their views on the subject, they are perfectly ready to hand over the control. Secondly, there is the Board of Education, which is perfectly ready to take over the charity. Thirdly, there are the people of Birmingham, from which city not a whisper of opposition to the Bill has come, although the Bill has been before the House all this time. The object of the whole people, without exception, is to secure the passage of the Bill. Do hon. Members believe in local self-government. or not? It is an extraordinary fact that the persons who in theory express their belief in allowing people to manage their own affairs, whenever it comes to the point insist that other people's affairs should be managed according their liking, and not from the point of view of the people concerned. If the people of Birmingham are fit to be entrusted with an expenditure amounting to something like

  763
  £2,000,000 a year, surely they are fit to manage the thousand petty details connected with this charity, in regard to which at present they are put to great inconvenience and trouble by the regulations of the Charity Commissioners. I hope, on that ground alone, and on no other, as a mere matter of consistency, the House will be prepared by a very large majority to allow the people of Birmingham to manage their own affairs.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that many hon. Members of this House desired to extend as much as possible the administrative power of corporations and other local bodies, but what he thought the House ought to be very careful about was giving to the governors of a charity the power to dispose of the corpus of their endowment. He
  wished to point out that, in consequence of the Charity Commissioners exercising control over the disposal of endowments, many thousands of pounds had been preserved to the charities which would otherwise have been frittered away. He knew of one case where the governors of the charity were prepared to sell some property for £20,000, but by the interference of the Charity Commissioners £40,000 was obtained. In another case £2,500 was the price arranged by the governors of a charity, but by the interference of the Charity Commissioners £8,000 was secured for the endowment. It was because he thought they ought to be very careful with regard to giving such powers that he should oppose the Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 152.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Aird, John

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Arnold, Alfred

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Arrol, Sir William

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W.)

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Beach, Rt. Hn W. W. B. (Hants.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Killop, James

  Biddulph, Michael

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Brigg, John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Monk, Charles James

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Harwood, George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murnaghan, George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hazell, Walter

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute)

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)

  Newdigate, Fras. Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, Joseph

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Percy, Earl

  Curzon, Viscount

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Denny, Colonel

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'a)

  Purvis, Robert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Randell, David

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lafone, Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'bl'nd)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leighton, Stanley

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Runciman, Walter

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Welby, Lt. -CI. A. C. E. (Taunt'n)

  Rutherford, John

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Samuel H. S. (Limehouse)

  Strachey, Edward

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, George

  Sidebettom, William (Derbysh.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Mr. Austen Chamberlain

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  and Mr. Lowe.

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morrison, Walter

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gunter, Colonel

  Myers, William Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Baker, Sir John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hardy, Laurence

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bethell, Commander

  Heath, James

  Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington)

  Bill, Charles

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Penn, John

  Billson, Alfred

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pilkington, Sir Geo A (LancsS W)

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Holland, William Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Howell, William Tudor

  Pym, C. Guy

  Burt, Thomas

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Knowles, Lees

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Souttar, Robinson

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Stanhope, Hon Philip J.

  Colville, John

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crombie, John William

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Stock, James Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Ewan, William

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'd)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Wallace, Robert

  Engledew, Charles John

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wason, Eugene

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mather, William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Flower, Ernest

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarth'n)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fry, Lewis

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Mr. Bond and Mr. Joseph

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

  A. Pease.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read, and suspended.
  Ordered, That for the remainder of the session Three be the quorum of the Committee.—(Mr. Halsey.)

  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.

  LONDON (POPLAR) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LONDON (CLERKENWELL AND HOLBORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

  BREWERY AND COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  FALKIRK CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MILFORD DOCKS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
  CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BRISTOL WATER BILL [Lords.]
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.

WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
  WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
  TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

769
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have agreed to Amendments to—Dorking Water Bill [Lords], Fish-guard Water and Gas Bill [Lords], Menstone Water (Transfer) Bill [Lords], Newport Corporation Bill [Lords], New-town and Llanllwchaiarn Urban District Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Great Grimsby Street Tramways Company with respect to the construction and working of Tramways in the borough of Grimsby and for other purposes." Great Grimsby Street Tramways Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer upon the Corporation of Ramsgate further powers with reference to the local government and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." Rams-gate Corporation Improvements Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the North British Railway Company to construct certain new railways, widenings, and other works; to confer further powers upon the Company and upon other Companies in connection with their respective undertakings; to amalgamate the Aberlady, Gullane, and North Berwick Railway Company, the Newport Railway Company, and the Eye-mouth Railway Company with the Company; to transfer to and vest in the Company the undertaking of the Borrow-stounness Harbour Commissioners; to enable the Burntisland Harbour Commissioners to borrow and the Company to advance them further money; to authorise the Company to enter into working and other agreements with the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Company; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." North British Railway Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Walsall to construct tramways; to extend their powers in regard to their gas undertaking; to make further provision in regard to financial matters; and for the improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." Walsall Corporation Bill [Lords]
Public Accounts.—That they give leave to the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on "Public Accounts."

GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  RAMSGATE CORPORATION IMPROVEMENTS BILL [Lords].

    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    WALSALL CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL
  Petition from Walworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
  Petition from Lee, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Bromley, and Beckenham; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL.
  Petition from St. Mary, Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dumfries, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Bournemouth, against establishment: to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Uckfield; Burgess Hill; Eastbourne (two); Brighton (two); Bradford; Newhaven; Newburn; Deal; Lymington; Gosport;

  771
  Luton; Henley-on-Thames; Ashington; Greenhead; Hexham; Horsham (two); Newbiggin-by-the-Sea; and Birkenhead; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against, from East Berks; and Loughborough; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Portsmouth; Tunbridge Wells; Southport (nine); Dover (two); Northampton; Dowlais (thirteen); Croydon (four); Herne Bay; Camberwell (two); Elham; Snainton; Sherburn; East Ayton; Brampton; Scarborough (five); Seamar; Crosby; Southmolton (two); New Tredegar; Wath; Burgess Hill; Littlehampton; Llanelly (twenty-three); Birkdale; Crossens; Stockport; Pudsey; Padiham; Hackney; Clapham Road; Trawden; South St. Pancras (seven); Ainsdale; Earlestown; Liverpool; Waterloo (two); Aymestry; Leintwardine; Adley Moor; Wigmore; Hayle; Forest of Dean; St. Clether; Week; St. Mary; Tresmeer; Boyton; Altarnon; St. Gennys; Warbstow; Watford; Harrogate; Brighton (three); Tresparrett; Maxworthy; Treneglos; Poundstock; Jacobstow; Bury; Luck-well Bridge; Wood Green; Bicester; Tyersal; Edmonton; Norwich; Measham; Weston-super-Mare; Sevenoaks; Southampton (four); Redruth; St. Breward; Copthorne; Launceston; Stratton; St. Michaels; Darwen; Smethwick (two); Handsworth (three); Whittle Brook; Patricroft (two); Flixton; Little Hulton; Eccles (two); Swinton; Pendlebury; Birmingham (two); Burnley (six); Mere-clough; Calverley; Pudsey; Nomans-land; Widnes (three); Lymington (two); Fordingbridge (two); Seagrave; Saint Helens (two); Sutton Oak; Bishop Waltham; Ponder's End; Garston; St. Asaph; Mossley Hill; Old Kent Road; Wandsworth; Balham Grove; Short-lands; Bromley (two); Sheffield (five); Witham; Whiston; Maldon; High Barnet; Bute; Braintree; Loughton (five); Peterborough (two); Langstone; Wootton-under-Edge (two); Charfield; Gosport; Gloucester; Burnham; Ship-ham; Beaufort; Cwm; Victoria; Porth-cawl; Seaforth; Kennington; Islington; Weston-super-Mare; Aberystwyth; Battersby Junction; Eye; York; Adisham; Shoreham; Portslade; Southern Cross; Wisbech (two); Bolney; Newburn;
  772
  Scotswood; South Norwood (two); Walbottle; Saltburn; Sengdale; Newby; Stokesley; Darnall, Bedford College; Atherton (two); New Brompton; Pudsey (two); Southminster; Leigh; Sparkbrook; Small Heath; Carne Abbas; Lyme Regis; Bowbridge; Middle Hulton; Farnworth; Wibsey; Idle (six); Thackley; Eccleshill (two); Heston; Tyldesley (two); Lancaster; Grange-over-Sands; Barking; Southend-on-Sea (three); Ashton-on-Ribble; Whittlesea; Downham Market; Brigg (six); Dovercourt; New Wandsworth; Middleham; Middlesbrough; Ferry Hill; Eastbourne (six); Burgess Hill; Blechington; Stanton St. John; Oxford (three); Cassington (two); Long Handborough; Bladon; Ebbes; Brades; Newhaven; Bolsover; Woodford; Elm; Leeds; Widnes; Glossop; Buxton (three); North-West Derbyshire; Whitton; Isleworth; Copthorne; Hayward's Heath; Uckfield; Broughty Ferry; Brighton (two); Tyldesley; Islington (five); Hillmarton; Goatacre; Market Rasen; Binbrook; Aylsham; London; East Bristol (two); Eastwood; Tickhill; Bingley; Bristol (thirteen); Garras Mawyan; Warrington; Gulfach; Paignton; Stockport; Newbiggin-by-the Sea; Deal; Kingswood (two); Lidgate; Wickhambrook; West Hartlepool (two); Hartlepool; Glasgow; Eltham; Wimbledon; Southampton; Calne; Chippenham; Cwm-y-gaist; Huddersfield; Tis-bury; Ely; Mostyn; Chedworth; Melksham; Gosberton; Bradford-on-Avon; Cowes; Seaforth; Whiteparish; Wadhurst; Sudbury; Longwood; Ryburgh;. Puddington; Witheridge; Griffithstown (two); Ashington; Dulwich (two);, Penge; Purley; Horsham (three); Crawley (two); Liskeard; Oldbury; Terrington; Swansea (three); Cawston; Itteringham; Louth; Langworth; Berkhamp-stead; Oswersby; Wood Green; Keighley (six); Greenhead; Hexham (two); Slaley; Hemel Hempstead; South Manchester; Cross Hills; Wells next the Sea; Tottenham; Thornton; Sutton-in-Craven; Bexhill; Ealing Dean; West Coanwood; Allendale Town; Kentish Town, N. W.; Burgess Hill (two); Manchester; Stockport; Oakham; Knaresborough; Hibaldstow; Westwood; St. Silas; Aston (six); Birmingham (two); Bedminster (three); Sudbury; Cleckheaton; Nottingham; Forest Hill; Widnes; Luddendenfoot; Henham; Saffron Walden; Walsingham; Holbeach,

  773
  (six); Fleet Fen; Whaplode Drove; Barwell; Earl Shilton; Hinckley; Brampton; Wickmere; Ham worth; Alborough; Cowling Hill; Old Cleeve; Broomfield; and Timberscombe; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (NO. 2) BILL AND SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour', from Glasgow; Elgin; Dyce; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Burgess Hill (two); Birkdale; Southport (nine); Earlestown; Waterloo (two); Crosby; Aymestry; Llanelly (twenty-three); Hastings (two); Truro; Tresillian; Mer-thyr; Penweathers; Lydney; Old Cleeve; Bury (two); Walton-on-Thames; Luck-well Bridge; Timberscombe; Redruth; Delabole; Copthorne; St. Breward; Launceston (three); Maxworthy; Warb-stow; Trespanett; Treneglos; Pound-stock; Jacobstow; Cold Northcott; Week St. Mary; Boyton; Tresmeer; Stratton; Saint Gennys; Pudsey; Smethwick (three); Handsworth; Patricroft (two); Swinton; Whittle Brook; Flixton; Little Hulton; Birmingham (two); Stockport; Burnley (five); Pendlebury; Mereclough; Odley Moor; Fulledge; Nomansland; Seagrave; Southampton; Sutton Oak; St. Helens; Ponders End; Widnes (six); Oxford; Mossley Hill; Balham Grove; Bicester; Brighton (three); Altarnon; Norfolk (two); Tyersal; Sheffield (two); Maldon; Sevenoaks; Measham; Steb-bing; Loughton; Longstone; Hamble-don; Gosport; Manchester (six); Lut-ton; Rhymney; Ebbw Vale (two); New Tredegar; Waunllwyd; Beaufort; Cwm; Aberystwyth; Glyncorwg; Moreton-in-Marsh; Porthcawl; Dowlais (fifteen); Forest of Dean; Timberscombe; Launceston; Darnall; Pudsey (two); Sparkbrook; Small Heath; Cerne Abbas; Bowbridge; Lyme Regis; Middle Hulton; Farnworth; Atherton (two);
  774
  Barling; Whittlesea (two); Lessingham; Tyldesley; Norwich; Brigg (six); Middleham; Ferry Hill; Southend-on-Sea (two); Middlesbrough (three); North Ormesby (two); Eastbourne (five); Newhaven (two); Brades; South Norwood (two); Croydon; Newburn; Stoneham; Wisbech; Friday Bridge; Sherburn; Seamer (two); Brompton; East Ayton; Snainton; Scarborough (three); Sugdale; Saltburn; Stokesley; Walbottle; Newby; Battersby; Herne Bay; Dover; South Molton; Uckfield; East Northants; Buxton (two); Elm; Glossop; Walthamstow; Garston; St. Helens Aston; Horsham; Micheldever; Cleckheaton; Swansea; Cawston: Itteringham; Thornton; Aylsham; Walsingham; Whaplode Drove; Holbeach; Hinckley; Barwell; Brompton; Alborough; Bideford; Sunderland; Market Rasen; Langworth; Hemel Hempstead; Wood Green; Heallys; Keighley (three); Cross Hills; Glasgow; Hanworth; Belper; Owersby; Abercarne; Tottenham; Wickmere; Sudbury; Garras Mawgan; Binbrook; Abbotsham; Greenhead; Paignton; Allendale; Hexham-on-Tyne; Gorleston; Warrington; Witheridge; Great Ryburgh; Paddington; Gelligaer; Sabden; Openshaw; West Hartlepool (two); Hartlepool; Eltham; Seaforth; Purley; East Dulwich; Motherwell; St. Cleer; Polruan; Newbiggin by the Sea; Holbeach (three); West Coanwood; St. Silas; Aston (two); Aston Park; and Lymington; to lie upon the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Southport; Newton Nottage; Gelligaer; Newcastle; Emlyn; and Raglan; to lie upon the Table.
RETURN'S, REPORTS, ETC.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st June; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 227.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st June; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie

  775
  upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1890 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Applications to and Proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 229.]
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th June; Sir John William Maclure]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]
  EAST INDIA RAILWAYS (PURCHASE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 18th June; Mr. Cohen]; to lie upon the Table.
  BEDFORDSHIRE REGIMENT (RECRUITS, ETC.).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 9th May; Mr. Hudson]; to lie upon the Table.
  LEAD POISONING.
  Address for "Return giving (a) the number of cases of Lead Poisoning re ported under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, in the manufacture of earthenware and china during the period from the 1st day of January, 1899, to the 31st day of May, 1900, distinguishing between cases in the decorative processes and cases in the processes of dipping, ware cleaning, etc.; (b) the number of persons suspended from working in dangerous processes by the certifying surgeons for the Hanley, Burslem, Tunstall, and Stoke districts in the same manufacture during the same period, in pursuance of the special rules." —(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PROPOSED VISIT OF COLONIALCONTINGENTS TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, when the services of the troops raised by Canada, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South
  776
  Australia, Western Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Ceylon, Cape Colony, and Natal for South Africa can be dispensed with by Lord Roberts, he will endeavour to facilitate the visit to the Mother Country of representatives of those contingents.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The proposal has been for some time under consideration, and the Secretary of State has consulted Lord Roberts on the subject.

  RELEASED BRITISH PRISONERS.
  MR. PALMER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when he will be able to publish for the information of their friends the names of all officers and men who were taken prisoners during the war in South Africa and have now been released by the action of Lord Roberts.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The names of the officers were published on Tuesday, the 19th inst. The names of the men have not yet been reported by Lord Roberts.

  PROMOTIONS FROM THE RANKS.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the number of men during the past six months promoted from the ranks of the regular forces at present serving in South Africa; and how many of those are infantry, mounted infantry, cavalry, artillery, or engineers.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The numbers are as follow:—Cavalry, 3; artillery, 4; engineers, 1; infantry, 30; total, 38. The returns sent to the War Office do not distinguish mounted infantry from infantry.

  RETURN OF RESERVISTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, since the employers of many skilled artisans who are Reservists now in South Africa are keeping their situations open for them, any assurance can be given that Reservists who desire to return to their avocations will be among the first soldiers to be sent home on the conclusion of hostilities,

  777
  even if they should happen to belong to regiments to be ultimately employed in the army of occupation.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: It would be premature to give any such assurance at the present time, but full consideration will be given to the suggestion, not only for the sake of the men, but of the employers who have acted in so patriotic a manner.

  SETTLEMENT OF SOLDIERS IN SOUTH AFRICA AFTER THE WAR.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as many Reservists now serving in South Africa are skilled artisans, careful attention will be given to their case in considering the question of offering inducements to soldiers to settle in South Africa after the war.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The whole question of grants to soldiers willing to settle in South Africa after the war has been referred to an Interdepartmental Committee.

  PENSTONS FOR ARMY NURSING SISTERS.
  MR. BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the scale of pensions given to members of the Army Nursing Service, under which the highest pension that an army nursing sister can receive is £37 a year after twenty-one years service, and that she cannot receive more even if she continues to work till she is sixty years of age, and that the average pension is less than this; and whether, in view of the work done by the members of the service, especially during the war in South Africa, pensions on a more liberal scale could be provided.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: An army nursing sister receives a pension of £26 year after twenty-one years service and £35 after 30 years service; but in any case of "special devotion to her duties" or on being appointed superintendent a higher rate, up to a maximum of £50. may be granted. It is not thought necessary to increase these rates.

  RESERVISTS' PENSIONS.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State
  778
  for War if he is now in a position to state whether, in the case of the Reservists in Section D who have been called up for active service in South Africa, the whole time of their service in Sections A, B, C, or D counts for pensions; and, if so, whether they will be given an Opportunity of re-engaging to complete twenty-one years service for pensions.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Time in the Reserve counts for pension if the Reservist is permitted to re-engage to complete twenty-one years with the colours. It is not the intention of the Government to give any general permission to Reservists to re-engage, because such a measure, besides being very expensive, would deplete the Reserve, which it is the policy of the Government to enlarge. But a certain number of the Reservists will probably be allowed to re-engage after the war is over.

  VOLUNTEER MOUNTED INFANTRY GRANT.
  MAJOR RASCH: On behalf of the Member for Hastings, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what grant the Government proposes to give towards the expenses of Volunteer mounted infantry beyond the ordinary grant to Volunteers.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am not in a position to answer that at present.

  ALDERSHOT MANŒUVRES—HEAT FATALITIES.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the table of the House the report of the inquiry to be made into the causes of the recent disaster at Aldershot.
  MAJOR RASCH: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government have any objection to laying the Report of the Court of Inquiry on the casualties at Aldershot on Monday, 11th June, upon the Table of the House.
  *MR, WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for South-east Essex will allow me to answer at the same time the question which he has addressed to the First Lord. The inquiry, which has not been made by a

  779
  Court, but by the Adjutant-General, has established all the facts, no one of which is in dispute, or even in doubt. There is no objection to publishing the facts in greater detail than has already been given to the House. In respect of the omission to order that helmets should be worn by all men provided with them the Commander-in-Chief considers that the action which he has taken meets the requirements of the case. In respect of failure in the supply of light refreshments to two battalions, and of the number and duration of halts on the march back to camp, the Adjutant-General is inquiring into the action taken by individual officers commanding battalions, and the Commander-in-Chief will administer such reprimands or cautions as each case may demand.

  8TH HUSSARS—OFFICERS ON SPECIAL DUTY.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Major and Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Le Gallais, and Major and Brevet Colonel Mahon, 8th Hussars, have been employed on special duties away from their regiment, the former for about six years, the latter for about ten years, without being seconded, so that none have been promoted or appointed to do their regimental work; and whether he can see his way to a rule being made that whenever an officer is employed away from his regiment for more than twelve months continuously he shall be made supernumerary in his regiment, in order that those doing his regimental work may have due rank, and the complement of officers doing duty with the regiment be kept complete.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Majors employed extra-regimentally are replaced by captains, who carry out the necessary regimental work.
  In reply to a further question by Colonel WELBY,
  *MR. WYNDHAMsaid additional captains were appointed to do the work, but not additional majors.

  PROMOTIONS OF SECOND LIEUTENANTS OF ARTILLERY AND ENGINEERS.
  MR. NEWDIGATE: I beg to ask the Under
  780
  Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State for War has now come to a decision as to whether second lieutenants of Artillery and Engineers should be put on an equal footing as regards promotion with second lieutenants of cavalry and infantry.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: This question is still under consideration.

  MILITIA OFFICERS' PAY.
  MR. BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the officers of embodied Militia are placed on exactly the same footing as Line battalions, so far as duties and pay are concerned during embodiment, and that in consequence the senior major of a Militia battalion, though not formally appointed second in command, has the same duties to perform as the second in command of a Line battalion, whether he ought not to receive the additional pay, over and above a major's pay, which is given to the seconds in command of Line battalions.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The question is under consideration.

  MILITIA COMMISSIONS.
  MR. BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that subalterns of Militia, who joined the force in order to obtain commissions in the Line, are unable to obtain them during embodiment, because their services are required with their Militia units, while at the same time a number of commissions are being given to the universities and public schools, to boys who have never done any soldiering, but who will now become their seniors in the Army; and whether the commissions given to Militia subalterns at the end of embodiment can be ante-dated, so that they shall not lose seniority through service in the Militia.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: My hon. friend is under an entire misapprehension. The majority of the commissions given to Militia officers recently have been granted to officers while serving in embodied regiments and bear date prior to those given to the university candidates, who, it should be remembered, are all over twenty years of age. No commissions

  781
  have as yet been given to any public school boys.
  MR. BOSCAWEN: I want to know not what has been done, but what is going to be done with reference to those subalterns now serving in the Militia, in many cases abroad, who are unable to come home and prepare for examination, and in many cases may not be able to compete at all.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: That is not the question on the Paper. It deals with embodied subalterns. But I hope in a very few days to publicly announce a modification of the conditions of examination on the lines laid down by the Member for South East Essex, namely, a proportionate number of marks for service of embodiment.
  MR. BOSCAWEN: And may I ask that the announcement may be made as soon as possible, in view of the great interest taken in this subject?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member need not ask that. The scheme is being worked at two or three hours daily.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN MOVEMENT—PRESENT POSITION AT PEKING, TIENTSIN, ETC.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information from China to the effect that the Foreign Legations at Peking are safe; and whether there is any further news from Tientsin or from the expeditionary force.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): We have no news from Peking, or from the expeditionary forces. A runner from Tientsin, 18th June, arriving at Ta-ku yesterday, gave information of the situation at Tientsin that several attacks had been made and repulsed. On 17th Chinese shelled foreign settlement. The Chinese Military College was then attacked by a mixed force of 175 Austrians, British, Germans, and Italians, who destroyed the guns, burnt the college with considerable store of ammunition, and killed the defenders. The Russians with their four heavy field guns did excellent service. The British loss was 1 killed, 5 wounded; the Germans, 1 killed; the Italians, 2 wounded; the
  782
  Russians, 7 killed, 5 wounded. Chinese during night of 17th tried to seize bridge of boats, but were repulsed with loss, including, it is reported, a Chinese General. The Rear-Admiral at Ta-ku telegraphs last night that information has been received from Tientsin by runner up to 20th June, to the effect that fighting was going on, and that reinforcements were required. We have heard further by telegram from the Rear-Admiral, dated Ta-ku, last night, Chefoo this morning, as follows—
  "I am hoping that Tientsin may be relieved to-night, 21st June. No news from Commander-in-Chief. Her Majesty's ship "Terrible'' landed this morning 382 officers and men of the 2nd Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers and Royal Engineers."
  It is believed that various other bodies of troops will arrive within a day or two, if, indeed, they have not arrived already. Arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government to supplement very considerably the force already placed under orders for China.

  BRITISH FORCES ON THE CHINA STATION.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state approximately the strength and composition of the British force on shore under the command of the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief on the China station; whether this force is composed of units drawn from Her Majesty's ships on the station, and whether the ships from which these units are withdrawn are complete in every respect in fighting efficiency; what proportion does the strength of force on shore bear to the aggregate number of combatants borne by the ships from which the force on shore has been drawn; and whether, on that distant station, any supplementary force to the complements of the ships is placed at Hong Kong or elsewhere at the disposal and under the control of the Admiral, to enable him to provide for minor military operations and contingencies without detriment to the complete fighting efficiency of his fleet.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): My right hon. friend is unavoidably absent, but he wishes me to give his reply as follows:—"We have no information as to the composition of the British force on shore under the command

  783
  of Admiral Seymour, and I am thus prevented from answering the questions on that point; but no doubt large numbers cannot be landed from ships without diminishing their fighting efficiency. The answer to the last question is in the negative, but, of course, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that there are troops at Hong Kong who cooperate with the naval authorities when the necessity arises."
  SIR J. COLOMB: But they cannot fill up the vacancies on the ships. How do the Admiralty propose to replace the men taken away by Admiral Seymour?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I must ask for notice.

  THE PRESS AND FOREIGN OFFICE PAPERS.
  *MR. BRYN EGBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will he explain why advance copies of printed Papers issued by the Foreign Office are not presented to the Morning Leader in the same way as they are given to other daily papers; how many newspapers that support the South African policy of the Government receive these Papers, and how many papers that oppose that policy are similarly privileged, and whether the printed Papers are supplied by the Foreign Office at the public expense; and how many sets of Papers are so distributed, and among what papers.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Only a limited list of newspapers receive advance copies of printed Papers issued by the Foreign Office, and the number of newspapers gratuitously supplied could not be increased without opening the door widely. Twenty-one press agencies and newspapers are supplied by the Foreign Office at the public expense — namely, Central News, Central Press, Daily Chronicle, Daily Graphic, Daily Mail, Daily News, Daily Telegraph, Echo, Exchange Telegraph Company, Globe, London and China Telegraph, Money Market Review, Morning Advertiser, Morning Post, National Press Agency, Observer, Pall Mall Gazette, Press Association, Standard, Times, Reuter's Telegram Company. There is no information at the Foreign Office as to the views of those agencies and journals upon the South African policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  *MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all these papers support the South African policy of the Government?
  [No answer was returned.]

  OUTRAGE ON A BURMESE WOMAN AT RANGOON—THE WEST KENTREGIMENT.
  SIR LEWIS M'IVER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the names and rank of the officials in the several departments who have been held to share in the responsibility for the failure of justice in the case of the West Kent Regiment at Rangoon, and in what form in each instance has the Government of India marked its disapproval.
  THE SECRETARY' or STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,: The Government of India have given a most careful and thorough consideration to this matter, and their reports and conclusions have been re-viewed by myself and by the Secretary of State for War. A certain number of officers, both civil and military, have been censured or otherwise punished for their part in the proceedings; but it has not been thought desirable, except in a few cases, to publish the decisions which have been arrived at; and I am therefore unable to give my hon. friend the information for which he asks.

  INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the continuance of the condition of affairs in India arising out of the famine, and in view of the desirability that a convenient opportunity should be given to the House to discuss questions of vital interest to the people of India under the present circumstances, he will arrange to take the Indian Budget at an earlier date this session than is usually the case.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have already answered the question. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any promise of better treatment until I see what course public business takes. If an opportunity for earlier discussion really arises, especially in the special circumstances, I should be glad to meet the wish of the hon. Gentleman.

  REPORT OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state when the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops will he in the hands of Members; and, when the copy was sent to the printer from the Home Office, and what was the date at which the last proofs were passed for press.
  I have also to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can explain how it comes that the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops was only presented on Wednesday afternoon.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAN BURY,): The Report is promised by Tuesday, the 3rd of July. All the manuscript of the tables was in the printers' hands by the 12th of April, and all the manuscript of the text by the 15th of May. The final alterations and corrections in the Lady Inspector's Report—which was the latest portion—were received by the printers last Wednesday morning. A final proof has been promised by to-morrow.

  W.C.D.O. AUXILIARY POSTMEN AND THE TWEEDMOUTH REPORT.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will explain why six auxiliary postmen working at the W.C.D. Office are refused the benefits recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee to be granted to all auxiliaries working five hours and upwards, although they are doing exactly the same duty as others who are in receipt of these benefits; and will he, in pursuance of the promise given by him, see that this grievance is at once redressed.
  MR. HANBURY: The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that auxiliaries who were employed at the date of their Report in 1897 on duties occupying five hours a day and upwards should be allowed annual and sick leave and a boot allowance; but this was not to apply to future entrants. The auxiliaries to whom the hon. Member refers were employed last year in exceptional circumstances, when it was found that the supply of ex-
  786
  soldiers or sailors and of telegraph messengers for employment as assistant postmen on short-time postmen's duties occupying four hours a day and upwards was insufficient. Those auxiliaries are paid at a higher rate than assistant postmen, but on the understanding that they have no claim to the privileges of annual or sick leave, boot allowances, pension or gratuity.

  LONDON TELEGRAPH SERVICE—TEA RELIEFS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that counter-clerks and telegraphists employed at the Eastern District Post Office and the Aldgate branch office are compelled to serve at the public counter during tea time, the Postmaster General will take steps to provide them with relief during this period in the interests of the staff and the public.
  MR. HANBURY: The counter-clerks and telegraphists at the offices in question as at other offices in London—are allowed half an hour for refreshments in the middle of the day, during an attendance of eight hours, but they are not entitled to a second interval for tea. No objection, however, is raised to their partaking of tea when on duty, or of leaving the counter for this purpose when the state of the duty permits, which generally happens, as counter work slackens down late in the day. The Postmaster General is not prepared to concede to counter-clerks and telegraphists the right to two intervals for meals in a normal attendance of eight hours.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE—DINNER INTERVALS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the staff in the cable room of the Central Telegraph Office, London, are being punished for taking thirty-one and thirty-two minutes for dinner, this relief time being the only one permitted when on duty from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and that it frequently happens that one-half of the time is occupied in being served at the refreshment rooms, owing to the arrangements of that branch; and whether the Postmaster General will give instructions

  787
  that the clerks are to be allowed a reasonable time for dining purposes.
  MR. HANBURY: No officer has been punished for exceeding his dinner time—thirty minutes—by one or two minutes. When, however, the excess has been three minutes and upwards the offender has been cautioned, and frequent repetitions of these excesses have very properly been punished by the infliction of extra duty, No relief from the instrument galleries for purposes of refreshment other than the thirty minutes for dinner time is given, but to all on duty later than 5 p.m. tea is served and partaken of by the telegraphists at their circuits. Some little delay in serving dinner is unavoidable at times, but such delay as fifteen minutes rarely occurs, and when the late return of a telegraphist is proved to have arisen from causes over which he had no control the excess time is of course excused. The Postmaster General does not consider that any fresh rule on this subject is necessary.
  MR. STEADMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that thirty minutes is sufficient for a man to leave the instrument room, get his dinner, and come back again?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LONDON DOCKS ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: Can the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade now state the constitution and terms of reference to the Docks Commission?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,: The terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the London dock question are as follows—
  "To inquire into the present administration of the Port of London and the water approaches thereto; the adequacy of the accommodation provided for vessels and the loading and unloading thereof; the system of charge for such accommodation and the arrangements for warehousing dutiable goods; and to report whether any change or improvement in regard to any of the above matters is necessary for the promotion of the trade of the port and the public interest."
  The list of members contains the names of Earl Egerton of Tatton, who was chairman of the Royal Commission on the Education of the Blind, Deaf, etc., 1884,
  788
  and chairman of the Manchester Ship Canal, 1887ߝ94; Lord Revelstoke, who is a director of the Bank of England and partner in Baring's; Sir Robert Giffen, late Comptroller-General of the Commercial, Labour, and Statistical Department of the Board of Trade; Rear-Admiral Sir John Hext, who is Director of Marine under the Government of India and was a member of the Bombay Port Trust, 1883–98; the Hon. Alfred Lyttel-ton, Q.C., M.P.; Mr. John E. Ellis, M.P., a coalowner; and Sir J. Wolfe-Barry, consulting engineer, Past President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REPORT.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can say when the Report of the Education Department for the past year will be presented to Parliament; and whether in future years the former practice of presenting the Report before the Education Estimates were discussed will be adopted.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THIS COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I am at present unable to say when the Report of the Education Department will be presented. It is a mistake to suppose that in former years the Report was presented before the Estimates were discussed. The statistics have in recent years been so presented and were presented this year.

  MOTOR CARS—SPEED REGULATIONS.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that throughout the country there are complaints of motorcars being driven at excessive speed and without due care for the safety of the public, and that the difficulty of identification prevents many of the offenders being prosecuted; and whether he will consider the advisability of every motorcar being compelled to carry a distinctive number of such size and so placed as to render identification easy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. T. W. RUSSELL,): Some representations have been made to the Local Government Board with regard to this matter, and the whole subject, including the

  789
  suggestion referred to in the second paragraph of the question, is receiving their consideration.

  IRISH SCHOOLS—RESULTS FEES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that teachers whose schools were examined in April last and subsequently for results fees have not yet received payment (although the Board's rules state that they will pay the results fees in the month following that in which the examination is held), and can he say what is the cause of delay and when payment will be made.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,: As I stated yesterday, results fees, as such, are not payable after the 1st April, 1900, but teachers who taught under the results system up to the end of the last financial year will receive an equivalent for such fees based on the average payments for the last three years, The date of payment will depend upon the date of the usual termination of the results period in each school.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE—ANDREW ALLEN'S HOLDING.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Andrew Allen, Cabragh, Irvinestown, entered into an agreement with his landlord on Kith June, 1897, to purchase his holding for £335, the provision being made that, instead of rent, interest on price was to be paid to the Land Commission pending completion of purchase, and that this arrangement ended on 1st May, 1899, as from this date he held subject to an annuity payable in half-yearly instalments of £6 14s.; whether he is aware that, because Allen owed one half-year's instalment of £6 14s., namely, from May to November, 1899, the holding was sold 14th March, 1900, not on the land or convenient thereto, but at a distance, in the town of Irvinestown, and that, notwithstanding the sale, the Land Commission accepted from Allen, on 25th April, 1900, payment of the half-year's annuity to November, 1899, and of the half-year's annuity to May, 1900, and in return sent him a receivable order, leading Allen to believe that the sale had
  790
  been annulled; and will he state if, after accepting the half-year's annuity, delay in payment of which brought about the sale, the Land Commission is going to compel this man to submit to the sale for a nominal sum of his farm, worth several hundred pounds.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Mr. Allen entered into the agreement to purchase on the 16th June, 1897, and thereupon, pursuant to the provisions of the Land Act of 1896, he became liable for payment of interest on the purchase money pending the completion of the sale on the 24th April, 1899. It was necessary during the interval to recover the interest by legal process. The first instalment of the annuity became due on the 1st November, 1899, and, not being paid, proceedings were commenced for the recovery of the instalment and arrears of interest. Subsequently, after due advertisement and full notice to Mr. Allen, the holding was sold by public auction in March last at Irvinestown, which is distant only three miles from the holding. The arrears of interest and of the annuity were paid out of the purchase money, and not by Allen, as stated. A cheque for £7 19s. 8d. was received through the sheriff on account of the decree some days after the sale, and was returned to Allen, by whom it was cashed. It is now alleged that after the completion of the sale he lodged the instalment due on the 1st May last through a local bank. The payment so made, if it is shown to have been made by Allen, will be returned to him on application to the Land Commission. The proceedings for the sale to the new purchaser are now completed.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: But is it not the fact that a receivable order was sent to him with respect of the half-yearly instalment due the 1st May next?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The receivable order on which Allen lodged the instalment due on 1st May, 1900, had been issued to him previous to the sale, and before the instalment due 1st November, 1899. The holding was sold to the new purchaser for £40.

  CROWN ECCLESIASTICAL PREFERMENTS.
  MR. GEDGE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the resolution passed by this

  791
  House on the 11th April, 1899,* and of the fact that since that day thirteen clergymen have received ecclesiastical preferment in the gift of the Crown who were members either of the English Church Union or of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, or of both, the Minister who recommended the respective appointments satisfied himself, in accordance with the said resolution, that the clergymen in question would obey the law as declared by the Courts which have jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to supply me with the names of the gentlemen he refers to. Of these I find he holds me responsible for four. As a matter of fact, I am only responsible for three. The fourth was not a Crown appointment. With regard to these three, one appointment was made before the resolution was passed, another was not an appointment at all, but the result of an exchange, and the remaining one was in respect of a poor living which had lapsed to the Crown because it could not be filled, and had been unoccupied for some years before the appointment was made. These gentlemen who have been appointed have all given a formal promise to obey their Bishop.
  MR. GEDGE: If I may be allowed to say so, the answer the right hon. Gentleman has given, so far as it affects himself, is quite satisfactory. The remaining appointments to which the question referred were made by the Lord Chancellor, as to whom the right hon. Gentleman can, no doubt, give similar information.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not made inquiries of my noble and learned friend, and I think it would be more convenient if a question were put to him in the other House.

  CELTIC ANTIQUITIES IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
  SIR HENRY HOWORTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will place upon the Table of the House the correspondence between the Government and the trustees of the British Museum in reference to the proposed removal of Celtic antiquities from the British Museum; also whether
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxix., p. 787.
  792
  he will postpone further proceedings in respect to the transference of Celtic antiquities from the British Museum to Dublin until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject.
  The following questions on the same subject like wise appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the announcement that the Government intend to take legal proceedings against the trustees of the British Museum with the object of obtaining possession of certain Celtic antiquities, and of the importance of exercising impartially the Royal Prerogative of the Crown with respect to treasure trove, he will cause an investigation to be made into the title of the trustees of the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin in respect of similar Celtic antiquities in their custody.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will include in the Papers promised to be laid upon the Table, in reference to the correspondence of the Treasury with the Trustees of the British Museum, a copy of the regulations or minutes issued by the Treasury in respect to treasure trove since the passing of the-Civil List Act, 1837, by which treasure trove, as one of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, was transferred to the-Treasury; and also a note of the legal proceedings, if any, which have been instituted since 1837 for the recovery of treasure trove.
  MR. VICAEY GIBBS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before the Government takes proceedings against the Trustees of the British Museum to compel the restitution of certain Celtic ornaments, an opportunity will be given to the House of Commons to express its opinion as to the advisability of such action; and if so, on what Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I stated yesterday in answer to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that a, summary of the correspondence between the Government and the Trustees of the British Museum in reference to the gold Celtic antiquities would be laid on the Table of the House. The only purpose

  793
  of the proceedings to be taken is to decide the question of law whether the ornaments are treasure trove or not; and I do not think a debate in the House would be of any advantage in settling that legal point. I may remind my hon. friend that the question was discussed briefly last Friday, when the British Museum Vote was taken.* The Government are not prepared to cause a general inquiry to be made as to the title on which the trustees of the national museums of the three countries hold various articles in their possession. Such an inquiry would be endless, and would serve no useful purpose; nor do I think it desirable to include in the Papers that will shortly be laid before the House a great mass of documents that have accumulated during the last sixty-three years for which my friend the hon. Member for Oswestry asks. I am advised that they are very bulky, and that their publication would be expensive. Under these circumstances, unless my hon. friend can give some other reason which I have not now in my possession, I do not think any public advantage would be gained by presenting these Papers to the House.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any legal proceedings similar to those now proposed with regard to the British Museum have been taken during the present reign?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think not, Sir. Certainly I am not aware that any other semi-public Department like the British Museum has refused to accept the law as laid down by the Law Officers of the Crown.

  INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE AT PARIS.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that an Inter-Parliamentary Conference is to be opened in the hall of the French Senate on 21st July; and whether he proposes that authority or leave of absence should be given to any Members of this House to appear at that conference as representatives of this Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there is to be an Inter-Parliamentary Confer-
  * See page 179 of this volume.
  794
  ence. I do not know whether any Members wish to attend; if they do there will be no difficulty, I imagine, in their obtaining leave.

  SELECTION (STANDING ORDERS).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following fifteen Members in respect of the Executors (Scotland) Bill:—Mr. Asher, Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Alexander Cross, Colonel Denny, Mr. Dewar, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Gordon, Sir Lewis M'Iver, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Renshaw, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Sir Walter Thorburn, and Mr. Wylie.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Uganda Railway Bill.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Law as to Marriage contracted in the Colonies with a Deceased Wife's Sister." Colonial Marriages (Deceased Wife's Sister) Bill [Lords].

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]

  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 231.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 231.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Sir John Colomb, Mr. Hanbury, and Mr. Johnson-Ferguson nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Post Office Sites Bill, with two Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.—(Sir William Walrond.)
NEW BILLS.
  BURIAL GROUNDS (LOANS) (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to extend the period of repayment of Loans for Burial Grounds in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Morley and Captain Sinclair.
  BURIAL GROUNDS (LOANS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To extend the period of repayment of Loans for Burial Grounds in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read the second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 266.]

  LARCENY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend Section 75 of the Larceny Act, 1861. The object is to make the section apply to cases of misapplication of money even when the directions for the application of the money have not been put in writing. It is proposed to do this by striking out the words "in writing," for we have found that the section as it now stands has given an opportunity in many cases to misapply funds.
  Bill to amend Section 75 of the Larceny Act, 1861, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, and Mr. Solicitor General.

  LARCENY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend Section 75 of the Larceny Act, 1861," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 267.]

SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

    CLASS II.
    1. £51,299, to complete the sum for Treasury and Subordinate Departments.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid that as the salary of the Chancellor of
    796
    the Exchequer was one of the items in the Estimate before the Committee he supposed it was competent for him (Mr. Bartley) to refer to the arrangement for the collection in certain special cases. With regard to the Jamaica Railway the Committee would remember a special arrangement was entered into with the colony, by which a certain sum was charged on the debentures of that railway. An arrangement was made by which if there was any failure in the payments of interest colonial bonds were to be given, and that when any default took place certain contingencies should arise. The railway to a certain extent failed, and was taken over by the colony, and certain means were taken to-give it financial assistance, and certain payments were made. The debentures were largely held by trustees, no interest was paid for some time, but after a considerable delay of three years the interest which should have been paid every year was paid, with the result that the increased income tax was charged instead of the income tax which should have been charged if the interest had been paid at the proper time.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this question upon this Vote.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid he thought it was a matter of direction, that it was collected by the Board of Revenue by the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,said the collection of Revenue was not a matter of direction at all. It was a matter of law.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid he was not prepared to pursue the matter further if it was ruled out of order, but he was under the impression that this was the only occasion upon which the question could be raised.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I think it ought to come in on the Vote for the Inland Revenue.
    MR. BARTLEYurged that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the supreme Minister with regard to such matters.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESconfirmed the hon. Member in his opinion that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was subservient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that had the hon. Member called his attention to this matter earlier he would have caused inquiry to be made; but his impression was, with regard to this particular case, that it was one for the consideration of the Inland Revenue authorities.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I think this question ought to be raised on the salary of the Board of Inland Revenue.
    MR. BARTLEY,on a point of order, said that if the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue took his instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer— who was, after all, the fountain head of all authority in finance—he thought the right hon. Gentleman exceeded his power in claiming this particular payment.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not claim it.
    MR. BARTLEY: Well, you have got it.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESexpressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman under-estimated his power in the matter. The Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was authorised by statute to act on the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was the exact point raised by the hon. Member for North Islington.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, if this question can be raised at all it can only be raised on the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue.
    MR. BARTLEY: Do I understand that you will allow the question to be raided upon that Vote, Sir?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I will deal with that, question when it arises on the Vote.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer exercised discretion jointly with the Colonial Office with regard to important officers called Crown Agents. Each Crown colony had its own agent,
    798
    and these Crown Agents received their remuneration out of an accumulated sum of commissions and percentages, which now amounted to about £340,000, and that sum represented about twelve years commission on their expenditure. It had been recognised by the Treasury that when the accumulated sum was more than sufficient to meet emergencies then the commission should be reduced. It was reduced in 1868 by the Treasury, the principle having been laid down in 1863. It seemed to him that, as the fund had reached £340,000, the time had arrived when the matter should be reconsidered by the Treasury as to whether the commission ought to be reduced. He thought the commission with regard to the Uganda Railway might have been dispensed with altogether. What he wished to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter, for he was asking the right hon. Gentleman to do no more than had been done in previous cases in 1868. He wished to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this matter into consideration, and consider whether the time had not arrived for making some further reduction in the commission levied by the Crown Agents, and also in the permanent contribution by the leading Crown colonies to the salaries of Crown Agents.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have nothing whatever to do with it. It is perfectly possible that in 1868 the Colonial Secretary, having to deal with questions within his own Department, did consult the Treasury on the reduction referred to, but the decision rested with him entirely. I cannot initiate any change in regard to the payment of commission to the Crown Agents. Of course, if my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary were to consult me, as the head of the Treasury, on the matter, I could give an opinion, but that is all.
    MR. HARWOOD: Like the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I rise not to make a complaint, but to make a suggestion which I think would be to the public benefit if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be good enough to listen to it. It relates to the animal statement he makes to the House, known as his Budget statement, a copy of which I have in my hand. We find at the bottom of the column the total estimated expendi-

    799
    ture. The estimated national expenditure is understood to be £149,000,000. The objection I raise is that it is bad book-keeping, which would not be tolerated in any well-managed business, to lump together as national expenditure outlay that is for national purposes with outlay that is for reproductive purposes. We must bear in mind what the country understands by national expenditure. That is understood as meaning expenditure for the carrying on of the business of the nation such as the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service. That is the understanding, and when you come to the carrying on of a private business such as the Post Office and the Telegraph Department, that is not national expenditure in any sense whatever. Originally the Post Office was conducted by private enterprise, and there is no particular reason why it should not be treated in that way now. The nation has taken it over as a business, out of which we make a profit of something like £4,000,000, but that is not the same as carrying on the Army and Navy and other unproductive expenditure in the ordinary sense of the term. We have on the expenditure side the sum of £12,500,000, which goes to swell the general national expenditure, but it is met by an item on the other side of £17,000,000, showing a profit. I venture to suggest that the only way to give the nation a true idea of the finances is to keep a separate account. If you open a post office business you should keep a separate account and simply bring to your general account the profit or loss accordingly as you have made a profit or a loss. The Committee will see at once the absurdity into which we are landed if you carry out this system further. Suppose the nation was to take over the management of the railways, which is done in Belgium, what would be the result if you followed this system of book-keeping? I should think it would more than double the national expenditure. If you lumped it together in this way it would seem as though the national expenditure had doubled. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that all this expenditure is clearly laid down in the Return, but the Return only appears in the summer—I believe it did not appear last year until the 31st of July—and what I complain of is that this Return is what the nation judges by. My point is that then the whole thing has
    800
    gone by public interest. I do not think many hon. Members of the House see the second Return, with the exception of a few experts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may argue that no one is deceived, but I think it is calculated to deceive even the most alert. At the time of the Jubilee the House was delighted with a most interesting and charming comparison which the right hon. Gentleman gave us of the expenditure as compared with the time of the accession of the Queen and the year of her Jubilee. All that is extremely interesting, and it is well that the nation should look at these things. But it was not true, because the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based that comparison upon were not correct. At the time the Queen came to the Throne a proper system of bookkeeping was adopted in this matter, and the gross expenditure in working the Post Office was not then put down as a portion of the national expenditure. I think we may well understand how it might mislead the whole press of the country. Everybody made comparisons about the wonderful leaps in our expenditure. Of course we are quite ready to acknowledge that the expenditure is much more than we like, but what I ask is that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall show what it is, and not that we shall have an unreal and inflated expenditure, upon which all our comparisons may be absolutely erroneous. I ventured to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this matter a short time ago, and I believe he told me that the system was instituted by Mr. Gladstone. I am bound to say that there is too much of a tendency to try and knock people down by a great name. No doubt other reasons could be given, but each generation must solve its own problem. I venture to say that some such change as I suggest is now necessary for the correct apprehension of the national expenditure. This is necessary in order that we may make correct comparisons from year to year of such expenditure, and in order that the nation may have a clear account before it as to whether any business it undertakes gives a profit or a loss. I venture to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will couple my suggestion with his next statement it will be made very much clearer.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: To draw up the Budget statement in the way sug-

    801
    gested would be contrary to the custom which has prevailed—and a very good bustom—since 1854, and which is required by statute. By this custom the total expenditure of the Post Office is placed on one side, while on the other side you have a return of the receipts derived from the Post Office. The result of the alterations suggested would be that much less information would be given to the House on the subject than is now given. I could not adopt the proposal of the hon. Member, and I do not agree with his views on the subject. If anyone requires to see what the net results are of the different heads of revenue he will see it in the Return which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton moves for every year, in which the net public income and the net public expenditure is stated under certain specified heads.
    MR. HARWOOD: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. I only wish to state that I was quite aware of the Return to which he has just alluded, but it is perfectly clear that that is not a statement which goes before the nation. Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, who has already shown a spirit of true finance, that he should have three columns instead of two as at present? It is not good book-keeping as it is.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Gentleman has taken an objection to the public accounts of this country which seems to me not only to be entirely unfounded, but to suggest an alteration in an entirely wrong direction. He says that there are twelve millions too much put down in the accounts.
    MR. HARWOOD: It ought to appear in a separate account.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the hon. Gentleman apprehend that we keep no capital account? Ours is an annual cash account, beginning on the first day of the financial year and ending on the last. I do not say that that system is absolutely perfect as a system of bookkeeping. The Post Office ought to have a capital account in which its buildings and its stores should be included. We have deliberately restricted our national account to a cash account, and we have said that so strict shall the account be
    802
    that if a penny or a million is loft over at the end of the year, beyond the money actually expended, it shall go to the reduction of the National Debt. I will invite the hon. Gentleman to consider what is national expenditure. We levy taxation in return for certain services. There is the soldier's service, the policeman's service, and the postman's service. The postman is just as much a servant of the State as the soldier. The fact that the Post Office makes a certain amount of money has nothing to do with it if you want to post a letter you have a compulsory charge levied upon you, and that is taxation. If you want your homes and commerce fended you have another compulsory charge, and if you want to conquer South Africa or China there is a still further compulsory charge. These are all charges in return for services, and it no more ceases to be taxation because it is needed for the postman than if it had been for the sailor or the soldier. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that every farthing of expenditure with regard to the Post Office should be put down as national expenditure. I go further than the hon. Gentleman, and I say that the serious defect in our accounts is in the direction contrary to that suggested by him. There are omitted from our national accounts year after year since 1868 very large items which are also expenditure. They are the contribution to the Local Taxation Account; appropriations-in-aid, which are sums received by the Departments from various sources, including a million paid by India the profit on the coinage and the Mint, and all the enormous receipts of the public Departments which never come into the Estimates, and over which this House has no control, as well as the expenditure out of receipts, as it is called. For instance, the Post Office pays the railway companies for the carriage of parcels out of its receipts. These contributions amount altogether to seventeen millions of money every year, and this year I think they will amount to eighteen millions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a conscientious man, and he gives us a little note with reference to these amounts, but they are not included in the total. His conscience extends as far as the note, but not as far as the total. The effect of this omission is to make a comparison between this year's accounts and any year's ac-

    803
    counts before 1868 absolutely delusive. Before 1868 appropriations in aid were very small; since then they have risen year by year, million by million, until they are now about six millions, and the total of all these omitted items amounts to seventeen millions. Therefore, instead of saying that the accounts, contain twelve millions too much, I say that that twelve millions is in its right place, and that we ought to add seventeen millions to it to make it a good account. I think the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the twelve millions ought to remain is absolutely right, but I believe also I am equally right in saying that the accounts ought to contain the seventeen millions now omitted.
    Vote agreed to.
    2. £7,340 to complete the sum for Privy Council Office.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question about the salary of the Registrar of the Privy Council. The gentleman who holds this office has been put in at the maximum salary of £1,500 a year, whereas his predecessor was appointed at £1,200 a year, rising after five years to £1,500. I do not know this gentleman, but I knew his predecessor, Mr. Harley, who is now a member of the Viceroy's Council in India. He did the work at £1,200 a year, and an abler man could not be got to do it, and I am perfectly certain his successor is not a more able man. The Secretary to the Treasury when this matter was brought forward before said that on the whole there would be a saving on the Estimates, because the gentleman who was made Registrar of the Council had held an office in the Civil Service Commission, and that the number of Commissioners would be diminished. That may have been a very good administrative work, but if that reduction were to be carried through there surely was no reason why this gentleman should not get his new office under the conditions on which it was held by his predecessors. He had a salary of £1,200 a year in the Civil Service Commission, with, as the Secretary to the Treasury says, the probability of a further rise. I do not know what he means by that. I suppose he meant that this gentleman might
    804
    possibly become Chief Commissioner. He certainly had no legal claim to any increase of salary beyond £1,200, and there was no reason for putting him into the office on exceptionally favourable terms. Even if he had started at £1,200 he would have boon better off than if he had remained at the Civil Service Commission, because he would have an assurance that he would have £1,500 in five years. I think we ought to get some explanation on the subject, because this appears to me to have been an unnecessary expenditure.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): I have already explained this matter once this session. The hon. Gentleman has fairly stated what happened, but certain additions have to be made to his statement. The gentleman appointed to this office at the maximum salary was appointed to a very great extent to suit the convenience of the Government. We wanted to effect an economy by reducing the number of the Commissioners, and an opportunity was afforded when this post fell vacant. The gentleman appointed was already receiving £1,200, with a prospect of rising to £1,500. Then it is asked, why not treat him exactly as the other gentleman who had been previously appointed to the office? In the first place, he was already in the Government service, and in the next place he had no great anxiety to leave the office he was in, and in which he was on the road to promotion, but in order to permit of this economy he went. He was removed from an office where he had served a great number of years to another office to do entirely different work. After all, the extra charge extends only over a few years. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that in this case real economy was effected, and that there were very special circumstances why this gentleman should have received the maximum salary.
    MR. BUCHANAN: What I complain of is that this gentleman was appointed at the maximum salary, which ordinarily would have only been reached in five years. He was enjoying the maximum salary in his own department, which was just the initial salary of his new position.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £11,028, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and to pay certain Grants in Aid."
    MR. STRACHEY: I desire to ask the right hon. the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the present condition of things in regard to swine fever. For many years we have had a great deal of trouble with this question, and the Government have spent a very large sum of money indeed, but have really done very little in stamping out the swine fever. It is quite true that at certain seasons of the year the swine fever decreases. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, he is really making any substantial progress in the stamping out of swine fever, and does he really think that in a short period he will be able to say that it is stamped out entirely, as he has stamped out rabies to the satisfaction of the country? Does he think that swine fever produces itself, or only arises from contagion? A good deal of dissatisfaction is caused at the present time amongst farmers and dealers by restrictions on the movements of swine, but that dissatisfaction would decrease if the right hon. Gentleman could give any assurance that an end will be put to this state of things in the immediate future.
    MR. MARTINsaid that in many parts of the country pigs were fed on carrion, offal, and other articles utterly unfit for the food of an animal destined for human consumption. Some progress might be made with stamping out swine fever if the inspectors of the Board of Agriculture were to see how the animals were fed.
    MR. PRICE: I wish to draw attention to the subject of the restrictions which the Board of Agriculture find it their duty to impose where disease breaks out amongst cattle. Some months ago there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. The principle followed by the Board of Agriculture in these cases is, no doubt, a perfectly proper principle if properly applied. It is to impose such
    806
    restrictions on the district where foot and mouth or any other disease breaks out as to prevent the spread of the disease to any other part of the country. No patriotic stock-owner will object to a certain amount of inconvenience in order to prevent such a national disaster as the spread of disease throughout the length and breadth of the country. I wish to say that in the county I represent there is no rebellion against the general law. We quite understand that restrictions must be imposed, but it is only because we feel that the present method of imposing them is unfair that I make my protest against it. I wish it to be understood that I have a good deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. His position is an extremely difficult one. He is most anxious to prevent the spread of disease to all parts of the country from the particular district in which it arises, and it leads him to make the restrictions greater than perhaps they might need be. Imposing restrictions on a district in order to prevent the spread of disease is in the nature of an insurance to the rest of the country, and the premium is paid by the loss and inconvenience suffered in the contaminated district. The Department, of Agriculture undertakes the payment of compensation for loss suffered, but only to a small extent. It compensates for the bullocks slaughtered, but not the indirect loss incurred. In Norfolk and Suffolk what happened was this: Immediately the right hon. Gentleman's Department knew of the outbreak he did what war, the right thing—namely, sent down at once a first-class inspector, who scheduled a considerable area. The method is no doubt a little rough and ready, and if it were only for a few days it would not matter. But the inspector takes a certain radius round the place of infection, and includes not only that radius, but all the petty sessions districts round that area, the reason being that these petty sessions districts are more easily policed. But if the restriction Order is to last some months, the original area included is a great deal too large. It represents twenty square miles, and the petty sessions districts which impinge on these twenty miles may be more than forty miles distant from the radius of infection. The view taken in Norfolk is, that, although it may be necessary in the

    807
    first place to make a very considerable area the subject of restriction, at the earliest possible moment a first-class inspector, who thoroughly understands the subject, should be sent down to inspect the area first proclaimed, and then he should map out a scientific area, having regard to the various means of communication. Infection is carried in various ways. It may be carried by human beings, by the clothes of human beings, by beasts, by the fowls of the air, and by inanimate substances in contact with infection. What is wanted is that the inanimate substances lying about a farm should be destroyed or thoroughly disinfected and the buildings very carefully disinfected. And then a very careful watch should be kept on the immediate neighbourhood in order to prevent human beings and beasts having any chance of being infected moving about and spreading the disease. That we thoroughly understand and agree to. But in point of fact we are afraid that the local disinfection of the premises where the disease breaks out is not properly carried out by men who thoroughly understand disinfection. I am not going to make any attack upon the inspectors or sub-inspectors of the Board of Agriculture. I know them to be very excellent gentlemen who understand their business. But I do not believe they are specialists in such subjects as disinfection, or know the pathology of one disease from another. I understand that the last outbreak that took place arose from the fact that some fodder which had been in contact with the diseased beasts, or the man who slaughtered them, was not destroyed, but was ultimately consumed by other beasts, and so the disease was spread. That showed a lamentable want of care in disinfecting. All matters like hay should be at once destroyed, in addition to that, there were buildings which should have been disinfected in the ordinary way with quicklime; but I am informed, and the public down in Norfolk believe, that in point of fact the disinfecting was done not with quicklime, but with slaked lime or whitewash, which had no effect. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that these restrictions, although they are perfectly necessary—and no one denies that— should be put on with the greatest care and circumspection. If the restrictions are made so severe as to appear to be unjust, you will not succeed in pre-
    808
    venting infection, and you will not get loyal obedience to the restriction Order. In point of fact the feeling of exasperation in Norfolk is very great indeed. In one case the Order was, no doubt, infringed, and remarks were made on the bench about the stringency of the Order. I do not in the least identify myself with those remarks, which were, to say the least, not very judicial. But the mere fact that such things were said strongly condemning the restrictions, and that only nominal fines were imposed, shows that there is a feeling general throughout the county that the regulations are stronger than they need be, and that the work of the Department has not been carried out in the best possible way. I may be out of order in alluding to the subject of compensation, as that does not come within the Executive Department of the right hon. Gentleman. But I would like to say that I do not believe that the system of the Board of Agriculture will ever be loyally adhered to while the loss involved is so enormous. In this outbreak there were 30,000 fat cattle ready for the market, and I have no doubt that the loss was about £2 per beast, or £60,000 in a small area of the county. There never will be loyal co-operation between the owners of cattle and the Department in the stamping out of the disease until a better system of compensation is adopted. At present it is the interest of a farmer to have diseased beasts, because they are slaughtered and paid for, but his neighbour cannot move his beasts about or send them to market; he has to buy food for them, and the loss to him is extremely great. Although there is a danger of the Department being swindled, the possibility of a swindle should not prevent the farmers who suffer that loss being compensated. The country gets the benefit of the insurance and ought to pay the premium. I do not wish to appear to be condemning the right hon. Gentleman too much, but I feel it my duty to move the reduction of this Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,928, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Price.)
    DR. FARQUHAESON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made an excellent speech in

    809
    the interests of his constituents, and has invested his remarks with some scientific interest. But we, who do not belong to Norfolk, but consider the interests of the country as a whole, take a broader view of the ease and wish to back up the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture on the restrictions he very properly puts on, in order to isolate and stamp out all these types of disease which do not spring up spontaneously, and probably are brought from abroad to smoulder amongst us until they break out with virulence. They can only be eradicated by the policy which the right hon. Gentleman initiated, and which he is carrying out with vigour and courage, and which, I trust, in spite of the opposition he has met with, he will continue to carry on with the same vigour. I congratulate him on his issue of the muzzling order, which has had the result of extinguishing that most terrible of all diseases which afflict humanity—hydrophobia. I am sure there is not a single scientific man in the country who does not congratulate him. I saw in a paper the other day that a movement has been set on foot in scientific centres to present my right hon. friend with a testimonial for the purpose of showing the gratitude, not so much of the general public but of the scientific world, for his efforts for the extinction of hydrophobia by the same means by which he proposes to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease and make our herds and flocks as clean and clear of infection as over they were before. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions in a friendly spirit. First, whether he is able to give the House any information as to where the infection comes from—whether from abroad or from places where the disease existed before, and where it had been smouldering, and the all-prevailing bacilli had been lying low, biding their time until the conditions were more favourable for their active propagation. Then, is it the right hon. Gentleman's opinion or that of his scientific advisers, that the disease springs up spontaneously? I know that to suggest that is heretical, but it would be very interesting to know if my right hon. friend has any evidence at his disposal to prove that this disease may spring up spontaneously? I do not think that sufficient use is made of the process of combustion. Disinfection is often a
    810
    mere sham. At all events, my right hon. friend takes the right course in isolating particular districts and thus keeping infection from spreading, and I hope he will not be induced to depart from that course by the excellent oratory of the hon. Member for Norfolk.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: As the outbreak of foot and mouth disease occurred in my own division of Suffolk, and many of my constituents suffered severely from the restrictions imposed by the Board of Agriculture, I wish to say that I most heartily support the policy of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. Undoubtedly those who suffered in pocket are desirous of sacrificing somebody, and at the present moment the President of the Board of Agriculture is not the most popular man of the day, and it would be a popular thing, from some points of view, to join in the outcry against him. But anybody who knows the terribly infectious and virulent character of foot and mouth disease must admit that nothing but the most stringent regulations can stamp it out. I am sure no one would be more ready than the hon. Gentleman opposite to acknowledge that the President of the Board of Agriculture has shown the utmost sympathy with the fanners who have suffered loss, and has manifested the greatest regret when compelled to enforce his regulations. It seems rather hard, when these regulations are necessarily imposed for the benefit of the whole community, that the whole loss should fall on the restricted and isolated areas. If compensation were awarded, as I contend it should be in the case of all those who have to suffer restrictions for the public good, out of public funds, the irritation would at once disappear. In the case of glanders, which affects horses, it was found that the only effective means to arrest its spread was to destroy the animals attacked. In this way glanders was stamped out of the Army. But in London, where compensation is not given by the local authority, it is to the interest of the private owner of horses— say, the driver of a cab who owns his own horses and to whom the destruction of his horses means ruin—to conceal the disease; whereas if it were to his interest to disclose the existence of the disease the public interest would be safeguarded. I know that my right hon. friend has no

    811
    power to deal with the question of compensation, but it does seem to me to be a hardship that the owners of cattle in any particular locality, when disease breaks out, should be subjected to isolation, causing great damage, and should receive no compensation for what they are called upon to suffer in order to prevent the spread of the disease to other neighbourhoods.
    *MR. SOAMES: I object to the method of the application of the restrictions. The area scheduled in Norfolk when the first outbreak occurred was unnecessarily large. This was clearly proved by the fact that neither in the case of the outbreak in Bedfordshire, nor of the second outbreak in Norfolk, was it thought necessary to schedule nearly so large a district as on the first occasion. Therefore I think that in this respect there was a very real grievance. Another point which is felt very strongly is that the facilities for moving stock were not given as soon as they might have been. Cases were so serious as regards the want of food that the magistrates, while they did not refuse to convict, only put on the minimum fine of a farthing per head on each of the stock moved. If there had been permission given to move the stock under proper conditions with an order at a reasonably earlier date a good deal of friction and difficulty might have been avoided. We had the spectacle of a large number of magistrates themselves breaking the law. In fact, if you went over the district you would find that there was hardly a single magistrate who had not himself been obliged to break the law. That is an unsatisfactory state of things.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,: I shall begin by replying to the questions asked by the hon. Member for South Somerset as to whether we are making any progress in the stamping out of swine fever, and also whether there is any doubt as to the prevalence of the disease. I do not like to prophesy what may be the result as regards swine fever, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the answer I have to give is, on the whole, satisfactory. The gross cost in 1897–98 was £125,000, but for the year 1899–1900 that amount has fallen to £78,700. The outbreaks in
    812
    1898–99 stood at 2,400, while in 1899–1900 they were 2,100, and, whereas the outbreaks for the first twenty-four weeks of last year were 1,370, in the same period this year they have fallen to just over 1,000. This is almost the smallest number for that period we have had. Generally speaking, over the whole country there is a decided improvement in regard to this most insidious disease, and we have every reason to believe, if our efforts are supported by the local authorities, that it will be as satisfactorily dealt with as other diseases have been. Probably this disease is more insidious in its character than any of the other diseases we know of, and the animals are more easily moved from one place to another than is the case with the larger classes of stock. Of course the people whose stock suffers from the disease lose heavily from the regulations which are imposed with the view of exterminating the disease. As to foot and mouth disease in the eastern counties, I desire to say that, in my opinion, the action of the Norfolk magistrates is profoundly to be deplored. It is the duty of magistrates to administer the law as they find it, and not to seek to evade their responsibilities. I do not think that any good turn is done to those gentlemen by referring to their action. If satisfactory fines are not imposed upon offenders against the regulations, obviously the difficulties of securing the speedy extinction of the disease, and of the Department of Agriculture are largely increased. With regard to swine fever there is no doubt in the minds of experts of the Department as to the character of the disease. It has been suggested by an hon. Member that the feeding of the animals may have something to do with the outbreak of the disease. I do not think there is any justification for any opinion of that kind, and I am bound to say that I am not prepared to accept for my inspectors that the rather difficult task should be allotted to them of inspecting the food of pigs throughout the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether the feeding of pigs is properly or improperly conducted. I believe pigs cat a good deal I should not like to eat myself. I don't think the Board of Agriculture can undertake to restrict the appetite of pigs or control the articles they feed upon. Apart from that I can assure the Committee that there is not the smallest doubt whatever as to the real nature of

    813
    the disease. It is highly infections; and this makes it of vital importance that the regulations of the Department should be loyally accepted and carried out unless it can be shown, as it never has been shown, that they are unjust or that our policy is not likely to lead to success. As a matter of fact, at present there is no country in the world which stands with regard to disease in animals in as satisfactory a position as that occupied by Great Britain. This satisfactory position of affairs has been brought about by the vigorous policy of the officials of the Department with which I am connected, and I think it is some indication of the results they are likely to achieve in regard to this disease of swine fever. There is every reason to hope that we will ultimately suppress it. I would like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great debt of gratitude I owe to the medical and scientific men of this country for the uniform support they have given me from the commencement of my labours in connection with rabies, and also to the Members on both sides of the House for the support they have given me in spite of the unpopularity and difficulties it has brought upon them in their constituencies. I am glad that our labours have been so successful, for I believe that the disease has been practically exterminated, and, with a loyal obedience to the regulations which the Department have thought it necessary to impose in regard to imported dogs, I believe there is no reason why we should not hope to protect the country against any fresh introduction of this most terrible disease. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen-shire asked, as to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Norfolk, whether we are certain as to the nature of the disease. The evidence as to this is overwhelming. As to where the disease came from, it is almost impossible to discover that; but I have little doubt that if we got at the facts it would be found that the infection was brought to one of our ports. We can only pursue our policy of immediately drawing a cordon so as to, as far as possible, keep within the area all possible means of infection, and place the strictest restrictions on the stock and their movements in the neighbourhood likely to be affected. Then complaint is made as to the size of the areas: but I contend that it is better at first to have big areas and then narrow
    814
    them down than to begin with small areas which may have to be increased. I do not hesitate to say that in this policy of good big areas rests a large part of the security we derive from the regulations, loading to the extermination of the outbreaks in a comparatively small space of time. We make ourselves acquainted with the geographical conditions, roads and places where markets are held, the direction in which cattle are likely to travel, and other local facts, and, according to these local circumstances and conditions and the previous history of the locality, we make such an area as we think is suitable and safe; and because the area in Bedford is smaller than in Norfolk, there is no reason to suggest that the original policy of forming at first a large area is an unwise one, or one we see any reason to depart from. With regard to disinfection it is quite true there is no hard and fast rule as to the way in which that should be carried out. The suggestion has been made that my inspectors are not sufficiently qualified. The general rules are laid down by experts, so that the actual work can be carried out by men who are not scientific. I have every reason to believe that disinfection generally is carried out in a thoroughly efficient and satisfactory manner. There is only one other word I have to say, I entirely sympathise with the view that farmers and others who are placed under restrictions suffer very heavily in connection with these outbreaks. I know also that they suffer in other ways than from loss of stock, but we have to consider the advantage and the convenience of the vast majority of the community. No doubt, if any one could induce the Treasury authorities to give the Board of Agriculture more money, we could do more; but I do not think there is any prospect of that kind. The expenditure is rapidly decreasing, and the loss that follows the enforcement of the regulations is not nearly so large as it would be if these diseases were allowed to run riot. If the local authorities will support us and realise their responsibilities in the administration of justice, I believe the best remedy will come from the absence of the necessity for regulations in consequence of the absence of disease.
    *MR. CHANNING: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for West Aberdeen-shire in approving of the policy which

    815
    is being carried out with regard to the disease. In the case of the first outbreak in Norfolk or Suffolk—I am not sure whether it was the one or the gather —there was a certain lack of promptitude on the part, I think, of the farmers concerned in reporting to the police or the local authority the nature of the outbreak upon their premises. There seems to have been some confusion or uncertainty in their minds whether it was foot and mouth disease or not. As regards promptitude in dealing with outbreaks that may arise in future, I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether any steps had been taken by the Board of Agriculture to issue information or to increase the power of the local authorities. That seems to me a matter of the highest importance. The policy of taking the largest possible area for the restrictive orders is clearly the wisest and best way of dealing with this question. I would congratulate my right hon. friend very heartily on the way the policy of the Board of Agriculture has been carried out. The only qualification I should make to that is that there are many agriculturists in the country who would be glad if the restrictions were even stronger and more complete than they are. On the question of compensation I think the right hon. Gentleman laid down sound and courageous doctrines, which I am sure the wisest administrators would gladly and fully support. I am bound to say that I think one expression fell from him which ought to receive more consideration and support in the House. he said he would be glad to have the support of the House in getting more money with the view of carrying out a policy of this kind. I understood him to say that more liberal supplies would enable him more effectively and completely to carry out the policy of stamping out the disease, and in that respect I think the House ought to insist on a more liberal allowance in future to the Board of Agriculture for dealing with these matters. I do not wish to go into the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the veterinary staff of the Board of Agriculture, but I do think that, having regard to what has been done in Franco and the United States of America, and elsewhere, if anything we err on the cheeseparing side. I should like to ask one further question, and I am not perfectly certain whether this comes within the control or jurisdiction of the
    816
    Board of Agriculture or the Board of Trade. Those who have followed the history of this recent outbreak know that cattle have been slaughtered on board ship, and a large number of carcases having; been thrown into the sea, some of which, presumably, were diseased, wore washed up. on the shores on some parts of the eastern counties. In the first place, great complaint is made that the expense of dealing, with this mischief falls entirely on the local rates. That is a matter which the local representatives will deal with more properly, but I would like to know what sort of administrative checks have been taken or will be taken with regard to the prevention of the extension of the disease through such carcases and the offal connected with them.
    *MR. LOYD: I desire to call attention to a question which is of great importance to the milk supplying farmers in my constituency and that is the continued use of the barn gallon. I believe the origin of supplying, milk in this way was to provide against spillage or leakage in transit. A barn gallon, as I understand, has an extra half-pint thrown into each imperial gallon, so that, upon the two imperial gallons which it contains there is an additional pint thrown in, making a total of seventeen pints to the barn gallon. The farmers-contend that this allowance for spillage or leakage is no longer necessary, because-of the improved vessels used. They further complain that even if they supply by the barn gallon they are debited with spillage or leakage should any occur. It is the dealers who insist upon this antiquated measure being still used, and I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether its use is legal under the Weights and Measures Act. I should imagine that it is not, and if it is not, the fact should be made generally known. It may perhaps be said that if the farmers are called upon to supply more than the imperial gallon, or multiples of the imperial gallon, the remedy would be to increase the price; but that does not seem to be altogether satisfactory, because, if so, what is the use of the Weights and Measures Act?' Surely the very object of that Act was to abolish these vexatious and varying methods of supply. I will not ask for a final and complete answer off-hand, but shall be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to look into the matter. If he, being satisfied on inquiry,

    817
    will use the means at the disposal of his Department to let it be perfectly well-known that this barn gallon is no longer a legal measure he will, I think, do a good thing for the milk producing portion of the agricultural community.
    MR. ARTHUR J. MOORE: The point to which I wish to draw attention is the importation of fraudulent foodstuffs. The right hon. Gentleman has done a good deal by strengthening the Act of Parliament dealing with the matter, and we should now be glad of some statement as to the result of the administration of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act passed last year.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I also desire to ask a question upon the same point as that to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. What I consider is the most important part of the Act of last year is the power possessed by the Board of Agriculture to insist upon the local authorities doing their duty in the analysis of food. When the Act was in Committee upstairs I got an explanatory section put into it for that purpose. What I should like to ask is whether the Board of Agriculture have insisted that the local authorities should perform their duty, so as to secure that food and drugs are sold in a pure condition, and what sort of success they have met with.
    *MR. LONG: In reply to the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I think there is some justification for the observations of the hon. Gentleman; there has been a certain lack of promptitude in reporting the outbreak of disease in Norfolk, but I do not think that arose from any desire to evade the law and the responsibilities following an outbreak of disease, and therefore we have not thought it necessary to take any stops to strengthen the powers which have been in force. The truth is, there has not been an outbreak for years, and there was a doubt at first whether it was a genuine outbreak of disease. Then I think there has been some misunderstanding as to what I said. I should be sorry if anything I said should give rise to an impression that the Department is in any way deficient in strength for the proper discharge of its duty. The Treasury has always given liberal assistance for the staffs of the Department, both veterinary and hay, and I wish to take this oppor-
    818
    tunity of at once disposing of the rumour that we are not efficiently equipped, and to state that there is no reason to fear that the duties of the Department will be improperly performed. As to carcases thrown up on the coast as the result of a storm, I have been assured by scientific advisers that they carry no danger of infection, being impregnated with salt, though no doubt they are disagreeable and offensive to the people of the neighbourhood. It is not the duty of the Department to remove these carcases; but they are effectually dealt with by the Coast Guard. As to the question of the hon. Member for Abingdon about barn gallons, it has never been before me as a grievance. I have heard of an extra half-pint working, mischief, but not in connection with the milk trade. If my hon. friend will supply me with information on the subject, I shall be glad to put it before the Board of Trade, with whom the administration of the Weights and Measures Acts lies. In relation to the administration of the Food and Drugs Act of last year, I adhere to the view I have before expressed that the main object of the Act, was to ensure local action against adulteration, and the function of the Board of Agriculture was to exhaust every effort in urging, and as far as they could, compelling, discharge of this duty before taking action themselves. Nothing could be more disastrous than for the central authority to be ready to do the work which rightly falls to the local authority. To do that would inevitably lead to dilatory and neglectful administration. So far as I am aware the operation of the Act last year has been most satisfactory. The Treasury has given assistance, and local authorities have been made fully acquainted with the requirements of the new Act, and I have every reason to believe that the exorcise of its power by the Department has led to vigorous administration by local authorities. The Department will leave no stone unturned to make the Food and Drugs Act a success, and to put an end to the adulteration of food.
    SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER: What I am anxious to know is this, that while an order has been given for the burial of carcases of deceased cattle washed ashore no order has been given that the pens in which these cattle were confined should be removed. What I ask is, why the same treatment

    819
    is not meted out so far as the pens are concerned. The other complaint that may I constituents have to make is as to the carrying out of the various regulations for the stamping out of swine fever. These seem to be made without any regard to local conditions—to the trend of the different markets. An area is selected which may be an arbitary area, but it often happens that where one lot of swine, owing to the configuration of the country, go to one market, another lot will go in quite a different direction.
    MR. KEAELEYsaid he would like to ask a question with respect to the setting up of standards of milk and butter. There was, he understood, a Departmental inquiry going on, and, when a decision had been come to, the responsibility for circulating such standards would rest with the Board of Agriculture. Was the President of the Board able to give some information as to whether the deliberations were concluded, and whether, if these standards were arrived at, they would be circulated throughout the country? He believed that by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act of last year the local authorities were bound to appoint qualified analysts. He hoped the Department would take steps to see that that was done, as he knew several cases in which the local authorities thought they had performed their functions by paying their sanitary inspector £5 a year to act in that capacity. There was a general disposition throughout the country in favour of the amending Act being made more stringent. The duty of the public analyst should be properly performed. The right hon. Gentleman did not now appear to have the information up to date as to the percentage of adulteration found in samples taken at the port of entry, although last year and the year before he was able to give interesting figures in this respect. A beneficial effect was produced when it was understood that the Customs were watching the importation of food products and were making analysis. It would do a great deal of good if these investigations were continued, and the results from time to time made public.
    *MR. LONG: In answer to my hon. friend the Member for the Sudbury Division, the obvious way of dealing with the pens would be to destroy them by burning, though I do not think it would
    820
    be necessary, because having been so long in the sea they are so impregnated with sea-water that there could be no danger of infection from them. No doubt they are unsightly, but they can be disposed of in that way. With regard to the areas selected for dealing with swine fever we do take the greatest care in selection, and our selection is governed as far as possible by the local considerations which the hon. Gentleman mentions. Our only object is to prevent the spreading of swine fever, and if any case is brought to our notice that in the selection of any area we have been unduly disregardful of the local conditions, I will take care that we will do better in future. With regard to the Standards Committee I can say nothing until they have reported. With regard to the question raised under the Food and Drugs Act as to the proper examination at the port of entry, that is a duty which rests with the Customs authorities first and the Board of Agriculture afterwards. No doubt the Government has power to bring pressure to bear on local authorities, and with regard to the suggestion as to the efficiency of the examination of imports I shall be glad if I can make any improvements in that respect. I have been asked whether I have at any time had to protest against the action of any local authority. I think that is rather too strong a term, but it has been necessary for me to indicate a few directions where reforms might take place.
    MR. WHAETON: Before this debate comes to a conclusion I desire to say a word of congratulation upon the policy of the right hon. Gentleman for the stamping out of rabies. The policy was unpopular, but the right hon. Gentleman stoutly adhered to it, with the result that the country has been freed from a very terrible disease. As to the appointment of good analysts, I have myself seen the benefit of such a policy, and I think it would be a very good thing if local authorities were to appoint good analysts.
    Question put, and negatived.
    4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,036, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-

    821
    ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
    *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I should like to know whether any proceedings have been taken last year under the Charity Trust Recovery Act of 1891, which enabled the Charity Commissioners to recover charities lost in the not dim and distant past. It is a fact that charities have disappeared and are lost, but I hope nothing of that kind has been going on this year. In many instances there has been very laudable vigilance in looking after valuable charities and insisting on proper value being received for any charity lands which have been sold. Not long since, I had occasion to call the attention of the Charity Commissioners to the sale of land in connection with a charity in Northamptonshire, and to ask that steps should be taken to interfere with that sale. I may mention this case as illustrating something which is going on in the country, and to which I wish specially to call attention. This small charity had as part of its property a certain amount of land on which cottages were built. These cottages fell into a state of bad repair, and the question of their restoration became a subject of correspondence with the Charity Commissioners. In many such cases the amount of money required is more than the trust is able to afford, and the cottages go on from bad to worse, and in spite of the want of decent houses in many rural districts, cottages built on public lands, with certain funds behind them, become unfit for human habitation, and are pulled down or sold. In the case to which I am referring it was decided to sell the cottages, and, consequently, to turn out the persons occupying them. That may have been a desirable course in the interest of public health, but in the interest of the housing of the poor it would have been more desirable if steps had been taken by the Charity Commissioners to enable the cottages to be made fit for human habitation. I applied to the Commissioners to stop the sale for a time and to look after the cottages in the interests of the charity. Although the property was ultimately sold, the amount obtained for it, through the intervention of the Commissioners, was more than was originally anticipated, and the charity
    822
    received a proper sum for the property, which passed into private hands. I want to draw from that case certain conclusions which, in my opinion, ought to influence the administration of the Charity Commissioners. In the first place I want to induce the Commissioners not to favour the sale of land upon which similar cottages exist, but, in view of the necessity for the better housing of the people they should, as far as possible, retain any charity lands under their supervision, and encourage trustees, or give facilities for the purpose, to put cottages in a better state of repair, so that they may be fit for occupation by the rural poor. Local authorities might very often hire these charity lands for the purpose of erecting thereon houses for the poor. Public lands such as these might be used for public purposes with great advantage to the community and with no detriment to the charity, but I am sorry to see by the Report that they are being largely sold. It is not desirable that we should alienate public lands of any kind. It is desirable that all the lands of this country which are in the hands of public authorities as opposed to private owners should be retained. There is a large amount of land under the control of the Charity Commissioners, but that amount is diminishing at a rate which gives one reason to question the wisdom of the policy of the Commission in this matter. This process of sale has been going on at a very remarkable and increasing rate. In 1890 the amount of money realised by the sale of property connected with the charities of the country was £184,500; in 1899 the amount was nearly £883,000. That is, there had been an increase to nearly five times the amount in those nine years, and that increase has been going on steadily under the present administration. During the years 1893–4–5 the tendency was for the amount of money realised by such sales to go down, the policy of the Charity Commissioners being not to encourage the sale of charity lands, but to retain them as far as possible in the possession of the trustees. During those years the amount decreased steadily from £293,000 in 1893 to £186,000 in 1895. The process now is in the opposite direction, and a very large amount of charity property has been converted into actual money. I do not think the charities have been particularly injured by this process. A good sum of money has been

    823
    obtained for the property; the money has been invested in Consols, and the trustees have been saved a good deal of trouble with reference to the administration of the charity. But, while that tends to make trustees willing to get rid of lands, it does not remove from the Charity Commissioners or us that care which we ought to exercise to prevent these lands going into private hands. They will be much more difficult to get hold of for public purposes in the future if they are in private hands than they are now. It is true that the recipients of charity may receive as much, or possibly even more, under the system which has been encouraged by the Charity Commissioners, but the good which these lands could do by being used for allotment or building purposes may be lost for ever, and an irreparable injury done to the community, if this process of sale is allowed to go on. I want to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk whether he can tell me the number of acres that are represented by the £883,000. If he cannot tell me now, I hope he will grant me a Return giving an account of these sales during the past year. There is another i point I would ask him to boar in mind. In all these cases, before land is sold, it would be very advisable, if an inquiry is not held by the Commissioners as to the needs of the locality, and the possible beneficent uses to which the land might be put, to take the opinion of the parish or district council as to the desirability of allowing the land to pass from the trustees into the hands of private owners. The policy of the Charity Commissioners in former years was to consult the local authorities as far as possible, and the decrease of sales in the years I have referred to was to some extent brought about by the possibilities which the Charity Commissioners saw of the Local Government Act of 1894 bringing them into contact with local authorities whom they might consult with reference to the sale or administration of these lands. I hope that this liberal policy of looking after these inheritances of the poor, so that they may be used for the greatest possible benefit of the poorer classes, may not be lost sight of, and that the parish councils in most localities will in future be consulted before public land of this kind is alienated by being sold to private individuals, the possible future use of it thereby being lost to the community for ever.
    MR. GODDARD: There is a case which I wish to bring before the attention of the Committee. I am afraid I cannot hope to do much good by bringing it forward, because it unfortunately refers to a deed which is already effective. The only thing I can hope to do is to make the case public, and in that way to draw attention to the way in which some of those schemes under the Charity Commissioners are used. This refers to a place called Tydd St. Mary, where some money was loft for the purposes of education and apprenticeships. A school was built partly out of this money and partly out of rates. The scheme worked very well up to a certain point, because up to that point the rector of the parish acted in full accord with the trustees and everything went well. But there came a time when a new rector came to the parish, and he seems to have treated the trustees with want of attention; they were mere cyphers in his mind, and he administered the funds entirely at his own sweet will. In 1892 new trustees were appointed, and when they found themselves ignored in the management of the school they withheld the money and put it into the Post Office Savings Bank. A great deal of friction was caused, and at the end of 1893 the rector found himself considerably out of pocket. I think the inspector's report was not very satisfactory, and the rector applied to the trustees for this money, but they refused to hand it over to him. There have been two schemes in regard to this matter, one of 1896, and the other of 1900. By the first scheme there were three trustees appointed by the parish council and five nominated, the first appointed under the scheme, and subsequent vacancies to be filled up by the lord of the manor. I do-not know why the vacancies on the trust should be filled by the lord of the manor, except that it was a plan of preventing the parish council appointing a majority of the trustees. By Clause 23 the income of the charity was regulated, and such portion of it was to be applied to the payment of teachers in elementary schools in the parish "as the trustees, the rector and churchwardens, and the lord of the manor may direct,' and as there were eight trustees the trustees were in a majority in this matter. As recently as 1896 the trustees of the charity had a preponderance in deciding what should be paid to the school, and

    825
    what they paid to the school went towards the teaching. There follow a number of sub-sections regulating the application of the rest of the money, and there is not one word in those sub-sections to suggest any sectarian interest in the scheme. In 1900 there was another scheme. Clause 1 of this new scheme, which was sealed only on the 9th January, 1900, directs that a sum of money in hand, amounting to £114, should be paid to the managers, not for teachers' salaries—that was the protection in the scheme of 1896—but for the repair of the school and school house. It will be clear that that practically amounts to using the trust funds for the purpose of keeping a school board out of the place and preventing the people having a popularly-controlled school. At any rate, that is the effect. If the school could not pass the inspection of the Department a school board would have to be set up. It was before distinctly laid down that the money of this charity was not to be used in relief of the rates, but I maintain that in using this money for the purpose of repairing the school buildings it is really saving the ratepayers' money. Clause 4 of the now scheme also provides that one third of the clear income of the charity must be paid to the school managers in future, so long as the school is conducted as a Voluntary public elementary school and is certified as efficient. That is a new contention. Under the old scheme the trustees had the right to say how much money they would give the school, whereas in this scheme the amount is fixed. Clause 6 provides that the managers of the school should in future be the rector and churchwardens, and one trustee appointed by the trustees of the charity. Consequently the trustees lose all control over the school under the scheme of 1900. I should like to point out what is really the effect of this system, and how bad it is. It is certainly a system which cannot be approved, but it is a good illustration of how the system works. Here we have an endowment left that the children of Lydd might have an education which they could not get without it, and which, of course, ought now to be used to give them, or the clever ones amongst them, a better education than that to which they are by law entitled. That is what the money was left for. The common, the property of the whole village, is utilised for the
    826
    purpose of building a parochial school, and this charity is used for the purpose of carrying on that school. The Church party in this place manage to turn this parochial school into a Church school. By order of the County Court, made, I expect, before the Charity Commissioners had jurisdiction, the management of this property is placed in the hands of the rector, two churchwardens, and eight trustees of the charity. For some time these work amicably together, until a new clergyman comes, who ignores the trustees altogether. The trustees die off, and there is no one to dispute this assumption of power, until, in 1892, fresh trustees are appointed, who, finding that they are not consulted, pay the money into the savings bank instead of handing it over to the rector. The school gets into such a condition that if this endowment did not exist there would be a school board, and the people of the village would get the management of the school, good buildings, and unsectarian teaching. Instead of that this money is used for the purpose of one particular sect. The Charity Commissioners make a new scheme, order the money to be paid over to the rector of the school, order one-third of the whole income of the charity to be paid over to the school in future, and reduce the charity trustees, so far as the school is concerned, from eight to one, though I have no doubt the endowment is practically the whole of the local income. That is the effect of this scheme. It has completely changed the whole aspect of the position of the school in the parish, and the people very much resent it, more especially as this clergyman happens to be one of those who choose to adopt some of those practices which are considerably objected to by a good many of the people. It is desirable when a scheme of this sort alters the whole purport of an educational plan like that, that it should be made public and brought to the attention of the House of Commons. Although I cannot alter the scheme, I shall perhaps have done some good by drawing attention to it, as it will show the people that this kind of thing is going on, and that unless it is taken notice of it may go on still more. I think the only way in which I can bring pressure to bear is by moving a reduction of the Vote by £100, which I now do.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,936, be

    827
    granted for the said service."—(Mr. Goddard.)
    MR. CHANNING(who was very indistinctly heard) said that before the hon. Member for Thirsk replied, it might be convenient for him to refer to one of the topics which had been raised. The sale of charitable lands was, in his opinion, a bad policy, and an evil which seemed to be growing. According to the Report the amount of land sold during the last four years represented a value of more than double the amount sold during the tenure of office of the previous Administration. That undoubtedly marked a certain change of policy which was greatly to be deplored. With regard to the case of sale which occurred in his own county, to which reference had been made, questions of principle were certainly involved. In the case of this particular charity, the trustees some years ago invested a portion of their money in cottage property, partly with a view to providing accommodation for the labourers of the neighbourhood, and partly as a convenient method of obtaining a reasonable interest on the trust money. Those cottages gradually fell into disrepair; and when the governors and trustees laid a scheme before the Charity Commissioners, that body considered that it involved a larger outlay of money than was justifiable. He wished to press the point that not only was it undesirable that the trustees of charities of this kind should alienate land in their possession, but that it was also undesirable that cottage property should be alienated without any local inquiry or consultation with the local authorities as to the requirements of the village, and apparently without any consideration being present in the minds of the Charity Commissioners except that of getting the largest amount of money. The course taken by the Charity Commissioners in authorising the sale of these cottages without first satisfying themselves that the sale was for the benefit of the whole of the community, and without any information as to the necessity of providing accommodation for the labourers, was very unsatisfactory. He had received a large number of letters from villagers who felt very strongly on the question, and as many as eighty-nine signatures were obtained to a petition urging the Charity Commissioners to withhold their sanction for this sale, and instead to direct the trustees to repair the
    828
    property and let the cottages to labourers. He desired to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk whether in his opinion it would not be a sounder and wiser policy for the Charity Commissioners to follow in such cases to consider the well-being of the inhabitants of these places quite as much, or, at any rate, on nearly the same footing, as the financial aspect of the question, which, of course, in their fiduciary capacity the Commissioners were bound to guard in every possible way.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Committee will, of course, understand that it is not possible for me to carry in my head the details of the some 80,000 charities under the control of the Charity Commissioners, some large and some small. My hon. friend the Member for Ipswich gave me notice at half-past six this evening that he proposed to say something about the Tydd St. Mary School, but by that time even the Charity Commissioners had adjourned for the day, so that the clerk who is concerned with that question was unable to come to my assistance. But I have some recollection of the case, which came up, I think, about four years since. At that time there was a squabble going on between the churchwarden and the clergyman. I do not intend to enter into the rights or wrongs, of that matter, but the point my hon. friend has raised is, I think, a part of that quarrel. The matter was raised in 1896, and I thought it had been comfortably settled. Apparently I was mistaken, and I will, of course, look into it again. But I should like, as I can, to show to the Committee that the scheme of the Charity Commissioners does not deviate from the original purpose of the charity, but that it carries out with absurd accuracy the trust of the deed of 1740 by which this particular charity was founded. Money was left to educate the poor of Tydd St. Mary and to apprentice a certain number of boys. Land was purchased with that money and handed over to three trustees. [The hon. Member read the clause of the trust deed referring to the point.] It is therefore quite obvious that when the gentleman to whom my hon. friend referred refused to pay over the money he was committing a, breach of trust, because his duty under the trust was to pay the money into the hands of the minister and the churchwardens. He was, I believe, a churchwarden—
    MR. GODDARD: A trustee.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: He was also a churchwarden, and that is how he got the money. He banked the money, he went on banking it, and he did it in his own name. That is how the Charity Commissioners came in, and I think the House will agree that we could not allow the money to go on accumulating in the savings bank in the name of one trustee, when all the while that trustee ought to be paying it to the churchwardens. As to the case referred to by the hon. Members for Ilkeston and Northampton, if I remember rightly it is not an almshouse case. The object of the charity was not to house the working classes. This was property belonging to a charity; and while it is our duty to do the best we can for a particular charity, we have no power to use trust-money for purposes for which it was not intended. If a charity is intended to provide boots and shoes for the poor, we have no power to use that charity for the suppression of nuisances or anything else which we may think to be for the benefit of the neighbourhood. We must see that the money is applied to the purposes for which it was intended, and if the property is sold we must make sure it is sold at a price beneficial to the charity. I wish we had power to deal with every charity in the country to what we considered to be the best advantage for the general welfare of the community. That would be very advantageous, but I very much doubt whether the House of Commons would grant us that general power. In the particular case to which I have been referring I think the medical officer of health condemned the cottages, and there was no money for their repair, and that is how the land came to be sold. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Ilkeston, I do not know whether he intended to strike or to stroke the Charity Commissioners. But I think he is altogether mistaken as to one part of his speech. He kept speaking of these as "public" lands. Public lands are lands belonging to the general public. My hon. friend himself is a member of the public, but he has no lot or share in these charity lands; they have to be devoted to the people for whose benefit they were left, and we have to see that the produce of these lands is applied, as near as it can be, to the purposes for which they were left. That is
    830
    the object for which we work. The hon. Member seemed to suggest that the Charity Commissioners encouraged the sale of these lands. I wish he would try to buy some of the lands from the Commissioners and see if he was able to get them for less than they were worth. There are constant complaints that it is very hard to sell charity lands owing to the obstruction of the Charity Commissioners, and it is really very strange now to hear people saying that the Charity Commissioners are constantly pushing on the business of disposing of charity lands. The hon. Member asked me how many acres had been sold during the past year. I am afraid I cannot give the number now, but I will try to find out in answer to the question. I am not able to say how many acres of land have been sold, but I can inform my hon. friend that the money derived from the sale of land is derived from the sale not of public land, but of public houses. I do not know that I need say anything else to support the position of the Charity Commissioners. We have no definite policy as to these sales, except to see that we get a really good price. We neither encourage nor discourage the sale of land, but if we can get, not only what it is worth, but a great deal more than it is worth, then we sanction the sale of it.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the Charity Commissioners had the wisdom of the hon. Member who has just sat down, the unpopularity which attaches to them at the present moment would never have an opportunity of developing. But I do not think the hon. Member has been quite fair in dealing with the case raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich. He seems to have overlooked two or three important facts. As far as this charity is concerned its administration has been handed over to the clergy and the churchwardens. The money was really found by the Commissioners, by local subscriptions, and something in the nature of a local rate. Since then the Berrien Charity came in, and although it had not contributed towards the building of the school and did not subscribe towards its maintenance, an amalgamation took place and joint management was agreed to. My complaint against the Commissioners is that this practically annexed the whole of the funds subscribed by the local ratepayers, and handed them over to the church-

    831
    wardens and the rector. The management of the school is now practically in the hands of the churchwardens and the rector, and I think the hon. Member must admit that that is exceedingly unfair. Is there anything in the original foundation about the doctrines and the dogmas to be taught?—because I understand that is necessary in order to bring it within the Act. Something must have been said in regard to the particular doctrines to be taught in the school prior to the date of that Act. Nothing of that kind has been provided for in the school, and the Charity Commissioners have converted a parochial school, which was managed by a committee representing the ratepayers, into a church school. That is an exceedingly unfair thing to do, but it has been done in a good many cases. This is only a solitary instance which we discovered when it was too late to do anything but protest. My complaint is not in regard to the management of the trust, but in regard to the management of the school. The school was practically built by the ratepayers, and its management should be handed over to a body representing the people, and not to one particular denomination in the parish. Surely the hon. Member opposite must see that that is a very unfair thing to do.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I have had considerable experience of schemes prepared by the Charity Commissioners, and during the last few years I have been greatly struck with the odd and fantastic character of some of those schemes, in regard to the constitution of trusteeships which are provided for under them. Another thing which has struck me is that these schemes, so far as the appointment of trustees is concerned, do not appear to be in harmony with recent legislation. That legislation has in recent years called into existence new public bodies such as county councils, parish councils and parish meetings, and it has given to those new bodies certain powers in connection with the administration of charities. It. seems to me that the Charity Commissioners should have recognised this new position of affairs, and that they should have placed the administration of many of these charities unreservedly in the hands of the public bodies appointed in the public interest by the public. Instead of that, in not a few
    832
    cases, the schemes have been so manipulated as to bring about a certain result— namely, that particular mode of administration is secured by the constitution of the trust, while no room has been allowed for the manifestation of popular fooling in regard to the administration of the trust. I do not mean to accuse the Charity Commissioners of bias in favour of the Established Church, but it is nevertheless the fact that in a largo number of cases the trusteeships, constantly, under their schemes, have given an unfair and an improper advantage to the Establishment; so that there are hundreds of cases in which money is now employed for ecclesiastical purposes, contrary to the wishes of the donors. I believe that the weakness and the vice of these schemes of the Charity Commissioners are due to the fact that they adhere to ancient principles and ancient methods, instead of having regard to the new wants and the new feelings of the times. The result is that the public needs are not met in the administration of these charities to the extent they might have been, and ought to be. There are also cases in which the schemes are not administered as they should be on principles of strict equality.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that owing to the action of the two front benches that evening, no doubt during the next few months there would be a great many applications made similar to that which had been made by the Birmingham School. The result would be that the staff of the Charity Commissioners would be found totally inadequate to deal with those applications, and he urged upon his friend the Secretary to the Treasury to be prepared to make a substantial increase in the staff of the Charity Commission.
    MR. HUMPHREYS OWENsaid this appeared to be an entirety undenominational trust, but by continuing the clergyman and churchwardens as trustees, and appointing only three representatives of the parish council, who were in a minority of the governing body, practically the school was made a denominational school. That was, of course, clearly contrary to the provisions of the Endowed Schools Act. Under the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, Section 19, educational endowments were

    833
    not to be treated as denominational unless—
    "In the opinion of the Commissioners (subject to appeal to the Privy Council) the scholars educated by the endowment are required by the express terms of the original instrument of foundation, or of the statutes or regulations made by the founder, or under his authority in his lifetime, or within fifty years after his death, which terms have been observed down to the commencement of the Act, to learn or be instructed according to the doctrines or formularies of any particular church, sect, or denomination."
    He should have thought that under this provision the school was exempted.
    5. £9,778, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, England.
    *MR. JOHN BURNS: It is
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I do not think it is an endowed school scheme.
    MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid he thought the Charity Commissioners should have followed the Act and provided that this should have been an undenominational school. He wished to point out to his hon. friend that under the original foundation the money was given for the purpose of giving instruction, whereas under this later scheme the money was being applied for the purpose of building.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 153.)

    AYES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Gourley, Sir. Edward Temperley

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Burns, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Steadman, William Charles

    Caldwell, James

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Crae, George

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fenwick, Charles

    Murnaghan, George

    Mr. Goddard and Mr. Channing.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    NOES.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Flower, Ernest

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

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

    Garfit, William

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

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

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Brassey, Albert

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Heath, James

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Henderson, Alexander

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

    Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Purvis, Robert

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Houston, R. P.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Howell, William Tudor

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

    Rutherford, John

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

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sidebottom, William (Derbysh)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Keswick, William

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Knowles, Lees

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

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lawrence, Sir. E. Durning-(Corn)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Davies, Sir. Horatio D. (Chatham)

    Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Francis William

    Wyndham, George

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Lyttelton, Lord Alfred

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Sir William Walrond and

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    not very frequently that discussions take place in the House of Commons upon the Vote for the salaries and expenses of the Lunacy Commissioners; but I am compelled to-night by recent events that have

    835
    transpired in London to raise a question of some public importance upon the Vote we have before us. I regret that the Attorney General, who is responsible for this Vote, is not in the House at the present moment to hear what I have to say.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. CALD-WELL, Lanarkshire, Mid). House counted, and forty Members being found present.
    *MR. JOHN BURNS (continuing): It is very rarely that the Lunacy Commissioners are criticised in the House of Commons, and it is very fortunate for us that that is so, for, generally speaking, the public have confidence in that body, and consequently much of the suspicion that used to exist in England twenty or thirty years ago in regard to the administration of this Department has been removed. I am constrained to-night, however, to call the attention of the Attorney General to what I consider to be a gross scandal in one of the branches of the! Lunacy Commissioners' work. Some few weeks ago it was found, owing to the public spirit of Mr. Purchese, that five relieving officers employed by the St. Pancras Board of Guardians had been trafficking with the owners of certain private asylums in London, so that lunatics who ought to have properly gone to asylums controlled by either the London County Council or some other public authority, and there maintained at an average cost of 11s. per week, were diverted to these private asylums, where their weekly maintenance charge ranged from 35s. to 40s. On investigation it was found that these five relieving officers had been in the habit, after the medical officer had certified the lunatics, of not taking too much trouble to inquire where accommodation might be found for them in public asylums, and they were for a consideration given by owners of private asylums transferred to the costly private asylums. The result was that the five officers were brought before the committee, and then before the whole board of guardians, when they owned up as having received presents and sums of money from the owners of the private asylums. The five officers were severely censured by the chairman, with the unanimous approval of the whole board of guardians that day assembled. The board of guardians, after censuring the officers, remitted their case to the Local Government Board for its consideration,
    836
    and I am under the impression that if the Local Government Board does its duty it ought to dismiss, or call upon the board of guardians to dismiss, these men. Certainly I should press for their dismissal on the ground that there is nothing which the public are more touchy about than the proper treatment of lunatics, and that in this particular branch of the public administration no temptation or bribe should be offered to the officers.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask the hon. Member how he connects the matter he refers to with the administration of the Lunacy Commissioners.
    *MR. JOHN BURNS: In this way: there is a feeling that the practice that I complain of is somewhat general. One of the guardians said it was a matter of custom, and that it was generally done by most of the relieving officers throughout the metropolis; and I want to say that if that is so the Lunacy Commissioners ought to inquire what the effect of a system of this kind is of causing the owners of private asylums to induce officers to transfer lunatics for profit to these private asylums, whether they are kept longer than they need be, after being cured, instead of being handed over to their relatives. It seems to me that if the Lunacy Commissioners make inquiry they will find that the effect of this system is such as I have described. Whether that is so or not is not to be determined at this moment; but I believe that nearly everyone is dissatisfied with the present method of certification, although there is no feeling against the certifying officers. It is the belief that those things are more general than is supposed, and the attention of the Lunacy Commissioners should be directed to an inquiry as to whether the system does not extend to other branches of the administration of the Lunacy laws. I respectfully request the Attorney General to ask the Lunacy Commissioners to make special investigation in this case to see whether, to any extent, this practice has permeated other branches of the Department, and whether it is the case that lunatics are retained in private asylums when to the profit of the ratepayers and to the advantage of the lunatics themselves and their friends, they should be discharged. I shall be only too pleased to place the whole of the facts in the hands of the Attorney General, but I should prefer that he should ask one of the Lunacy Commissioners to see whether

    837
    these have any bearing on the administration of the Lunacy Laws generally. If he does that I know he will do everything in his power to satisfy public opinion that, in so far as the Lunacy Commissioners are concerned, they do not countenance anything of the kind.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,: There is no doubt whatever that the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member has called attention in the statement he has brought before the Committee are of a very serious character. If the facts are correctly reported to the hon. Member, they disclose an offence of a very serious kind committed not only by the relieving officers, but by those who are alleged to have bribed them. I hope the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the practice is common. It would be a very serious matter indeed if so scandalous a thing should be at all general as that officers should be bribed by the owners of private lunatic asylums for the purpose of sending lunatics to these asylums rather than sending them to public lunatic asylums, where they would be better treated. Of course, the Lunacy Commissioners cannot be for one moment suspected of looking with anything but the utmost disfavour on a practice of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. I can only assure the hon. Member that we shall exercise the greatest care in investigating the managements of these establishments where such practices have prevailed, and in any case which is brought to our notice we shall act with the utmost vigour.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General is a very satisfactory one, but the object of my hon. friend was mainly to call the attention of the Lunacy Commissioners to what has been a very great scandal. It is a monstrous thing for officials to receive these bribes, and it is still more monstrous for private lunatic asylum owners to give them. I think myself that, as a rule, wherever there is a chance of sending pauper lunatics to a public asylum, it is the best thing to do, and they should not be sent to a private asylum. I think the greater part of this business should come under the purview of the Local Government Board.
    CAPTAIN JESSEL: We in St. Pancras feel very much obliged
    838
    to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. At present the question is before the Local Government Board, and no doubt full investigation will take place.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received from the right hon. Gentleman the courteous and kind answer that I should expect. But I think the disclosures in St. Pancras give an opportunity for a review of the system of pauper lunatics and the way in which they are transferred. I am content with the discussion which has taken place, and do not propose to move a reduction.
    Vote agreed to.
    6. £67, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
    LORD BALCARRES: I wish to take this opportunity of drawing attention to the manner in which the designing of the South African war medal has been undertaken by the Mint. We have in this country a number of extremely brilliant medallists, among whom are Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Brock, and Mr. Frampton, who are capable of designing artistic war medals. But hitherto the bulk of the war medals have been more fit to be coachmen's buttons than displayed on the manly breasts of our soldiers. In the case of the medal for South Africa the authorities of the Mint, rather than allow it to be submitted to open competition, have hurried the work through with undue haste; and, without asserting that the modal will be badly done, I think that greater care should have been taken to ensure an entirely worthy production.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not agree with the hon. Member that there has been hurry in the matter, so far as the authorities of the Mint are concerned. The arrangements for the issue of war medals rest with the War Office, and naturally the Secretary for War was anxious that measures should be taken as soon as possible for the designing and production of the South African medal. I do not think that anybody can fairly complain of the designs of the medals issued by the Mint. I do not profess to be a connoisseur, but I certainly think the recent Jubilee medal, for instance, was a medal of which no country need be ashamed. The new war medal is by

    839
    the same designer, and although I have not seen it I feel sure it will be found not to deserve condemnation.
    LORD BALCARRES: Is it to be designed by the Mint, or by Mr. Brock?
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: By the designer to the Mint.
    Vote agreed to.
    7. £8,097, to complete the sum for National Debt Office.
    8. £12,838, to complete the sum for Public Record Office.
    *MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid he wished to draw attention to the fact that nothing had been done towards appointing a person to the Record Office who was conversant with Welsh history and Welsh literature, to calendar and index documents relating to Wales. Wales had a splendid system of education, but it did not possess a proper text-book on Welsh history to put in the hands of the students. Ample materials for such a work lay uncatalogued in the Record Office. There was no need for the appointment of an expert. The desirable thing was the selection of a young Welsh scholar, straightway, say, from the University to fill the first vacancy that arose in the office. The authorities there would train him up in their methods, and eventually he might be set to do this special work for the adequate treatment of historical records bearing on Wales. The right hon. Gentleman had already promised to consider this question, and he earnestly hoped the wishes of Wales in this matter would be realised.
    MR. HANBURYsaid he agreed to a very considerable extent with the hon. Member, and thought a Welshman should be appointed to the Record Office. There was no doubt a vast amount of work which would not be properly done by an Englishman, and when the next vacancy occurred he would see how far he could carry out the wishes of the hon. Gentleman by appointing some Welshman to the position. That was a course he would gladly avail himself of.
    MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid all Welsh Members accepted the assurance of the right hon.
    840
    Gentleman, and were very much obliged to him. There were in the Record Office many Welsh documents of great importance which were not catalogued, so that Welsh students were unable to put their hands upon them. He thought the appointment of a Welshman in the Record Office would confer a lasting benefit on the Welsh people.
    MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENacknowledged the sympathetic manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had met the hon. Member for North Carnarvonshire, but regretted that students were unable under the present conditions, owing to the absence of text-books, to study the history of Wales.
    Vote agreed to.
    9. £15, to complete the sum for Public Works Loan Commission.
    MR. BUCHANANcommented on the fact that this Vote in the last few years had undergone great changes. A few years previously the nominal figure was £7,000, in the present Vote the Government only asked for £15. The demand for loans had enormously increased, and he would like to obtain some assurance that in view of the enormous increase in the business of the Department of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and in the receipts from fees, the Department would consider the possibility of considerably abating the fees exacted from local authorities and others who asked for the issue of loans for public purposes.
    MR. HANBURYthought the hon. Gentleman's point was to a very great extent met by the abatement which the Treasury now made in its demands on the fund for the general expenses of administration.
    Vote agreed to.
    10. £23,702, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, England.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I had on the Notice Paper a motion to reduce this Vote by £100, but I think it will now be unnecessary to move it, inasmuch as I have received what I can only regard as a satisfactory assurance from the Under Secretary of the Local Government Board. My object in putting down this motion was to obtain a per-

    841
    fectly satisfactory record of the population of Wales in the course of the coming census. I regret that that census is to be of so limited a character. I cannot go into that question, because it has already been the subject of legislation in this House. I can only express the hope that the mistakes which were admittedly made during the last census —administrative mistakes I mean—will be avoided in the coming census so far as the population of Wales and Monmouthshire are concerned. I trust that proper forms will be supplied containing a language column, and that we shall have nothing further to complain of in that respect.
    Vote agreed to.
    11. £350,060, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
    MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I am not quite sure whether the point I am about to raise comes properly under this Vote. The question I wish to raise is that of the reporting in this House. It is a comparatively small matter, and it does not affect the public service very materially. It does affect hon. Members themselves. I notice that the recent reports of our debates are in the first person, and very admirable reports they seem to be; but, on the other hand, they are by no means verbatim reports. I think the general notion is that when you see a report in the first person it is understood to be verbatim. It seems to me desirable that there should be no ambiguity about this, because occasionally Hansard is referred to as an authority as to the ipsissima verba of what hon. Members have said, and I would suggest, therefore, that it would be better either to have a note to the effect that the reports are not verbatim, or else that they should be in the third person and not in the first. There is another point in regard to the Pink Paper we are now receiving with reports of the inquiries made under a recent Act with respect to charities. In every case on the Pink Paper there are twelve lines of print stating the formal terms. It seems to me that too many details are given.
    MR. HANBURY: AS to the Pink Paper, that is a matter for the authorities
    842
    of the House. With regard to the reports, of course the hon. Member knows that although most of the speeches are in the first person there is a great distinction to be drawn between speeches which have an asterisk showing that the Member has himself corrected the proofs of the speech, and those speeches which have no such asterisk. Probably the great majority of Members are content to leave their speeches without an asterisk. It is somewhat unfortunate, having corrected a speech and having an asterisk attached to it, that it can be brought up as a record against you hereafter, and, for my own part, I carefully avoid ever doing so. I quite agree with the hon. Member that when the report of a speech purports to be verbatim we want practically the whole speech, because it does lead to the impression that the speech as reported is the whole of what the hon. Member has said. One docs not like passages which may have been important left out of the report of a speech which purports to be verbatim. I confess that the matter rests to a great extent with the reporters and with the publishers of Hansard, but I myself look back with regret to the days when the great majority of the speeches were in the third person. I know that there were objections raised in the House to the fact that most of the speeches were taken from the reports of The Times, and that those speeches were not in the first person. Although there were more or less technical objections to that system I thought it was quite the best system in which the reports were published, and I would not be sorry to see the House go back to that plan, because we undoubtedly got very excellent reports under that system. We got reports with which the majority of Members were thoroughly well satisfied, and the only objection that was ever raised, that I know of, to that system was that we were allowing the contractor to sub-let his contract. On that ground, which I do not think is a very important one, objections were raised in the House, and we were forced to adopt the present system. I shall mention to the editor of Hansard the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, because I think there is something in the statement that if a speech is reported in the first person then the whole of the speech ought to be given in extenso. Any influence which I can bring to bear on

    843
    the reporters will be brought to go back to the old system of reporting in the third person, with the exception of particular speeches of particular Members and Ministers, whose speeches the House would wish to have reported in the first person.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am extremely glad that the hon. Member has brought forward this question as to verbatim reporting. Hon. Members and those who read the speeches in this House are greatly interested in the matter of verbatim reporting. Those who only utter a few short words are not so much interested. I would point out to hon. Members themselves that verbatim reporting would be a great disfigurement to the reports, because we would get a number of interruptions and inelegancies, such as no Member would like to see opposite to his name in so important a publication as Hansard; but if you are not to have an absolutely verbatim report you must have a summary report. That cannot be done by the same man who does the verbatim report. The verbatim report is done by a common shorthand reporter, who takes down what he hears, and just gives a photograph of what he takes down. When you come to summarising a speech you require a very expert reporter. In the first place, he must have some knowledge of the subject he is reporting, and be able, more or less, to bring to his work a sense of proportion, and know that which is important and that which is unimportant. For instance, when he hears ten good arguments and three bad jokes, he should not leave out the ten good arguments and put in the three bad jokes. I have known the arguments omitted and the jokes inserted. Therefore it comes to this—that for verbatim reporting a common shorthand writer will do, but when you come to a summary such as my hon. friend suggests, you require no longer a shorthand reporter but a Parliamentary expert. That is the sort of reporter we used to have. The Times reporters and those who reported the debates when I first entered the House were undoubtedly experts, and they conferred the greatest possible benefit on Members by what they did. They left out the poor, stale, irrelevant stuff, and they left in the sapient arguments and the permanent points of the debate. But
    844
    this involves large expense. You cannot have reporters of great ability and historical knowledge without going to expense; indeed, I think the mistake the Secretary of the Treasury makes is. in trying to get the work done too cheaply. That, I think, is at the bottom of the matter. If he had been content to go on paying for the old system we should still have had the old style of reports. One word as to the present reporting. I have heard the most scathing; language used with respect to the present reports by no less a person than the President of the Local Government Board, The right hon. Gentleman, speaking with the amplitude of manner which always fascinates the House, and makes us listen to his longest sentences—and they are sometimes long—denounced and repudiated, with all the force of which a Cabinet Minister is capable, the reports at present given of his speeches. He said he would not be responsible for any report in Hansard of a speech of his. When they are quoted against him he says he will have nothing to do with them. Then we have the corroborative evidence of the Secretary of the Treasury. He knows so well what stuff the reports are made of that he also will have no truck with them, nor will he correct them and put an asterisk, which suggests that they are more or less accurate. I am in exactly the same case. When I look at the proofs of the reports occasionally sent to me, and which profess to be a more or less accurate rendering of the few remarks I have addressed to the House, I am amazed to see my millions and metaphors, my quotations and facts, jumbled up in an absolute jangle of words. It is a, farrago. I am perfectly certain that I never uttered the words attributed to me, but I go further, and say that I cannot conceive how any man could imagine that any other man ever uttered them. Our reports are not merely bad, absolutely misleading, completely untrustworthy, but comic. I am glad to find that the prodigal son is coming back repentant from the husks, and if he will revert to the old system, as I believe he is inclined to do, of the expert Parliamentary reporter with a knowledge of Parliamentary usages, some knowledge of Parliamentary questions and the art of condensing, which, of course, will involve extra cost, I promise that I, for one, will kill the fatted calf for him.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: It is surely unnecessary that every time a Member asks a question which has appeared in the Orders, and which he has no right to correct, the question should be sent to him. It appears to mo there must be a great deal of trouble and expense in sending out matter to which there is no objection whatever.
    *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I wish to express my sympathy with what has been said with regard to reporting in the first person. But I do not want; to make any complaint. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to look into the question, whether first or third person reports should be given. May I ask that no alteration should be made in the style of the reports during the present session?
    CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I merely rise to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I think there is one other matter of complaint, and that is in connection with the time taken before the reports are published. It does not matter so much with regard to the debates as the questions. There is often so much conversation going on at the time of questions that it is frequently impossible to hear the answer made by a Minister, and before the reports are published it is sometimes too late to refer back to the information desired. There is another point I wish to mention, and that is the position the official reporters occupy in the House. In another place the official reporters are in the body of the House, where they have a good opportunity of hearing what is said. In this House they are in the gallery, and I have every reason to believe that they sometimes do not hear what is said, and they labour under a disadvantage that might be remedied. I hope my right hon. friend will take that into consideration.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £13,439 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of
    846
    March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to a charge of £444 made by the Woods and Forests Department to the Committee of the North Wales Lunatic Asylum at Denbigh. The asylum required a new water supply, and for that purpose the level of a small lake had to be raised a few feet. To make the title of the asylum authorities clear, certain mineral rights, which belonged to the Crown, had to be acquired. The Asylum Committee expected that, as such rights were of merely nominal value, the Office of Woods and Forests would only charge a nominal sum for them, but the price they named was £500. Afterwards on the representations of the committee they reduced the charge to £444. The committee was entirely at the mercy of the Woods and Forests Department, and they have been obliged to assent to this, but they have the right, as representing the ratepayers of Anglesey, Carnarvonshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, and Merionethshire to appeal to the Treasury and to Parliament for a further substantial reduction. The only possible minerals or stones that can be taken into consideration are lead, flags, building and road stone. As to lead, the formation is Wenlock shale, which is almost always very barren in mineral veins, and for many miles around the reservoir, as the geological charts show, is without any indication of the presence of lead or other metals. Flags are worked in the parish of Nantglyn, at some distance from the reservoir, but in places that are very difficult of access. At the reservoir the conditions are quite different; an excellent road, the old turnpike between Denbigh and Pentrevoelas, runs beside the lake. If there were any flags worth quarrying such facilities of removal would not have been neglected, and it may be assumed that no such flags exist there. As to building and road stone, there is no building in the neighbourhood, and the stone is of such poor quality that the last house built was erected of wood and iron, although built on freehold land. For road purposes the stone is extremely bad. When used it is quickly

    847
    pulverised or reduced to a pasty mud. The borough road surveyor has declined to take any of the stone which may be quarried in making the reservoir, on the ground that it is useless for road purposes. The stone is worthless, minerals do not exist, and the Department, bearing in mind that it is dealing with a public authority in which five of the counties of North Wales are interested, might very well have conveyed for a nominal consideration the mineral rights which had to be purchased for the sake of raising the level of the lake. If those mineral rights had been offered for sale by public auction I doubt whether anyone would have made any offer whatever for them. I do not complain that the Office of Woods and Forests are now far more careful of the public interest than they have been in the past, when some of the finest mineral properties in the kingdom were jobbed away to individuals. Anyone who has read the Report of the Deputy Ranger of the Forest of Snowdon upon the shameful misappropriation of Crown lands must rejoice that the state of things which was described fifty years ago has passed away, not, however, without depriving the nation of nearly all the really valuable Crown property. But nowadays, in dealing with public authorities, I fear they are running to another extreme. This is a case in which one public authority has another public authority at its mercy. The object in view is not the advantage of an individual, but the good of the community. I ask the Treasury to take a juster view of this case, and not to charge more for these worthless mineral rights than £44, a sum which far exceeds their real value. In Wales we have 84,000 acres of waste land. That land, of course, is subject to commonal rights. Of course, the rights of commoners ought to be fully considered, and no one wishes to interfere with them without compensation; but what I complain of is that the Woods and Forests Department are taking no steps in the direction of dealing with these lands. It would be possible for them to acquire a very large amount of land at a very small outlay indeed by purchasing the commonal rights over a sufficient area for the purpose of planting. It would beautify the country, add to the national wealth, and give employment to a large number of men at the very time of the year when employment is most needed. I
    848
    am astonished that the Woods and Forests Department have not done something in this direction. They have, it is true, made a small experiment in planting in Merionethshire, but if that is to be treated as an experiment in planting, I suppose thirty or forty years will elapse before it is concluded. The County Council of Northumberland have realised the value of re-afforesting land, and if the Woods and Forests Department would only apply some portion of the large surplus which they annually surrender to the Treasury they would be able to use their own money, and in that way increase very largely indeed the national wealth. There was a time when Wales was covered with forests of valuable timber. I am sorry to say that the country has been denuded very largely of these magnificent oak forests, which were at one time our pride and our glory. They were used to build the British Navy, and at one time "the wooden walls of Old England" consisted almost entirely of Welsh timber. That has been denied, but I have irrefutable evidence of it. The greatest interest was taken in Wales in the Navy, not because the people had relatives or friends in that service, but because they knew the particular estate on which the timber used for such and such a ship was grown. It would take a very long time to restore those magnificent oak forests. The landowners are doing what they can in this direction, but a public Department is in a very different position from a private landowner, who does not wish to lock up his money in timber. A public Department could easily invest money in this very desirable object. This will be a much more important question in future than it is at present. Employment is now fairly plentiful, but the time will come when we shall hear the cry of the unemployed once more, and another generation will praise the foresight of the right hon. Gentleman if he now presses on the Woods and Forests Department the necessity of at once setting on foot this great national reform. If the Woods and Forests Department would commence this work we should have some hope that at all events some of the 26 million acres of waste land in this country would be reafforested. We spend 18 million pounds a year on imported timber, and I believe that if only a portion of our waste lands were

    849
    planted we could supply ourselves with all the timber we now require, or are likely to require for some time to come. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something in the direction I have indicated, and that he will, at all events, apply some of the money which is received year after year from the Crown lands towards beautifying the country, and towards providing a new source of revenue to the State and a new means of employment for the people.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I can corroborate what my hon. friend has said, especially with reference to the first point he raised. The district concerned is in my own constituency, and I have therefore had many opportunities of becoming acquainted with the feeling of the public in regard to this particular matter. I desire to pay a very high tribute to the Commissioner of Woods and Forests for the sympathetic way in which he has conducted his negotiations with regard to Crown property in England and Wales. Up to this time he has shown from the very outset a strong desire to become thoroughly acquainted with the local conditions in each case, and we feel very much indebted to him for the spirit in which he has carried out the work of his Department. With regard to the particular matter mentioned, all I would say is that, knowing the place and the conditions, I thoroughly concur with the view expressed by my hon. friend. No doubt it has been said that a competent inspector was sent down to report on the value of these particular minerals, but the true test is not what was the price obtained for similar rights in other parts of the country, but what was the actual value of those minerals; not what they would be worth if they were worked in the future, but whether they ever had been worked or were likely to be worked. The answer to these two questions is in the negative. These minerals have never been worked, and are not likely to be worked. I feel strongly that a mistake has been made in this particular case. I only wish to emphasize one other point made by my hon. friend. Surely some difference ought to be made between striking a bargain with a public institution and striking a bargain with a private individual. I hope, at all events, that the result of this debate will be that the
    850
    matter will be investigated, and that, at all events, an arrangement of this kind will not be repeated.
    CAPTAIN JESSEL: I desire to make an appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the enclosures in Regent's Park. The Committee may not be aware of the fact that there are in the Park several houses having large gardens, and a rumour, which I believe is based on a good deal of truth, is afloat that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have been approached on the subject of giving these villa gardens an extension of lease. This question is not a new one. In 1880 the then First Commissioner of Works was approached by a deputation with reference to the subscription gardens in Regent's Park, and the result was that these gardens were cut down from fourteen acres to seven acres. In the course of an investigation it was discovered that the leases of the land surrounding these villas were only held on a yearly tenancy, and a compromise was effected which resulted in certain portions of the ground being given back, and, on the other hand, the interests of the landowners were secured for the remainder of the tenancy. The other leases were granted as far back as 1822 and 1826 for a period of ninety-nine years, and although, of course, that period has not yet come to an end, yet the leaseholders, like prudent men, are trying to get a renewal of their leases. I need hardly say how very important it is to the public, especially of the district I represent, that as much of Regent's Park as possible should be open to them. Some thirty-two acres are now held by villa-owners. Not long ago deputations approached the First Commissioner of Works with reference to cricket and football grounds in Regent's Park. I had the privilege of accompanying one of the most important deputations, and it was stated that no less than 6,000 persons used Regent's Park for the purposes of cricket and football, and it was pointed out how extremely small the ground allotted for that purpose was. It seems to me that if anything can be done to increase the ground available for the public it would be a very good thing. Of course the Commissioners of Woods and Forests may urge the objection that they will lose the revenue now derived from these villa gardens; but I venture to appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury on

    851
    behalf of London, and especially on behalf of St. Pancras and Marylebone, not to allow these leases to be extended without the sanction of Parliament. I can assure him that if he will give us an undertaking that this matter shall be thoroughly gone into before the leases are extended, it will be received with gratitude.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I desire to associate myself with the excellent remarks of the hon. Member for South St. Pancras. I come to this subject rather fresh, having spent two days of my Whitsun holiday in visiting Regent's Park and making observations with a view to supporting the hon. Member in the object he has in view. It seems to me that we ought to remind the Secretary to the Treasury, who for the moment represents the Woods and Forests Department, that there is a pretty well-grounded opinion in the North of London that a serious attempt is going to be made to have these leases renewed, and also to extend the annual tenancy of the land immediately outside the house property. I believe there will be such an attempt, because the value of these houses is very tempting, and the owners will make every effort within their power to extend the period of their occupancy. The Crown derives £14,444 a year from the land occupied by these private houses. That is a small amount as compared with the value this land would be to the public in the neighbourhood if it were turned into a recreation ground for the enjoyment of young and old. The hon. Member for South St. Pancras with characteristic moderation did not make his case as strong as he might have made it. In going into the documents I find that the situation as between the public enjoyment of Regent's Park and the private privilege user of about a dozen people who are inside the gates of the park is as follows. The park has 472 acres of ground; of that 129 acres, or twenty-four per cent. of the total acreage, is either owned by private people, or enjoyed by associations of a semi-private or a semi-public character, whichever way you put it. I venture to say that, however expedient it may have been ninety years ago to have allowed twenty-four per cent. of the total acreage of the park to be given to private individuals, a similar condition of things does not exist to-day, and that the pressure of population in St. Pancras, Isling-
    852
    ton, and Marylebone warrants us in demanding that as soon as the leases of the houses expire and the annual tenancies fall in they shall not be renewed, and that the whole of this 129 acres, or as much of it as does not subserve any public interest, shall be thrown into the park. The Zoological Gardens has thirty-one acres, and there are some people who believe that the Zoological Gardens ought to pay more than £358 per annum for having that institution inside Regent's Park. The Botanical Gardens, which do not altogether satisfy the public, have eighteen acres, the Toxo-philites have six acres, and the pleasure gardens have over eight acres. That is to say, four semi-public associations have sixty-three acres out of the 129 acres. I think that the Botanical Gardens might come under more public control than they now have, and I think that the Toxo-philitos might be allowed to disappear. With regard to the pleasure gardens, I see no reason why they should be continued, and I venture to think that some of the people using them would willingly part with their share for the greater enjoyment of the public. Now I come to the remainder. What are the facts? I find that Grove Lodge has four acres, Hanover Lodge four acres, North Lodge two acres, Baptist College nine acres, St. Dunstan's Villa—the tenant of which, I believe, is a very excellent citizen, and a man who has given excellent service to the State—twelve acres, St. Catherine's House five acres, St. John's Lodge—formerly occupied, I believe, by a Member of this House—twelve acres; then there is a place known as The Holme, five acres, and South Villa eleven acres. Altogether nine gentlemen occupy sixty-four acres of ground inside Regent's Park, for which they pay the Government £1,444 per annum. What does that area represent? It represents a Green Park, or seven Kennington Ovals. What does that mean? St. Pancras borders on one side of Regent's Park, and there is no district in London where overcrowding is greater, and no place where open spaces are more needed. I consider that the hon. Member for South St. Pancras has made out a very strong case for this area being added to the park. Now I come to the owners. No injustice can be done to them, because eighty-five and ninety-three years ago the then owners took the houses and the grounds on leasehold conditions. They

    853
    knew very well that when the leases expired they would have no claim upon the Government for an extension. What is more, I venture to say that the quietude and the enjoyment which the occupants have derived by ninety years occupancy of houses so beautifully situated is all the compensation that can reasonably be expected. I should suggest that as the leases fall in the gardens and the houses should be added to the park for the health and athletic advantages of the immediate neighbourhood. Some will ask, is there any reason for this? The first of these leases will fall in in ten years, and I shudder when I think what the condition of St. Pancras will be in ten years if overcrowding continues as at present. I believe it is the duty of the Woods and Forests Department to anticipate the still more crowded condition of St. Pancras which will prevail at that period by seeing that when these leases expire the ground shall be added to the park. One has noticed with great pleasure what the City Corporation has done for open spaces with regard to Epping Forest. Years ago people said that there were 6,000 acres of land in Epping Forest and that there was no one near it. What have we witnessed? The growth of population in the direction of Epping Forest has converted it into a place used to-day quite as much as Hyde Park, Battersea Park, or Kensington Gardens was used thirty years ago. So great is the demand on Epping Forest that we find Sir Edward Buxton and other public-spirited gentlemen still adding to the total acreage available to the public. The securing for the public of Epping Forest is one of the finest acts every accomplished by the City Corporation. Take, for instance, what Her Majesty has done. The Queen, very much to her credit, and I believe the people of London appreciate it, has handed Kensington Palace and grounds and Kew Cottage grounds over to the public, and also a house in Greenwich Park for the advantage of the people in that neighbourhood. Wherever we go we see that parks which were formerly the private property of the Queen have been handed over by her to the public. She has given increased access to her houses, castles, and private parks and gardens, which are still exclusively her own. We also find that the Archbishop of Canterbury has handed
    854
    over eleven acres of his land in the Lambeth Palace grounds to the London County Council for the benefit of the poor children living in the slums of Lambeth. I congratulate the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury upon doing these generous things. We also find the City Corporation vieing with the London County Council in providing open spaces for London, but the only people who are not following the example of the Queen, the Archbishop, the City Corporation, and the London County Council are these nine or ten privileged leaseholders in Regent's. Park. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would take a hint from the Member for South St. Pancras, and give these leaseholders notice that we do not intend to renew their leases. They are not wanted inside Regent's Park, and I should say that the borders of the forest, or near Windsor Park, would better suit their temperament. We want this land in Regent's Park for the general public and the children of the immediate neighbourhood. The people have asked the Member for South St. Pancras to make this request, and I cordially support him. When we find that the Brixton people themselves can raise £60,000 for the addition of forty-two acres to Brockwell Park, surely we ought, when we are able to do it by a mere movement of the pen, to give these leaseholders notice to terminate their leases, and thus add 129 more acres to one of the finest parks in London, which is not large enough, and which could be made larger by terminating the private privileges which have gone on too long, and which could be done without injustice to the tenants and much to the advantage of the people of St. Pancras and of London generally.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that this particular source of revenue was not in the same position as other sources. The Woods and Forests and Crown lands were the remains of what was once the personal property of the Sovereign, and at the beginning of every reign they returned to the Sovereign, when a fresh bargain had to be made, the Sovereign receiving the Civil List in return. It was a matter of bargain, and if at any time the Sovereign refused to make the bargain then all this property went back into the personal possession of the Sovereign. He only mentioned this to show that this particular property stood on an entirely

    855
    different footing to other property. Her Majesty's Ministers were simply trustees during the present reign, and it was their duty to see that it was handed over to the successor of the Queen. Therefore, Her Majesty's Ministers had not the same free hand in the matter as they had in regard to other property, and they could only deal with these lands in a purely fiduciary character. There was one very peculiar feature about this Vote, and it was that they were asked to vote £21,000 for the expenses of the Office of Woods and Forests, when there were really no expenses at all. On the contrary, the State derived a revenue from these woods and forests. There was another remarkable feature; the Office of Woods and Forests was the only Department which was allowed to pay its own expenses, and hand over to the Treasury the balance. If hon. Members would turn to page 24 of the Financial Statement, they would see a more or less detailed account of the revenues of the Office of Woods and Forests. The total revenue was £605,000 up to 1899, and out of that they retained £111,000. This property was in an entirely different situation to any other property belonging to the State, and the revenue was treated differently. Now the Committee was called upon to vote £21,000. Out of the £111,000 retained they kept £15,000 for salaries, and in addition the Committee were called upon for this Vote to meet Incidental expenses.
    CAPTAIN JESSELsaid there was no wish that the Treasury should rob the Crown. What was desired was that they should not come to a decision yet, and that public bodies might know what these lands would cost, and have an opportunity to buy.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that this matter could not be dealt with in the same spirit of generosity as might be exercised in other matters where unfettered control existed. Here they were trustees for the Crown, and not only for the present possessors, but for future possessors. It had been said that some of this property had been sold at a very high price for the purpose of erecting public offices. But if anything less than the absolute full price had been exacted be should have complained. In regard to Regent's Park, that question was capable
    856
    of being treated with justice on both sides. He was sure that none of them desired to rob the Crown, but there were many difficulties connected with anything like generous treatment, on account of the position in which the property stood.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I do not wish to go into the history of this Vote, which has been dealt with by my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, but I wish to bring before the right hon. Gentleman another question. England and Wales have their grievances on this Vote, and so has Scotland. It is a question which I have brought before the House on several occasions, and it is that the Office of Woods and Forests have, within recent years, resumed the practice which this House got them to discontinue many years ago of selling Crown rights of salmon fishing in the sea off the coast of Scotland. The Office of Woods and Forests sold some time ago some Crown. rights of salmon fishing on the west coast of Scotland. When the question was brought up in this House great pressure was put upon the Government, and the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed that this sale of the Crown rights of salmon fishing should be discontinued. That was in the year 1886, and for ten years onwards from that time none of these Crown rights of salmon fishing in the sea in Scotland were sold by the Office of Woods and Forests. I believe the legal rights in regard to salmon fishing in the sea are different in Scotland to what they are in England. If a Scotch fisherman catches a salmon in the sea it does not become his property, and if he brings it ashore he can be brought before the Court for having it in his possession. The only public rights of salmon fishing in the sea off the coast of Scotland are those which remain in the Office of Woods and Forests. Therefore, in Scotland, we are exceedingly jealous of parting definitely with any of these rights. We are not averse to leasing those rights, as we have done from year to year, but we have always steadfastly resisted any attempt to part with those valuable public rights. When these sales were resumed in 1896 two were sold, and last year two other valuable rights were also parted with. When I asked the question in this House I was told by the Secretary to the

    857
    Treasury, or some other representative of the Government, that those sales were of an exceptional nature. From further inquiries we gathered that the title to those rights was believed to be somewhat uncertain, but that is an argument which points in various directions. It might be argued that the Crown should not part with property to which there is an uncertain title, but what I want to urge is that there are substantial public rights involved to which great importance is attached in Scotland, and that they should not be absolutely parted with on any consideration whatever. They are public rights which we cherish very considerably, and we ought to have from the Office of Woods and Forests a fuller statement than we have hitherto obtained of the grounds upon which they have gone back upon the policy previously sanctioned by the Government. In order to bring the matter to a point I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,339, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
    MR. HANBURY: This is not the first time that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire has raised this question, for he has put questions in the House more than once upon this subject, and the answer of the Office of Woods and Forests is exactly what the hon. Member has stated. They say that the Commissioners have parted with no public rights in salmon fisheries except in two or three cases where the public rights have been extremely doubtful. I understand that that is not denied by the hon. Member, but what he seems to object to is the action of the Commissioners in parting with property as to the title to which there is some doubt. That appears to be the whole difference, but on this question we accept the statement of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The hon. Member for Flint has raised two questions. He first referred to the purchase of some mineral rights by an asylum authority in North Wales from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and he complains of the price. That price was, I think, £2 an acre for about 220 acres, and he says that nothing ought to have been paid for those mineral rights, because they are worthless. In the opinion of the Chief
    858
    Inspector of Minerals there was at any rate a possibility that there might be minerals there of some value, and the asylum authorities themselves offered the sum of £400 for these very mineral rights. Therefore, the difference on which the hon. Member raises this question is one merely of £44 between the price charged by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the price offered by the asylum authorities. That difference is not a very serious one, and what was done by the Commissioners was done on the advice of their own mining expert. The other point raised is that of the afforestation of the hills in Wales. With regard to the unenclosed lands very serious difficulties are encountered owing to the fact that there are certain common rights connected with them, and unless the whole of the common rights are bought up it is impossible to do anything of an effective nature. With regard to the enclosed portions, most of them are lands which pay much better under tillage than they would under timber. But no doubt there are certain portions where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it is desirable to do some planting. I think that only within the last six months they have purchased three farms in Merionethshire for the purpose, and so far as is possible the suggestion of the hon. Member will be followed. I come now to the question raised by my hon. friend the Member for South St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Battersea. I was glad to hear the statement made by my hon. friend behind me in the shape of an interruption during the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I gathered from his first statement that he was anxious that the Crown lands in Regent's Park should be devoted to public local purposes, without any price being paid for them. I now understand that that is not his view. If you take this land in Regent's Park and say that the enclosed portion shall be thrown open to the public, that would be finding an additional park for a certain portion of London at the cost of the taxpayer, and that is a policy which we deliberately refused to adopt some years ago. Certain parks which had been up to that period maintained at the cost of the taxpayer have now fallen upon the local ratepayer, and I do not quite know why the district surrounding Regent's

    859
    Park should be made any exception to that rule. Even Battersea Park is now a charge upon the local rates and not upon the general taxpayer. After all, what is the history of Regent's Park? It shows that it is not a Royal park in the sense that Hyde Park is a Royal park. It does not come under the Act of 1810, and it is entirely in the same position as the property of the ordinary Crown lands, and that being so, of course it has to be treated on exactly the same principle. It is only right that the Crown should derive revenue from these lands. It is said that a certain portion of Regent's Park has been for some time thrown open to the public, and it seems to be argued that on this account the remainder of the property should also be thrown open to the public. As a matter of fact it is only within the present century, at any rate, that the public have had the right of entry upon any portion of it whatever; and with regard to the remainder, no portion which is now enclosed and leased to private holders was ever, so far as I understand it, open to the public. So that the present is an entirely fresh demand in respect to Crown lands which have never been open to the public to be thrown open to the public in future. Of course that would raise very serious difficulties between the taxpayers and the Crown. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has stated with perfect correctness what is the history of the arrangement between the Crown and the public with regard to these lands, and it is in the interests of the public that revenue should be derived from Crown lands. The point raised by my hon. friend is, I think, a fair one. He does not say that these lands ought to be given to the public, or the local public, without any consideration being paid, and he admits that a fair price ought to be paid. I understand his argument to be that in the choice of tenants preference should be given to local authorities, or to tenants of a more or less public and representative character. With regard to the houses and grounds surrounding Regent's Park, that question does not now arise, because none of these leases will fall in before the year 1916, or between 1916 and 1930. I have certainly heard of no attempt being made to extend those leases. I think, however, when we do get the opportunity it will be wise for the Com-
    860
    missioners to see how far, without detriment to the revenue of the Crown, the public might have more access to certain portions of Regent's Park. With regard to the Zoological Gardens, I think it will be generally admitted that the throwing open of those gardens conferred a great benefit, and the public derive great advantage from this privilege. In the case of the Botanical Gardens, I understand that the lease will come to an end very shortly—whether next year or the year after I am not quite sure. I think—and it is also the view of the Commissioners—that steps should be taken to see that the public have more interest in that institution in the future than they have had in the past. Hitherto these gardens have been closed to the public altogether, and I do not think that the public have had the right of admission to them even upon payment. I think it would be only a fair condition in any new lease which is granted that admission should be permitted to the public upon the payment of a reasonable sum upon two or three days in each week.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to defend the action of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with reference to the ease of the North Wales Lunatic Asylum. It is not a question of their exacting the market value of this particular plot of ground, because if it went on the market I do not suppose they would ever get a penny for the mineral rights. They discovered that the asylums committee were under the necessity of obtaining this land, and they took advantage of a public necessity in order to exact a sum of money greater than the value of the land. I cannot take the view of the hon. Member for King's Lynn that in any case the Commissioners ought to administer the land under their control as if it were a private estate. That is taking a too narrow and selfish view of their functions. But they have gone beyond what might be expected of a private individual by taking advantage of the necessity of a public institution to exact a large sum of money from a public institution. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to defend such a spirit. I must say, however, that there has been a great improvement within the last few years in the manner in which the

    861
    Commissioners have met the local authorities in Wales, and I regret that they departed from that line of action when they came to deal with the North Wales Asylum Committee. With regard to the statement that the sum of £400 had been offered by the committee, I can hardly think that that is the case. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed, because I hold a copy of a letter written by the clerk to the committee in July, 1898, in which he states that the mineral rights were merely nominal in value, and as far as I can ascertain the committee did not make any offer at all. Any offer that was made was made in the course of negotiations. Possibly the Commissioners said, "We will accept £500," and the committee might have then said, "We will give £400." The right hon. Gentleman is not quite entitled to make use of that as if it were an assessment of value by the North Wales Asylum Committee. Of course, they may have said, "If you insist on it we will offer £400," but not because they valued the mineral rights at £400. Quite the reverse; they valued them at nothing at all. All we can do is to protest against the manner in which the Woods and Forests Commissioners have thought fit to administer public property. With reference to re-afforestation, it is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that common rights are one of the greatest difficulties that the Commissioners have to encounter in trying to carry out this idea of re-afforestation, and I am very much afraid nothing can be done to remove it without legislation. I cannot discuss that question now, but there ought to be no difficulty in carrying through a short Act of Parliament to deal with this particular subject. It is a matter of considerable importance. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this land could very often be put to better use.
    MR. HANBURY: I said a little of it.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This land is absolutely worthless for tilling purposes, but it is admirable for re-afforestation. I cannot help thinking that if the Commissioners were to make experiments in this direction they would confer great benefits, not merely on Wales, but on the whole country. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was some
    862
    difficulty in acquiring land for experiment. Surely that is not the case. Any number of these sheep walks are in the market year after year, and in such cases not merely the land, but the common rights could be acquired. If the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were really determined to make experiments there would be no difficulty in getting land. They have large revenues, and it is a great pity that they do not undertake experiments of this character. They are the only Government Department that can make these experiments, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will press them to be a little more bold in these experiments. I know they have tried something on one farm in Merionethshire, but it is on such a small scale that it is really not worth taking it into account. I think the country would back them up in making experiments on a larger scale.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the North Wales Lunatic Asylums Committee offered a sum of £400 to the Woods and Forests Department. I must say I have never heard of any such offer. It may have been made in the course of negotiations, and under considerable pressure. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the correspondence. On the 7th July, 1898, the clerk to the committee, referring to the interview which the chairman of the committee and I had with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests on the 4th of July, laid before the Commissioners some of the grounds on which the committee believed that the minerals in the area proposed to be conveyed were merely of nominal value. Certainly at the time no offer of £400 had been made.
    MR. HANBURY: The statement which has been placed in my hands is, I am bound to say, by no means explicit on the matter, but I will get the information for the hon. Member. I understood that it was a perfectly voluntary offer on the part of the committee.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I think it is impossible that that could be, because in the letter to which I have referred the committee set forth in detail their objections to paying anything but a nominal sum for the mineral rights, which they contended were practically valueless. The

    863
    right hon. Gentleman has quoted from the report of the mineral agent, but I wish we had definite information from him or from someone else as to the value of these mineral rights. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a single word in contravention of the reasons urged why no charge should be made for them. The only minerals possible in that district are lead, flags, and stone, and any mineral expert can satisfy himself that there is no lead, no flags that would pay to work, no building stone and no road stone of any value. What we want is some evidence that these mineral rights are of any value at all. So far that evidence has not been forthcoming, and I shall have great pleasure in supporting, though for a different reason, the reduction which has been moved by my hon. friend to this Vote, although I should be glad, were it possible, to make a separate and independent protest in reference to this particular case. The correspondence shows that the Woods and Forests Department insisted in a most peremptory way on an immediate answer. The Asylums Committee were given a month to decide, and feeling that they were absolutely and entirely in the hands of the Woods and Forests Department they had no option but to comply with a request which they regarded as most unreasonable, and which was not supported by any evidence whatever. I have been given to understand outside the House that this charge was based on a precedent of a similar charge in some other part of Wales. It is, of course, quite possible that in that part of Wales the charge may have been perfectly justifiable, but in this particular district the committee of the lunatic asylum have been obliged to pay £444 for rights which are absolutely valueless. In fifty years that sum with compound interest will amount to about £2,000, and by that time it will be found that the mineral rights are as valueless as they are now. There are one or two questions I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the policy of the Woods and Forests Department in relation to leases of foreshore. The Report of the Committee issued in 1887 showed that these leases had been granted to individuals at comparatively small rents. For instance, 333 acres were let for £3 per acre. Of course I cannot blame the present Chief Commissioner for these rents, and I am not in any way reflecting
    864
    on him. Then, again, 271 acres were leased at £1 per acre, and 161 acres at £5 per acre. The North Wales coast is becoming more valuable year by year. Watering places are springing up along the coast, and, in fact, one may look forward to the time when the coast will be a continuous row of houses. The foreshore will continue to become more and more valuable, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the policy of the Woods and Forests Department with regard to these leases of the foreshore. Do they invariably offer the leases by public auction, or do they treat with individuals privately? When they are dealing with public authorities do they exact the utmost farthing of what they can obtain by competition in the open market? When an individual offers to take a lease of a portion of the foreshore from the Commissioners is notice given to the nearest local authority in order that they may be able to make a bid for the land in the interest of the public? It is most important, as I need not remind the Committee, that foreshore land should be very carefully dealt with, and in the event of the local authority requiring any portion the Department should have no hesitation in dealing with them generously, having regard to the objects they have in view. On the other hand, if the Department are dealing with a private individual they should see that the utmost possible value is received for the land. Since the year 1881 up to a comparatively recent date the Woods and Forests Department have sold property in Wales to the value of £151,000. It is quite possible it would have been better if the Department had kept that property in hand. The value of the property they have purchased, not including the three farms to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, and which have been recently acquired, amounts only to £2,000, so that practically the Woods and Forests Department have received £150,000 more from Wales than they have invested in Wales. That being the case I venture to say we have a very strong claim indeed in insisting that the Department should reinvest this sum of £150,000 in the re-afforestation of the Welsh hills. That is a fair and just demand, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take it into consideration

    865
    with the other matters to which I have alluded. With regard to the three farms which the right hon. Gentleman said had been acquired by the Department, I would ask him whether they have been acquired for the purpose of planting?
    MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: What is their acreage?
    MR. HANBURY: I cannot tell that.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us when the Vote is next under consideration. I would specially direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the important question I have ventured to raise with reference to the granting of foreshore leases to individuals, and that no leases should be granted without the consent of the local authorities. I thank the Committee for the patience and attention with which they have listened to my remarks, and I hope when the Vote is again under consideration the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a more satisfactory statement with reference to the case of the North Wales Lunatic Asylum Committee. It is too bad that a public institution should be charged such a large sum for mineral rights which are practically worthless. There is a very strong feeling in North Wales on this subject, and the Welsh Members deeply regret the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has assumed towards it.
    MR. CALDWELL: I desire to call attention to the sale of salmon fishing rights in Scotland. In one case the rights were sold for £50, which, as everyone knows, must have been a very poor fishery indeed. It was hardly worth the while of the Government—
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  POST OFFICE SITES [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided
  866
  by Parliament, of all sums payable by the Postmaster General under any Act of the present session to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire Lands for the Public Service, and of all expenses incurred in carrying into effect the Provisions of such Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY [19TH JUNE].
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY [19TH JUNE].

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Transport and Remounts, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,100,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,680,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Clothing Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  *MR. CHANNING: On this resolution I regret I shall have to offer some observations, because unfortunately I was unaware that the Votes would have been run through so quickly on Tuesday. Therefore I must apologise to the House for now offering some observations on behalf of the district I represent on this resolution. We are all aware, from letters which have reached this country from the front, of the complaints—I hope the exaggerated complaints—with reference to the failure of the boots supplied to the troops. I certainly hope that some of these letters were of a picturesque character, and did not really represent the average conditions. I wish, however as representing a district very largely concerned in this question, to draw attention to the reply given by the hon.

  867
  Member opposite to my hon. friend the Member for Leicester, who also represents a district which is interested in this question, in which the hon. Member stated that the boots supplied by the regular Army contractors had shown no more than the usual average of defects which caused the rejection of a small proportion. But, Sir, it is perfectly notorious that in the case of the boots supplied to the Yeomanry and the Volunteers it was found necessary, apparently, to go outside the regular Army contractors, and to obtain supplies from slop shops and middlemen which were of an exceedingly unsatisfactory kind. One of these firms —Messrs. Samuel—have been struck off the list of Army contractors. I think we and all interested in the Yeomanry and Volunteers have a right to insist that they should be looked after as well as the Regular troops, and that the War Office should take over in a systematic way the supply of boots to them. I desire especially to complain of the War Office for not having an adequate supply of boots, and for having been, therefore, compelled to have recourse to manufacturers in India, whose boots were not tested as the boots supplied by the regular British contractors are tested in the Pimlico department. The hon. Gentleman opposite has complained that the hand-sewn industry was dying away in this country, but after several conferences with both manufacturers and artisans in that industry, I must say that the Government, and especially the War Office, have been very short-sighted in their treatment of the hand-sewn industry. They cannot expect this industry to be kept up, in the face of the rise in price of materials and wages, without sufficient inducements both to the manufacturers and the workmen. A complaint was, I believe, made by Lord Roberts as to certain patterns and types of boots being too stiff and uncomfortable for the troops. I wish to point out that the real responsibility rests with the clothing department at Pimlico. It is known to the House that manufacturers are bound down by specifications and regulations which compel them to produce boots of a certain design, and these boots are never rejected by the clothing department because of the design, which in fact has been determined by themselves. I think it is high time that there should be a departmental inquiry into these matters, and that greater elasticity in designs and more
  868
  inventiveness should be encouraged in order that boots of different types might be obtained which would be suited to the various climates and conditions in which our Army is compelled to carry out its operations. I complain, on behalf of the trade in my own constituency, of the unreadiness of the War Office, and their action in rushing to India in order to provide boots for two army corps. At the time this order was sent to India rather less contracts than usual had been given in Northamptonshire, and it was only in January that orders were sent down, when it became necessary to make further provision, and after there had been considerable complaint as to-going to India for a supply of boots. I am assured by experts that the action of the War Office in obtaining these boots from India was exceedingly injudicious, because Indian boots had failed to a very large extent in the Soudan campaign. The boots which really stood the hard wear of the campaign in the Soudan were supplied by Northampton manufacturers, and were specially made with wiring and screws. I am assured that the leather used for the Indian boots is very thin and is inferior in tanning to the leather used in this country. The Indian leather might be used for uppers in this country, but no one would ever dream of using it for the soles of boots intended for hard wear. It seems to me that the failure of the boots described in many of the soldiers' letters from the front may be due to the fact that they were taken from the Indian stores instead of being strong, well-fitted boots, suitable for rough wear in a difficult country like South Africa. It was stated by the War Office, when the first protest was made against the use of boots from India, that that was done because it was not possible to meet all the requirements in the time from the resources of the home trade, and that no question of money influenced the transaction. I do not think that that explanation can be accepted as quite satisfactory. I am assured that all the boots required could easily have been supplied by British manufacturers. I have already pointed out that a smaller number of contracts than usual was given out in the autumn, although war was imminent, and it was not until later that larger contracts were issued. Some complaint' was made that the manufacturers had

  869
  asked too large a price, but the price of leather had risen upwards of 20 per cent. and labour had also risen, and the manufacturers were accordingly entitled to a reasonable increase in price. It was admitted by the hon. Member the Financial Secretary to the War Office that the Indian boots were bought at about the lowest price paid for English boots, and accordingly a considerable saving was effected by the transaction. I would not complain of that if the boots were equal to English boots, but when we are assured by experts that these boots were much inferior and were not suitable for active service in a rough country, I think the responsibility was very considerable and the policy of saving very unsatisfactory. I should like to ask how it was that this country was not provided with a sufficient supply of boots for this campaign, and that India had such a large stock ready. That seems very extraordinary. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide!] If hon. Members are impatient they should remember I represent one of the districts chiefly interested in this industry. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office how far the statement in the Shoe and Leather Record, to the effect that there was no question that all the boots required could have been supplied by the county of Northampton, and that twopence per pair was the actual amount which divided the parties, represents the facts. These Indian boots were not subjected to any of the tests applied to English boots, and I think it is only reasonable to insist that when the War Office is compelled to have recourse to outside sources similar tests should be imposed. The Government ought to have had a sufficient supply available, and failing that, they ought at least to have made sure that the boots obtained to make up the deficiency should be submitted to the same tests as English boots. In conclusion, it seems to me to be plainly the duty of the War Office to conduct an inquiry into the best type of boot for our troops, and that they should also institute some intelligible and workable system of securing an adequate and satisfactory supply of boots for all branches—the Yeomanry and Volunteers as well as the Regular troops—in order that the scandals we have heard of in the present campaign should be impossible in the future, and that contractors who engage in this work should be given fair treatment.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,: We have now had the advantage of hearing the speech which the hon. Gentleman was unavoidably prevented from delivering on Tuesday last, and I feel I can best consult the wishes of hon. Members by making a very brief reply. The hon. Member expressed his concern as to reports regarding the failure of the boots supplied to the troops, but in a report received from Sir Redvers Buller on 13th March he stated that, on the whole, he considered that the clothing and equipment of the men had worn well, and that that was especially the case as regards the boots, which had been subjected to an exceptionally hard test, owing to constant wear and the stony nature of the country in which the operations took place. The hon. Member next expressed his regret that we had not an adequate supply of boots at the beginning of the war. We have sent to South Africa over 200,000 men, and in addition to the boots the men took with them, we have sent out 374,000 pairs of boots. I have listened to many debates in this House, but I have never heard it suggested that we should keep 500,000 pairs of boots as a precaution against the possibility of warlike operations. In buying Army boots there were three things to be considered—excellence of material, expedition in delivery, and cost. The cost comes last, and promptness in delivery comes first, and I will not apologise for one moment because we did order 60,000 pairs of boots from India. It is not true that those boots were not inspected. They were taken from stores in India and were all inspected before being stored. They were the boots worn during the mountainous campaign in the Tirah, and so far from being condemned during the operations on the Nile, they were specially praised by Lord Kitchener after the campaign. Since we ordered these boots from India we have ordered 550,000 pairs in England. I think the House will feel I have already trespassed two-long on its time in discussing this matter.
  Resolution agreed to.
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment

  871
  during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  5 "That a sum, not exceeding £2,670,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Staff for Engineer Services, and Expenditure for Royal Engineer Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad (including Purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901.
  6 "That a sum, not exceeding £113,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  7 "That a sum, not exceeding £66,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Sundry Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  8 "That a sum, not exceeding £1,611,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers and others, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,379,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals and the In-Pensioners thereof, of Out-Pensions, of the Maintenance of Lunatics for whom Pensions are not drawn, and of Gratuities awarded in Commutation and in lieu of Pensions, of Rewards for Meritorious Services, of Victoria Cross Pensions, and of Pensions to the Widows and Children of Warrant Officers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  10. "That a sum, not exceeding £186,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  CLASS VI.
  11. "That a sum, not exceeding £284,058, be granted to Her Majesty, to
  872
  complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes for Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."
  12 "That a sum, not exceeding £1,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for certain Pensions to Masters and Seamen of the Merchant Service, and to their Widows and Children."
  13 "That a sum, not exceeding £725, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for certain Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances."

  CLASS VII.
  14 "That a sum, not exceeding £9,452, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries."
  15 "That a sum, not exceeding £1,370, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
  16. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Royal Commission for the British Section at the Paris International Exhibition, 1900."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Adjourned at half after Twelve of the clock, till Monday next.

The Viscount Clancarty (E. Clancarty) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Farnworth Urban District Council.

Gas Light and Coke, Commercial Gas, and South Metropolitan Gas Companies.

Halifax Corporation.

Huddersfield Corporation Tramways.

Jarrow and Hebburn Electricity Supply.

Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway.

Lambeth Water.

London and Saint Katherine Docks and East and West India Dock Companies.

Mid-Kent Water.

Portland Urban District Gas.

Southport and Lytham Tramroad.

Wandsworth and Putney Gas.

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 1).

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:—

South Metropolitan Gas.

Metropolitan District Railway.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ROE'S PATENT BILL [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for Roe's Patent Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the Alexandra Park Bill ought to be dispensed with.
  Read, and agreed to.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 3rd and 28th of May last discharged; and Bill committed.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  HAMILTON BURGH BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
ILFRACOMBE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
COWES PIER BILL [H.L.]
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MOTHERWELL WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  (Bootle Corporation, Radcliffe Urban District Council, and St. Helens Corporation Orders opposed.)
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
  Batley Corporation, Camborne and Redruth, East Ham Urban District Council, Hull Corporation, Portobello and Musselburgh, and Southampton Corporation Orders opposed. )

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
  (Garston and Warrington Corporation Orders opposed.)
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz:—

  D. Northumberland (chairman);

  M. Camden,

  E. Lindsey,

  V. Frankfort de Montmorency, L.

  Saye and Sele;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, at Eleven o'clock, and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Ordered that Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 82 be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAI-ORDERS (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.4) BILL [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PETERSHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1890 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Report by the Board of Trade respecting the applications to and proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890, during the past year.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Two Orders, Nos. 6092 and 6106, dated the 16th ultimo and 16th instant respectively, revoking certain Orders of the Board relating to the landing of foreign animals.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee (with proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 119). Bill reported with Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 118.)
  LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments to be printed. (No. 120.)
  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord James of Hereford.) (No. 121.)

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Kinnaird to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Viscount Frankfort de Mont-morency to the Standing Committee for the consideration of the Military Lands Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived. Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with. Bill read 3a, and passed.

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, as I fully explained the objects of this Bill in moving its First Reading, I propose to formally move that it be read a second time; but I shall be glad to give any further information which may be desired as to the provisions of the measure.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  LORD MONKSWELL: In Clause 2 of this Bill there is another instance of legislation by reference. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has considered the wording of Clause 2. It alters in certain particulars quite a short sub-section of Section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and I would suggest that it would be well to incorporate the sub-section instead of referring to it.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will gladly consider the suggestion of the noble Lord, but I would point out that this is certainly not a case of referential legislation of the kind to which he called attention last night.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I quite understand that. What I complain of is that there is nothing in this Act which shows what the nature of the alteration is.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I do not propose to offer any further opposition to this Bill; but I think it right, in view of what was said on the Second Reading by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davey, to inform your Lordships that the opinions expressed by the Colonial delegates, which I quoted, are to be found in a Parliamentary Paper. The conference was initiated by Mr. Stanhope in 1887, and held in the following year, and a great number of colonies were represented. Their discussions are published, and noble Lords can convince themselves by looking at the Paper that the statement I made was quite correct— namely, that the representative of Canada and one or two others expressed the opinion that, while they wished their own law to be what they desired it to be in this respect, they quite recognised the reasonableness of this country keeping to its own law of inheritance.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  IMITATION OF COUNTY COURT PROCESS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill to amend the law with regard to the imitation of County Court process, and is rendered necessary by people doing such things as placing the Royal Arms at the head of documents demanding the payment of debts, and in various other ways imitating County Court process. This practice is a serious thing to the most ignorant of the population, and is attended with considerable iniquity. Of course it is an offence which may be proceeded against by a more serious and lengthy process, but the complicated nature of this process practically prevents the law being put in force. The Bill before your Lordships gives more summary powers, It enacts that—
  "If any person, with intent to deceive, issues any document in imitation of or resembling the process of a County Court, or entitled so as to resemble County Court process, he shall be liable, on the order of a Judge of County Courts, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and in default of payment of the fine the Judge may commit him to any prison to which he has power to commit offenders for any time not exceeding fourteen days, unless the said fine be sooner paid."
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): I have no doubt that every one of your Lordships who has considered this question will entirely concur with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it is most desirable that such a measure as this should be passed to prevent the imitation of County Court process in the way described. I have received representations from the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland asking that the benefits of this legislation should be extended to that country. I have read the Bill, and so far as I can see it does extend to Ireland; but if there is any doubt on that point I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will consider it at a later stage.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this is a very simple Bill. Its object is to obviate the unnecessary examinations which county surveyors in Ireland have to undergo. At the present time, if a county surveyor is transferred from one county to another, he has to pass his qualifying examination a second time. This Bill is drawn at the request of the Civil Service Commissioners for the purpose of obviating this unnecessary examination.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock, to Mon-day next, a quarter before. Eleven of the clock.