Sitting of 2 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Llandrindod Wells Water Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
GLASTONBURY AND STREET GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL (BY ORDER).
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. LOUGH (): As the points I desire to raise can be best considered when the Bill has been read a second time, and when I come to move the Instruction standing in my name, I will not, therefore, move the rejection of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.
MR. LOUGHsaid he did not desire to take any objection to the main object of this Bill, but he wanted to secure some improvement in one fundamental clause. The object of the Bill was to promote the construction of no fewer than twenty-eight tramways in South Lancashire, thereby practically joining up the tramway lines between Liverpool and Manchester. He did not object to the scheme, and, indeed, he was in favour of these undertakings, but the clause which it had been the practice to insert in all these Bills since 1869 with regard to cheap fares for the working classes is somewhat altered in this Bill and did not give all the usual facilities. Since 1869, when the clause was originally drafted, the conditions of traction had greatly changed, and he thought that much greater, and not less, facilities might now be given to the labouring classes. The 1869 clause provided that at least two cars should be run daily each way for the benefit of the working classes. This Bill only proposed that one car should be run. What he wanted to secure by his Instruction was that the faults of the clause of 1869 should be put right. One of those faults was that the maximum price charged was
1512
too high. Then there was a limit imposed in the clause that no fare of less than one penny should be allowed. On almost every tramway—especially in London and Glasgow—halfpenny fares were now charged, and if the clause were inserted in its present form it would not only do the working classes no good, but it might prevent the owners of tramways from giving facilities which they might think were desirable. But the greatest objection of all to the clause was that there was no means of enforcing it. For these reasons he moved the Instruction, which, he understood, would be favourably entertained by the promoters of the Bill. He commended it to their consideration, and also to that of the President of the Board of Trade, who had done so much useful work in securing for railway companies improved facilities for working-men's trains. He trusted the Board of Trade would take this opportunity of making representations before the Committee to which the Bill was sent, with a view to the framing of a clause which would secure these much-desired facilities. He begged to move "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire whether it is desirable that penalties should be inserted in Clause 56 of the Bill (Cheap fares for the labouring classes), to secure compliance with the objects of the clause, and whether the clause should be amended in respect of the maximum fare charged, the sufficiency in number, and the hours at which the cars shall be run."
MR. SCHWANN ()congratulated the promoters of the Bill not opposing this Instruction. The measure certainly did not comply with the demands which for some years past had been successfully made upon tramway undertakings. All were agreed that there should be at least two trams run morning and evening for the benefit of the working classes, in order to enable them to live outside the towns and cities, and away from the contaminations inseparable from town life. This Bill only ottered one! In other Bills before the House that day the promoters had, of their own motion, extended their systems of cheap trams by running them up till 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m., instead of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. as offered, and he thought similar benefits might be included

1513
in this Bill. It must be remembered that trams possessed a certain amount of monopoly in regard to street traffic, and in return the interests, therefore, of the working classes and the poorer classes of the community should be carefully guarded. He would like to see a reduction of fares to ¼ d. per mile, which he believed would allow an adequate return to the company, but no fare to be less than ½ d.; and he was further desirous that uniform fares should prevail throughout the combined tram systems. He regretted to notice the absence of a penalty clause in regard to these matters. Such a clause, in his opinion, was absolutely necessary, for it would not do to trust entirely to the Christian feelings of shareholders and directors. He was glad to think the President of the Board of Trade sympathised with the endeavour to secure cheap tram fares for working men.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire whether it is desirable that penalties should be inserted in Clause 56 of the Bill (Cheap fares for the labouring classes) to secure compliance with the objects of the clause; and whether the clause should be amended in respect of the maximum fare charged, the sufficiency in number, and the hours at which the cars shall be run.—(Mr. Lough.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): When the hon. Gentleman opposite first put the Instruction down it was in a somewhat different form. It was, in fact, an Instruction to the Committee to insert a particular clause, and I intimated that I could not support it, as I did not think it right for the House to give such an instruction. The Committee ought to have the opportunity of hearing the evidence for and against, and of judging for themselves. But in the form in which it now appears on the Paper I see no difficulty in the matter, and I am glad to hear that the promoters of the Bill also see no objection to it. The Committee will now have complete power to deal with the clause, and to adopt it either as it stands or with such modifications as they may, after hearing evidence, think desirable. There is no doubt that since the model clause was drawn up, thirty years ago, the condition of things has changed very greatly, and much greater
1514
interest is taken in the accommodation for working men going to and from their work. Great strides have been made in this matter in connection with railways, and greater strides will, I hope, be made in the future. It is only right now that the Committee should consider whether the facilities given for this purpose in the model tramway clause are sufficient for the present demands, and if they think, as probably they will, that some modification of the clause is desirable, they will have the opportunity of doing it. Any assistance the Board of Trade can give in reference to this matter would be given, and I hope the result will be satisfactory to those who are desirous of increasing these facilities, and will not be to the injury of the promoters.
SIR J. A. WILLOX ()said he desired to explain that, in the particular circumstances of this Bill, the promoters did not think the ordinary scale of charges was altogether applicable, because the lines ran through country districts. However, the promoters had perfect confidence in being able to explain their position before the Committee. While they were willing to give reasonable facilities to the working men, they felt sure that Parliament would not impose upon them any unfair or unreasonable conditions. The system contemplated by the measure was one for connecting a large number of comparatively small towns, with considerable intervals of country between them, and consequently it would be exceedingly inconvenient for the general traffic if, as had been proposed, there should be workmen's trams run morning, noon, and evening, at rates that would be, probably, of an unremunerative nature, under the circumstances. But he would like to point out that the company promoting this measure had been, in his judgment at any rate, exceptionally liberal in dealing with this matter, because they had fixed their maximum fares for all passengers at one penny per mile, while, for the working classes, morning and evening, they undertook to run a tram service at one halfpenny per mile. Then, as regarded the question of penalty, there was a clause in the Bill giving the Board of Trade power to inflict penalties if a reasonable service was not maintained, so that to a certain extent the aims of the advocates of the Instruction were met. The

1515
company hoped to be able to show by evidence before the Committee that the provisions of the Bill were reasonable and adequate. They did not desire to impose any restrictions or interpose difficulties in the way of the working classes having a cheap and ready access between their working places and their dwelling houses. In regard to that matter, the measure had received the support practically of the whole of the local authorities in the districts through which the tramways proposed to run, and he thought they might be sure that those local authorities had looked at the proposals of the Bill with careful attention to the interests of the community. The wish of the promoters of the measure was to afford the most ample facilities for traffic, feeling assured that that was the best way, not only to satisfy the community but to serve their own interests. In that spirit he was authorised to say the promoters of the Bill readily accepted the Instruction, conscious that the decision come to by the Committee would be fair, and equally in the interests of the public and the shareholders of the company.
Question put, and agreed to.

AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE TRAMWAYS BILL (BY ORDER). [SECOND READING.]
Bill read second time, and committed.
MR. LOUGHsaid the Instruction to the Committee which he had to move in reference to this Bill was in a somewhat different form to the one which dealt with the South Lancashire trams, but that was due to the fact that in this case the promoters had made satisfactory provisions as to the hours during which working-class trams should be run.
Motion made and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire whether it is desirable that penalties should be inserted in Clause 51 of the Bill (Cheap fares for labouring classes) to secure compliance with the objects of the clause; and whether the clause should be amended in respect of the maximum fare charged and the sufficiency in number of the cars.—(Mr. Lough.)
MR. JOHN WILSON ()said this Bill was very anxiously
1516
desired by the people of Airdrie, and was. supported by the corporation, which had carefully examined the clauses in the public interest, and had secured certain concessions as to hours, etc. They were now satisfied with the clause as it stood, and he therefore hoped the House would not deem it necessary to give this particular Instruction to the Committee. Although the promoter's would not like to formally oppose it, he did hope the hon. Member for Islington would not press it.
Question put, and agreed to.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. STRACHEY ()said he would only formally move the rejection of this Bill. He would not have opposed it at all had it not been for the position taken up by the Government in regard to. his Instruction. He did not understand why the Government desired to oppose the Instruction, especially as it had been agreed to by his hon. friends the Member for Taunton and the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset, two of the backers of the Bill. He might also state that he had received a telegram from the town clerk of Taunton approving of it Although the Instruction appeared on. the Paper for the first time that day, it was by no means a new one, for it had appeared in another form for some days on the Paper. He begged formally to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Strachey.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL. GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The reason for my opposition is this. The clause, as it stands in the Bill, represents an arrange-

1517
merit assented to by the Chamber of Agriculture and the Municipal Corporations Association with the Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board last session, and in that form the clause was inserted in a great number of Bills. The clause embodied in the Instruction of my hon. friend was rejected by the Police and Sanitary Committee last session, hut subsequently inserted in the Leeds Bill in another place. I desire this Bill to be read a second time, but I wish to have a further opportunity of considering the Instruction before I consent to the upsetting of the agreement arrived at by the various bodies I have named last session. I do not say that I intend to oppose it, but I do think the Police and Sanitary Committee should have some opportunity of considering it, and therefore I shall hope to further deal with the Instruction when it is proposed later on.
COLONEL WELBY ()said he quite concurred with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, and he hoped there would be no objection raised to the passing of the Bill.
MR. STRACHEYthereupon asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, but ventured to remind the Secretary to the Local Government Board that he was quite mistaken in thinking that the compromise of last year was intended to apply to future Bills. It was merely a compromise with regard to the Bills of last session.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to provide in Part III. of the Bill that the powers of the Corporation and their officers to inspect cows and dairies outside the Borough be not exercised without the previous order of two Justices sitting in Petty Sessions, and having jurisdiction in the district wherein the dairy is situate, and that such order: be not made unless the said Justices are satisfied that the local authority of the said district has not already dealt with the case."—(Mr. Strachey.)
Debate arising,
Debate adjourned till Tuesday.

LLANDRINDOD WELLS WATER.
Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  CYPRUS (LOCUST DESTRUCTION FUND PART APPROPRIATION LAW, 1898).
  Petition from Larnaca, for redress of grievances; to be upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Aberavon; and Rochester; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Wortley and Earnley; Birley; Clayton West; Dodworth; Barrow; Old Silkstone; Bretby; Granville; Donisthorpe; Hall; Church Gresley: Aldwarke; and Naden Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF WOODLANDS.
  Petition from Neath, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY HILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Northfleet, and Gravesend; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Luffenham, Sheffield, South Hiendley, Abergavenny, and Blackpool; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Grantown, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS.
  Petition from Saddleworth, for alteration of Law: to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (MILITARY WORKS).
  Copy presented, of Approximate Estimate of Expenditure under the Barracks Act, 1890, and Military Works Acts, 1897 and 1899 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TRANSPORT—THE EIGHTH DIVISION.
  MR. WARNER (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is causing the delay in providing transports to convey the Eighth Division to South Africa. In putting the question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the discrepancy between previous statements made by the First Lord and the Under Secretary for War upon the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD OK THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): There was no discrepancy whatever. The Under Secretary for War said the troops would go as soon as possible. That remains the fact now as then. The interpretation put upon that answer was that the troops are waiting for transports. That is not the case. A requisition came a few days ago and arrangements were at once made with the War Office.
  MR. WARNER: What, then, was the cause of the delay?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The delay was in taking the decision to send the. Division out.

  TRANSPORT—SALT BEEF RATIONS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, on inquiry, he has found that casks of salt beef marked "1893" were, in fact, shipped for the rations of troops going to South Africa, and so giving ground for the complaint that the beef was hard and over salted.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): 1,842 lb. of beef of the date "1893" have been returned from the "Kildonan
  1520
  Castle." I must therefore apologise to my right hon. friend for making a statement. on the subject yesterday which was not correct. No beef of that date was supplied to any other transport from which complaints have been received. I made inquiries on that point by telegraph yesterday. The complaint that the beef was hard as regards the "Kildonan Castle" did not come from the commanding officer of the "Kildonan Castle."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Did complaints come from the "Englishman"?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I will tell my right hon. friend after inquiry.

  MILITIA RE-ENLISTMENT BOUNTIES.
  MR. WARNER (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the £22 offered to old. soldiers to serve for one year at home is. offered also to old soldiers now in the Militia; and, if so, if those old soldiers in the Militia now serving in South Africa will be able to get the £22 by joining the Regular Army.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,, for Mr. Wyndham): The bounty is not offered to old soldiers now serving in the Militia, whether at home or abroad.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—TREATMENT AT COLCHESTER CAMP.
  MAJOR RASCH (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the arrival of the 51st Company of Imperial Yeomanry at Colchester Camp on 22nd February, no quarters or accommodation were ready for them; and that, after waiting for some hours, they had to provide food at their own expense, and sleep on the floor of the artillery barracks or in the public-houses of the neighbourhood.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No, Sir. The facts are not at all as suggested in the question. The company arrived at Colchester on the 16th February, and not the 22nd, as stated. In consequence of the miscarriage of a telegram the 51st Company arrived without having sent in

  1521
  advance to secure billets. The staff at Colchester made every effort to house the men, and billets could have been ready for them by 8 p.m., but they preferred to sleep in barracks, where every man had a bedstead and three or four blankets, with a fire in each room. The men were provided with money in lieu of rations, which they were in the habit of finding for themselves. The officer commanding the company thanked the staff at Colchester for the arrangements made for his men at such short notice.

  ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, NETLEY—MEDICAL CORPS—HOURS OF DUTY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Army Medical Corps are on duty for long hours in attendance upon sick and wounded at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, he will consider the advisability of organising a special staff of night orderlies, who would be excused day duty, as in all large civil hospitals, in order that the sick or wounded soldier may be at least as well attended to as the civilian patient.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The question has been very carefully considered, and in view of the number of experienced men of the Medical Staff Corps who have applied to re-enlist and by whose help the pressure will be greatly diminished, it is not thought expedient to form the special staff suggested.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—EX-SOLDIERS AND THE RESERVE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state whether ex-soldiers in the Metropolitan Police Force will be permitted to join the Reserve battalions about to be formed under the same conditions as other ex-soldiers; and whether they will be allowed to return to their police duties at the expiration of the twelve months, without detriment as regards pay, promotion, and pension.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): A metropolitan police constable could not as the law stands join the Reserve batta-
  1522
  lions without ceasing to be a member of the force. Very heavy demands have been made on the strength of the force by the calling out of the Reservists. In my opinion its maintenance in sufficient strength is necessary for the protection of the public, and I am, therefore, not disposed to recommend any change in the law.

  INFANTRY OFFICERS—CONDITIONS OF REJOINING.
  MR. LYTTELTON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether an infantry officer, who resigned his commission without retired pay or gratuity, but afterwards voluntarily joined the Reserve of Officers, and in the present emergency is permitted to rejoin the service at his depot, at the bottom of the list of his rank in his regiment, will be allowed to remain in the service until he be compulsorily retired in the usual course, as if he were serving under his original commission.
  MR. J. POWELL - WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Retired officers are for the present only being employed temporarily. Whether any of them will be permanently retained must depend on the course of events. No definite statement can be made now.

  RIFLE RANGES—SHREWSBURY RACECOURSE.
  MR. H. D. GREENE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to acquire Shrewsbury racecourse or adjacent land for military purposes, or for the purposes of rifle ranges; and whether the use of the lands mentioned can be made available for the Shropshire Yeomanry trainings without charge.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Nothing is known of any proposal in this direction either at the War Office or in the district.

  WOOLWICH AND ENFIELD FACTORIES—PAY OF FOREMEN.
  VAPTAIN BOWLES (): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what arrangement has been made for extra pay to the principal

  1523
  foremen employed at Woolwich and Enfield in consideration of the continuous overtime now being worked at those factories.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Principal foremen and some other grades in the ordnance factories and kindred establishments are considered to have rates of pay which in ordinary times cover any necessary overtime. The present juncture is, however, recognised as being beyond that contemplated in their rates of pay, and although it may not be expedient to grant them overtime, the grant of a gratuity in recognition of their extra services will be considered.

  SALISBURY PLAIN MANOEUVRING GROUNDS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government had notice that any of the land purchased by the War Office on Salisbury Plain is settled property and as such liable to estate duty on the death of the present tenants for life; whether they have taken into consideration the fact that in those circumstances the estate duty is, under Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1894, a first charge on the property; whether any provision has been made whereby any such duties that may be chargeable on the property have been commuted and paid in such a way as to release the property from the first charge in question, and, if no such release has been effected, can he say which of the properties purchased still remain liable to pay estate duty; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any, and, if so, what stops to relieve them from the first charge upon them thence arising.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Her Majesty's Government had notice that some of the land purchased by the War Office on Salisbury Plain was settled property at the time when they bought it, but the War Office was advised that inasmuch as the land ceased to be settled property when it was sold, it would not be liable to estate duty on the death of the present tenants for life, and that such duty would be payable exclusively out of the proceeds of sale. Consequently, there was no duty which it was necessary for the War Office to get commuted or to
  1524
  obtain relief from. If the death of a tenant for life had occurred after the passing of the Finance Act, 1894, and before the purchase, a different case would have arisen. The fact would have been disclosed in the evidence of title produced by the vendors, and arrangements made accordingly. But no such case has arisen with regard to this property.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Did the hon. Gentleman's legal adviser advise him that the fact of the purchase money being chargeable with the duty relieved the land from the effect of Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1894?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have given the legal advice exactly as it was given to the Secretary of State, and upon which he intends to proceed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the liability in addition to and not in substitution of?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The legal advice we have is exactly the contrary.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS—WAR OFFICE TENDERS.
  MR. MCKENNA (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary to the War Office whether he will grant the Return which stands No. 4 on the Paper to-day.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The notice only appeared on the Paper this morning, and I have not yet had time to ascertain whether or not the data on which the Return would be founded are available. I must therefore ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until Tuesday. I do not think he will lose much by that, as, according to the best information I can get, the Return, if granted, would contain only the single word "nil."
  MR. MCKENNA: I will put the question again on Tuesday.

  NAVY—PERIODS OF SERVICE.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the percentage of men who, in each of the years 1897,

  1525
  1898, and 1899 completed the full period of service of twelve years, and left the service instead of re-engaging in the following branches of the naval service respectively, namely, Royal Navy Executive branch, Royal Navy Engineer branch, Royal Marine Artillery, and Royal Marine Light Infantry.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The percentages are as follows:—Seamen class: 1897-98, 34 per cent.; 1898-99, 34 per cent.; 1899-1900, not available. Stoker class: 1897-98, 14 percent.; 1898-99, 14 percent.; 1899-1900, not available. Royal Marines: 1897, 59 per cent., actual number discharged 243; 1898, 44 per cent., actual number discharged 182; 1899, 39 per cent., actual number discharged 163.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Can the right hon. Gentleman differentiate between the infantry and the artillery?
  MR. GOSCHEN: If I can I will.

  MEDITERRANEAN FLEET AND CHANNEL SQUADRON—LENGTH OF OFFICERS' SERVICE.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the length of service of each of the flag officers now serving in the Mediterranean Fleet and Channel Squadron from the date of promotion to lieutenant to the date of first hoisting their flags after promotion to flag rank; and how much of that service was spent in sea-going ships.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is impossible to give a fair account of the service of the respective admirals inquired about by a simple answer to the question. The only answer which would give a correct impression would be an enumeration of their successive important services, and that would form a list too long for a reply across the Table.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the length of time spent as commissioned officers in ships of war by the senior gunnery lieutenant and the senior engineer, marine artillery, and marine infantry officers who are now serving in the Mediterranean Fleet and Channel Squadron respectively.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The service of the following commissioned officers in ships of war is as follows:—Mediter-
  1526
  ranean Fleet—senior gunnery lieutenants, sixteen years five months; Marine Artillery officer, eight years seven months. Channel Squadron—senior gunnery lieutenant, twelve years seven months; Marine Light Infantry officer, ten years eight months. The senior engineers mentioned in the question of my hon. and gallant friend are of higher rank and much longer seniority than that of gunnery lieutenant and major of marines, and consequently should not be compared with them. They are fleet engineers. Their services in sea-going ships are twenty - eight and twenty - six years respectively.

  MAURITIUS—CENTRAL AFRICA BATTALION.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office and the military authorities are exclusively responsible for the despatch to Mauritius of the Central Africa battalion.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Secretary of State for War accepts all responsibility for sending the battalion of British Central African Rifles to the Mauritius.

  FERNANDO PO—TREATMENT OF LAGOS NATIVES.
  MR. BUCHANAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information with regard to the alleged ill-treatment of certain Lagos natives, British subjects, at Fernando Po; whether all of them were brought back to Lagos by the steamer "Volta," and whether he will take steps for the protection of any that remain: what were the terms of the labour contract under which these natives were hired by the Congo agent; and whether the colonial authorities exercise any supervision over the terms of such labour contracts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no information as to this case, but in consequence of reports from Fernando Po on the treatment there of labourers from British colonies I am directing the Governors of the West African possessions to prohibit recruiting

  1527
  for service in that island. I have no doubt that the British Consular Agent will see to the protection of any Lagos labourers who may still be in the island. The Colonial Government has legislative power to prohibit or to permit, on such conditions as it thinks fit, recruiting of labourers for a foreign country, but I am not aware what the terms of the contract were in the present case.

  BRITISH SOUDAN AND ABYSSINIAN BOUNDARY.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the existing boundary between the territory claimed by the Negus and the British Soudan and British East Africa; and whether any proposals have been made to confine the British Soudan on the side of Abyssinia to the watershed of the Nile.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The question of the Abyssinian boundaries is still the subject of negotiations between King Menelek and Her Majesty's Agent at Adis Ababa, and I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to them at the present moment.

  ZANZIBAR AND PEMBA—SLAVERY.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS (Notts,): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the last information in Parliamentary Paper "Africa, No. 8, 1899," respecting slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba, is dated March and April of last year, further Papers of more recent date can now be laid before Parliament.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. Papers on the subject will be laid.

  AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Australian Federation Bill will be introduced before Easter, and if not when it will be introduced.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No date can be named for the introduction of the Bill until I have had the advantage of
  1528
  meeting the Australian delegates now on their way to this country; but it will probably not be introduced until after Easter.

  POSTMEN-FINES FOR LATE ATTENDANCES.
  MR. STEADMAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, under what conditions fines are levied on postmen for late attendance; and whether the men have a voice in their disposal; if so, will the Department officially notify the fact.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The scale is as follows:—For each late attendance exceeding two minutes and not exceeding fifteen minutes, 3d.; and for every additional fifteen minutes or part of fifteen, an additional 3d., up to sixty minutes. Beyond this each case is dealt with specially. Subject to the approval of the Postmaster General, the proceeds are devoted by the local postmaster, at his discretion, to the following objects:—(1) Some charitable or benevolent institution for the general benefit of Post Office servants; (2) local institutions of benefit to the staff; (3) relief of members of the local staff who through no fault of their own are in necessitous circumstances; (4) temporary relief in cases of distress among widows and orphans of deceased members of the staff. The postmaster is at liberty to consult his staff as to the disposal of the fund, but the decision rests with himself.
  MR. STEADMAN: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that until within the last two or three years the fines were distributed among the men who kept regular time: and, if that were so, is it not right that they should have a voice in the selection of the charitable institutions to which the money is now given.
  MR. HANBURY: My information is that the funds have always been devoted to the purposes I have mentioned. I may be wrong. I will inquire.

  WEST INDIAN MAILS—THE "TAGUS."
  MR. BRODIE HOARE (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General,

  1529
  whether he is aware that the West India mail steamer "Tagus" arrived at Plymouth with the mails at 7.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th February; and that the mails were not delivered in London till 3.30 p.m. on Thursday: and can he explain the delay and give an assurance that steps will be taken to prevent similar delay in future.
  MR. HANBURY: The "Tagus" arrived in Plymouth Sound on Wednesday last only in time to admit of the mails brought by her being landed by 8.30 p.m. By that time the night mail train for London had left Plymouth, and the mails were sent on by early morning train reaching London shortly after midday. In the City the letters, etc., were sent out by the 2.5 p.m. delivery, but in some parts of London they were not delivered until 3.30 p.m. To have secured earlier delivery would have involved the use of a special train. The principle governing the employment of special trains for the conveyance from Plymouth of mails landed at that port is, as has been more than once explained in this House in answer to similar questions, to use special trains when by such means and no other an interval for reply by the next outgoing mail can be afforded. The present of course was not such a case, There was in fact an interval of a week for reply.

  PARCELS INSURANCE TO CAPE COLONY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will take steps to extend the system of insurance of parcels to those parcels sent per parcel post to Cape Colony.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has already taken such steps as are possible; but, the colony not being yet prepared for the scheme, it cannot be carried out at present. So soon as the Cape Post Office is empowered by colonial legislation to accept the principle of responsibility for loss, the system of insurance can be applied without any delay so far as the Imperial Post Office is concerned.

  POST OFFICE STAMP CONTRACTS.
  MR. HENNIKEE HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as
  1530
  representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that this is the only country in the Empire that refuses to Members of Parliament information regarding contracts such as the price paid for the supply of postage stamps per million; whether he is aware that the British Post Office has already furnished hon. Members with information as to the cost per thousand of postal orders; and under what law or regulation he declines to disclose particulars of the contract with De la Rue and Company.
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. Even if the cost of postal orders has been published, about which I have some doubt, the two cases are not analogous. Stamps are used for both postal and inland revenue purposes, and the preparation of them in such a manner is to make obliteration whether by the postal stamp or ordinary inks permanent is a trade secret. My hon. friend does not seem to be aware that in the case of stamps only the actual colouring and printing is done by the contractor.

  SUPERANNUATION FUNDS-EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX.
  MR. H. P. PEASE (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that income tax is not charged on life assurance premiums, he will consider the advisability of making a similar arrangement in connection with money paid in subscriptions to superannuation funds.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Exemption from income tax is already allowed in respect of subscriptions to superannuation funds which are paid compulsorily under an Act of Parliament, and are not returnable to the contributors under any contingency whatever. I do not think there is sufficient reason for further extension of the limits of this exemption, which, moreover, would give rise to great difficulty in practice.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE—HOLIDAY REGULATIONS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with regard to

  1531
  the statements made by the Committee on the Central Telegraph Office to the staff representatives, whether he will examine the minutes of evidence, and ascertain whether an express undertaking was given that in the event of the proposals of the Committee being accepted holidays should be chosen by seniority and spread equally over the whole year; whether he will examine the present arrangements, and ascertain whether they conform to such an undertaking; and whether he will direct that the undertaking be carried out.
  MR. HANBURY: It was the intention of the Committee that the choice of leave should continue to be according to seniority, but no undertaking, either express or otherwise, was given that the holidays should be spread equally over the whole year, or even over the leave period. Great difficulty, however, was experienced in recasting the whole of the arrangements for so large a force in time to confine the leave within the best eight months of the present year, and it was necessary to ask seventy-nine of the older telegraphists out of a staff of about 2,000 to take their holiday in the earlier part of the leave season instead of in the latter part. One part is practically as good as the other, and any one of the seventy-nine desiring to exchange will no doubt be able to do so. Next year it will, it is hoped, be possible to allow every officer without exception to choose by seniority, but due regard will, of course, have to be paid to the requirements of the public service.

  HYDE PARK—POLICE BARRACKS.
  MR. SCHWANN (): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether a house is being built on the north side of the Serpentine, in Hyde Park, near the Humane Society's house, and by whom is it to be occupied; and whether it is desirable to increase the number of houses in the Park, seeing that a group of four or five houses already exists in that quarter, and each new one adds to the smoke and diminishes the rural character of the scene.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The old barrack in Hyde Park, which has been occupied by the
  1532
  Metropolitan Police, is about to be replaced by a new building. Meanwhile, the police authorities are erecting, for the accommodation of the police during the rebuilding, the temporary structure alluded to by the hon. Member. It is not proposed to increase the number of houses in the Park.

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN (Suffolk, Wood-bridge): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can now see his way to relax to some extent the restrictions it has been necessary to impose upon a large area in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk on account of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I think that as from Monday next the area of the scheduled district may with safety be somewhat reduced, and that facilities. for the movement of animals for breeding purposes may at the same time be afforded in certain parts of the district. The necessary order will be gazetted to-day. The areas from which the restrictions will be wholly withdrawn consist of the petty sessional division of North Erpingham in the county of Norfolk, and the petty sessional divisions of Blything, Hartismere, Hoxne, and Framlingham, together with the municipal boroughs of Aldeburgh, Eye, and Southwold, in the county of East Suffolk.

  THE CIRCUIT SYSTEM.
  MR. COGHILL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether at the recent assizes at Haverfordwest Mr. Justice Bucknill was presented with a pair of white gloves; whether at Hereford the whole business of the assizes was concluded in less than one hour; whether at several other towns on the different circuits not a single civil action has been tried; and whether any early alteration is contemplated in the existing circuit system.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No doubt it sometimes happens that there is little or no business at various assizes; but the Government are not contemplating any

  1533
  early alteration in the present system, which, for various reasons, is a very difficult one to handle.

  CROWN SALMON FISHINGS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the last Report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, from which it appears that they have sold in the course of the year two further Crown salmon fishings in Scotland; what were the exceptional circumstances under which these sales were made; and whether he will give an assurance to the House that no further sales will take place until the House has! had an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on this return on the part of the Commissioners to a policy which was condemned by the Government and the House in 1888.
  MR. HANBURY: AS explained in answer to the hon. Member's question on the 16th of May last,*
  the Commissioners of Woods in ordinary cases invariably decline to sell Crown lights to salmon fishings in Scotland, and sales are only made when there are very exceptional circumstances rendering that course desirable. In the two cases referred to in the present question the exceptional circumstances were that the Crown title was disputed and litigation was avoided by the sales. I am not prepared to give the assurance suggested by the hon. Member.

  RABIES—IRISH RETURNS.
  DR. TANNER (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the system employed in Ireland of collecting Returns of rabid dogs there is any possibility of epilepsy, convulsions, and fits being returned as rabies in consequence of the ignorance of the disease and the methods of checking the accuracy of the Returns.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): It is quite conceivable that in rabies, as in other diseases, an error in diagnosis may occasionally be made, but every precaution against error is taken.
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. Ixxi., page 737.
  1534
  No supposed outbreak is recorded by the veterinary department as one of rabies except after careful veterinary inquiry, and when the veterinary inspector has any doubt as to the nature of the disease, the head of the animal is sent to Dublin for experimental investigation by the pathologist engaged by the veterinary department for the purpose. Last year out of 441 reports of supposed outbreaks of the disease received in the veterinary department, only ninety-two were recorded as rabies.

  IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT—CASE OF ELLEN RYAN.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Ellen Ryan, of Clare-Street, Limerick, has been detained in prison for contempt of court for 743 days; and is she still in prison; and, if not, when was she released, and how many days altogether has she been in custody.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that this woman was committed to prison on the 2nd February, 1898, on a writ of attachment issued by the Master of the Rolls. She is still detained in prison and has been in custody 759 days. Her contempt consists in neglecting to pay into court money for which she was found to be accountable. She has not made any application to the Master of the Rolls to be released, but apparently desires to be discharged from prison without paying the money.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind that only a few days ago he admitted that a man named Kavanagh was driven mad in prison and is now in a lunatic asylum—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the case of this woman under the notice of the Master of the Rolls?
  MR. ATKINSON: She must apply to the Master of the Rolls to purge her contempt. It is not a matter in which the Executive can interfere.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will you take care she is not driven mad?

  FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a sitting of the Sub-Commission of the Irish Land Commission to hear applications for the fixing of fair rents from the districts of Glencolombkille and Kilcar is to be held in Killybegs, County Donegal; whether, having regard to the fact that more than fifty tenants of these districts will have to travel with their witnesses upwards of thirty miles from their homes to give evidence at the hearing of their cases at Killybegs, for which they have been notified to attend on the 1st instant, the Government will take some steps to have cases arising in the districts of Glencolombkille and Kilcar heard in Carrick, and thus protect the tenants from the expense and hardship entailed by the present arrangement; and whether any steps can be taken to countermand the notices of the hearing of fair rent cases from Glencolombkille and Kilcar at Killybegs.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that a sitting of the Sub-Commissioners was fixed to commence on yesterday at Killybegs. Prior to yesterday, when I communicated to the Land Commissioners the substance of the complaints privately brought under my notice by the hon. Member and which are referred to in this question, the Commissioners had received no representations that the sitting of the Sub-Commission at Killybegs would entail hardship and expense on the tenants. 'That sitting was fixed, I am informed, by the Sub-Commission after considering the convenience of the parties and taking into account the time at their disposal. In any case it appears to be now too late to alter the sitting which commenced on yesterday, even if other arrangements made it possible to do so.

  MURDER OF MR. BIRD AT BANTRY.
  SIR HENRY HOWORTH (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether a man charged with the murder of Mr. Bird at Bantry has been arrested; and whether he has any evidence that the murder was of an agrarian character.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks the interests of justice would be
  1536
  served by answering the second paragraph of the question?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, as the second paragraph of the question is calculated to prejudice the case, it is not out of order?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think there is anything out of order in the question on the Paper.
  MR. ATKINSON: One man has been arrested, and is at present under remand, charged with the murder of Mr. Bird. Whilst the investigation into the crime is taking place, it would be obviously improper on my part to make any statement as to the motive for the commission of the crime.

  REPORTED RIOTS AT PORTADOWN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has any explanations to give about the occurrences at Portadown last night, in which a mob, said to be an Orange mob, attacked houses and public buildings, said to belong to Catholics. I wish also to ask how many persons were injured, to what extent damage was done to property, why the police failed to protect the inhabitants and their property, and what precautions he has now taken to preserve the peace there. I would also ask whether anyone has been arrested or brought to justice in connection with the matter.
  MR. ATKINSON: The notice of the hon. Member was only received at the Irish Office at one o'clock to-day. The police authorities were at once communicated with, but I have not yet received any report from them.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: As the right hon. Gentleman represents the Chief Secretary in this matter, may I. ask if the police have failed to communicate to the Chief Secretary the fact that these things occurred?
  MR. ATKINSON: There was not sufficient time between the receipt of the notice of the question and the sitting of the House to obtain the report.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my question. These things unfortunately occur only too often in Ireland, and I wish to know if the police authorities do not at once communicate them to the Chief Secretary at his office in London.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did the right hon. Gentleman apply there for information?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to give notice that at the rising of the House to-night I will ask for further information.

  EDUCATION BILL FOR SCOTLAND.
  MR. CROMBIE (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the measure in regard to education in Scotland, promised in the Queen's Speech, will be introduced: and whether it will deal with secondary education.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I believe the Secretary for Scotland proposes to introduce this Bill in the House of Lords. I am not aware of the actual day of introduction; but the Bill will deal with the funds available for secondary education.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Army Estimates will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry I cannot fix a date. One difficulty in my way is that my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War is not at present able to attend the sittings of the House, and I cannot be quite sure when he will be in a position to do so.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): Can the First Lord of Treasury say what the business will be in the early days of next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Monday my right hon. friend the Chancellor of
  1538
  the Exchequer proposes to introduce the Budget, and I think I will have to ask the House to suspend the twelve o'clock rule on Monday night in order to facilitate the progress of the necessary resolutions. Tuesday we propose to take for the continuation of the Budget discussion, but should the discussion conclude on Monday, Tuesday may be left to private members. On Thursday we may take the Army Estimates, but that will depend on whether my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War will be able to attend the House that day.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  John O'Donnell, Esq., for County of Mayo (South Mayo Division).
NEW BILLS.
  DISTRICT COUNCILLORS AND GUARDIANS (TERM OF OFFICE).
  Bill to make further provision for the term of office of District Councillors and Guardians, Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pretyman, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Price, and Mr. Trevelyan.
  DISTRICT COUNCILLORS AND GUARDIANS (TERM OF OFFICE) BILL.
  "To make further provision for the term of office of District Councillors and Guardians," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
  COAL MINES (PROHIBITION OK CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND).
  Bill to prohibit Child Labour Underground in Coal Mines, Ordered to be Drought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Sir James Joicey, Sir Joseph Pease, and Sir Alfred Hickman.
  COAL MINES (PROHIBITION OK CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL.
  "To prohibit Child Labour Underground in Coal Mines," presented, and read the first time: to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edmund Robertson and Sir Charles Cameron.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to he printed. [Bill 110.]

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts, and I will endeavour to explain as briefly as I can what the object of the measure is. The Bill makes new provision for regulations with regard to dangerous trades, in substitution for the existing method of special rules and arbitration. I propose to do away with the objectionable system of arbitration, and to provide that the regulations, when made, shall apply uniformly, subject, if need be, to specified exceptions, to all places where machinery, or the process certified to be dangerous, is used. The Secretary of State will publish a draft of these regulations, and give time for objections to be made by all persons who are affected, which I think is a mast reasonable proposal. He will then try to settle the objections, and if he fails he may appoint a referee, who must not be an inspector of factories or be affected by the regulations which are at issue. Powers are taken for the referee to hear the objections in open court, and upon his report the Secretary of State may make his regulations. Those regulations may be applied to tenement factories and workshops, and may, if necessary, make owners or occupiers as well as employers liable. The regulations may also prohibit the use of any material or any process which is dangerous—a great step, I think, in advance. With reference to sanitation, I propose to deal with out-work in unhealthy places by an alteration of Section 5 of the Act of 1895. That section provides for interference where there is risk to the health of the person employed "and" of the district. I propose to substitute the word "or" for "and," which I believe was really intended by the Act of 1895. There are other provisions with reference to employment, consequent on the passage of the twelve years of age rule last
  1540
  session, to make the law generally applicable wherever the Factory Acts apply, and there are certain provisions also with reference to overtime. Although the question of the protection of boilers is dealt with by several Bills which are before the House, I have put a clause into this Bill providing that there shall be proper steam valves and gauges, and that the boilers shall be overhauled periodically by a competent person and the account of the inspection properly certified in a register. I propose also to deal with laundries, to take power to repeal the present unworkable provisions, which were somewhat hastily concluded, and to apply to laundries the appropriate provisions of the Act with such modifications as may be necessary. The scope of the provision, e.g., as to the inclusion of charitable institutions, I do not propose to alter in my Bill. I propose to take power to extend the "particulars" clause to outworkers. At present certain emergency processes in fish-curing and jam-making in England, Scotland, and Ireland are exempted altogether from the Acts either for the whole or part of the year. This Bill brings them all into the Acts, thus giving that sanitary protection to the worker's which, I think, is absolutely necessary, and from which they ought not to be exempted. Extra hours are allowed in the emergency processes of these trades when it is necessary to work overtime to prevent the materials from being destroyed by circumstances of weather, and so on. There are various other provisions in the Bill, which contains forty-six clauses, simplifying the registers, reducing the number of returns, which are unnecessarily voluminous, and for enabling the Acts to be consolidated, which cannot be done, however, until there has been some amendment of them. The general object, indeed, of much of the Bill is to fill up the gaps where the Acts do not fit into one another, to amend imperfect wording, so as to facilitate administration, and to prepare for consolidation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts."—(Sir M. White Ridley.)
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): The Bill does not touch the Lancashire Saturday stop.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (): I am not going to enter into the details of the Bill, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say, speaking for myself, and at the same time, no doubt, for many of my hon. friends, that we are very glad indeed to find he is going to introduce a Bill which, judging from his speech, will really be a substantial step in advance in certain matters in connection with the Factory Acts. Everybody who has had any experience of the working of this Act, and who has paid any attention to the question of factory legislation, will be delighted to find that the system of arbitration, which in regard to dangerous trades has been the one chief obstacle in the way of improving legislation applying to those trades, is to disappear. As I understand the Bill, the employers will have ample protection under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and at the same time the difficulty experienced in insisting upon proper legislation with regard to these matters will disappear. I am very glad, too, to find that the right hon. Gentleman also proposes to deal with the laundry question. Those who were members of the Grand Committee in 1895 will remember that the Laundry Clauses were then so knocked about and amended as to render them practically useless for the purposes for which they were originally introduced. I am glad it is now proposed to bring them under the Factory Acts. On other matters, such as the "Particulars Clause" and "Emergency Processes," I should like to reserve my judgment. The latter, especially, will want careful watching. All I will say now is that we all agree that a step is taken in the right direction by placing a larger amount of power in the hands of the Home Secretary, for we thus get rid of many of those stumbling-blocks which have hitherto stood in the way of carrying out provisions which would be to the public advantage. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman last year delayed the introduction of this Bill. We understood that had the measure been brought in twelve months ago it would have been but a small one. This seems to be far more satisfactory, and to its general principle I give my hearty support.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Jesse Collings.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  "To amend the Factory and Workshop Acts," presented, and read the First Time; to be read a Second Time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

SUPPLY [3RD ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900-1901.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,527,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, &c., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): This, in my opinion, is the most important Vote we have to take in regard to the Navy; and for this simple reason, that neither our ships nor our guns nor our armour, and still less our docks and our fortifications, would be of use unless we had men to fire the guns, to man the vessels, and to defend the fortifications and docks. The question of what a man's value is depends entirely on his training, and, consequently, when you come to consider naval questions, the most important and vital part to look at, and to judge it by, is the method adopted of training. It particularly behoves us, at this moment, to pay more attention than ever to this subject. There is going to be a very large increase of the American Navy. We may, too, look to an entirely new development in the German Navy, and the future may bring about vast changes in the balance of naval power in the world. We must, therefore, look to the essential part of our naval system. That essential part is, I submit, the training of the men, and I am bound to say that, while the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has carried out many of his duties with great success, in other directions he has, I fear, adopted the very means which an enemy of this country

1543
would have taken if he had sought to destroy the value of our Navy. Up to quite recently the system of training officers and men for the Navy (especially that of training officers) was, I should say, quite admirable. The naval officer was trained, not by sitting upon a form and listening to lectures, but by standing on deck and handling a ship. His training was not theoretical, but practical; and the result was something beyond anything that has been seen in any service in the world. The training of the boys in the Navy usually began at from fifteen to sixteen and a half years of age. They were put on board a training ship for twenty months, and then they went to sailing brigs, where they learnt to handle sails, and became more acquainted with the practical work of masts and yards. In these brigs they remained for six weeks only, which should be thirteen. That training is short enough for their preparation for the Navy; but under that system we got fairly good men, and there was never any difficulty in the number of boys to pass through that course of entering the lower deck for the Navy. Recently a new system has been adopted. First of all, let me say fifteen is not too young an age at which to take the boys; if it is anything, it is too high. Your fisherman begins at nine, ten, or eleven, and produces one of the finest seamen in the world. The right hon. Gentleman, feeling himself under the pressure of emergency, has instituted a new system, under which he sends vessels round the coasts and enlists boys at so late an age as eighteen, which is far too high an age to take a boy first to sea. No doubt if a boy is already a seaman and has already had some training at sea, there is something to be said for this system. I believe, however, the majority of these boys are inland boys who go for the first time to sea. Consequently I think this to a considerable extent impairs the personnel of the Navy so far as regards the lower deck. I regret very much the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to abandon the old system of fifteen and taken eighteen.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): We have not abandoned the old system.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that
1544
when the emergency is passed he will go back to the old system and take all the boys at fifteen.
MR. GOSCHEN: So soon as the supply is filled up we shall return to the old system.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am very glad to be able to withdraw one of the five counts of my indictment. I now come to a more serious matter, and that is the training of the officers. Up to recently the system has been to receive boys into the "Britannia" at the age of thirteen, to send them to sea at fifteen, and for them to become lieutenants at twenty. Thus they served five years at sea and two in a ship. The right hon. Gentleman has altered that system, so that the boys enter now the "Britannia" at fifteen instead of thirteen years of age. He has shortened the time in the "Britannia" very considerably—more nearly by one-half than by one-third—and the result is a boy now enters the "Britannia" at the average age of fifteen, goes to sea at sixteen and a half, and becomes a lieutenant at twenty. Under these circumstances a very large proportion of the original training time is taken off. I think that is a mistake. But, more than this. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has made an enormous mistake in substituting barracks for ships. Most of these boys who came into the "Britannia" for the first time came from inland towns, many of them have never seen a ship or walked about in one, and it is of the utmost importance that at the earliest age of the officer's career he should know enough about a ship to live on one. The right hon. Gentleman will tell me barrack boats are used; but it is a different thing to use a boat to put out from the shore from having to use it to move out of the ship. It is also said and it is true—that the "Britannia" is a very old vessel, and that she could not have gone on much longer. That is of no importance, because it is easy enough to replace her by another vessel. You cannot catch your seamen too young, men or officers, especially officers, and initiate them into the ways of ships, which are different from the ways of houses. The right hon. Gentleman has said he intends to extend the "Britannia" course again from one and a half to two years. Has he made up his mind whether that is to

1545
be done by lowering the age at which the boys are received into the "Britannia" to thirteen, or by receiving the boys at fifteen and sending them to sea later? I hope he intends to take the first of those courses. Whichever he takes, the great objection will remain—that you have turned your ship into a barrack, and, so far as the early training is concerned, it has ceased to be training as a sailor, and has begun to be training a soldier. The most serious count of all (because it affects both the men and the officers) is the abolition of the training squadron. My right hon. friend told me, the other evening, that no final decision had been arrived at with regard to the abolition of the training squadron. But in the meantime he has abolished it, he has dismantled the ships which were ready to go to sea, put them away somewhere in one of his docks, and turned the crews over to cruisers. If he is going to tell me he intends to build eight or ten new training ships, I shall applaud him with both hands, and think he has come to proper naval ideas again. But I do not see any sign of that. If there is any question whether the abolition of the training squadron is right or wrong, the business of the First Lord is to take no action until he has satisfied himself which is right or wrong. The present system has produced admirable officers, and the abolition of that system may produce officers inferior to those we have now. Does he pretend he would produce better officers by giving them less training on masts and yards? That is impossible. The argument against masts and yards is that in the Royal Navy sailors have nothing to do with anything but steam. That is not quite true. Every hand on the ship may have to take to the boats and to handle sails, more or less. The officers may have to take charge of a sailing merchantman. In a sailor's life you will never get rid of the occasional necessity of dealing with sails. What we want is the best trained men, able to deal with the greatest possible readiness with new sets of circumstances; and I maintain that nothing produces the seaman-mind so well as the work on masts and yards. The work on masts and yards teaches the men to rely upon themselves and to place reliance in their shipmates, and it gives them an athletic development and readiness of mind which nothing in the
1546
world can surpass. I do not for a moment argue that for the rest of his life, and the business he is to do, it is essential that a man should go through the training squadron. My argument is that the training squadron gives him a sort of training which nothing else can supply. I do plead most earnestly for the retention of the training squadron, but I cannot help feeling that though the right hon. Gentleman professes to be in a judicial attitude on this matter, he is rather against me.
MR. GOSCHEN: Why?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will give a reason why I cannot help having that feeling, and that is the fact that he has appointed Lord Charles Beresford away from this House to the Mediterranean.
MR. GOSCHENdissented.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Of course I did not mean that seriously, it was only a little joke. I will put it this way—that my position in defending the training squadron is very much weakened by the absence of the noble Lord, who could, doubtless, have advanced very superior arguments. There is only one other count in this indictment, but it is rather a serious one, namely, that in recent times not only have the officers put in less sea, time, but the ships themselves have spent less time at sea. That is an additional reason for desiring the retention of the training squadron. The training squadron spends sometimes as much as ninety days at sea, whereas the ordinary man of war, battleship or cruiser, rarely spends more than ten days, while the Mediterranean squadron seldom spends as much as that. I am informed that the present Mediterranean squadron is mainly engaged in steaming at full speed from one port to another.
MR. GOSCHEN: No, that is not so.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I hope it is not so. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what sort of evolutions the Mediterranean Squadron performs, and how long the vessels are at sea. Lord St. Vincent in 1796 wrote from Lisbon that he would not stay there a moment longer than was necessary to put his vessel to rights, as the only way to train sailors was on the sea, and the more

1547
they were kept at sea the better, and the less they were kept in port the better. I am afraid that whether our desire is to economise coal—
MR. GOSCHEN: No.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman repudiates that. My information is that too little time is spent at sea by Her Majesty's ships. All these points are calculated to impair the training of the sailor. Give me a bad ship and a good crew and, if I were a naval captain, there is nothing I could not do. But a good ship and a bad crew would be useless to anybody. I wish to say a word about the instructions given to cruisers respecting contraband of war. It is of the utmost importance when we are at war that all that remains to us of our power at sea should be exercised. There have undoubtedly been some unfortunate mistakes which I can only attribute to the instructions issued to the officer's. These officers have not only searched, in the technical term, vessels suspected of carrying contraband of war, but actually unloaded the cargo, a thing which is altogether out of the cognisance and the dictates of international law. I can only attribute these proceedings to some mistake in the instructions issued by the right hon. Gentleman or to some misapprehension of those instructions on the part of the officers themselves. The results have been lamentable. We have been forced to apologise to the nations whose vessels have been improperly searched, and our officers have been discouraged from handling other vessels. Another mistake has been the instruction that vessels should not be searched anywhere except between Aden and Delagoa Bay. That is giving up almost the whole of the high seas to the runners of contraband of war. A further mistake was in saying we would not search mail steamers upon mere suspicion. That point I dealt with the other night. You may have information, but there is nothing so suspicious as information, especially when it comes from such a source as that from which came the information that misled our officers on the recent occasion—namely, the enemy. Finally, there is the undertaking that we will agree to arbitration as to the amount of compensation to be given. That is a most extraordinary interference with the Admiralty Court. To take away from
1548
the Prize Court the right always inherent in it of settling the compensation to be given where wrong has been done is a very strange and novel principle, as to which I hope we shall have some explanation. I repeat that I very much regret I made an allusion which wounded the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him I intended it only as a little joke, but I do regret the absence of Lord Charles Beresford. I have endeavoured to express very temperately the views I very strongly entertain, because I feel that upon the training of the men of the Navy more than anything else depends the future of the Navy itself.
MR. GOSCHEN: My hon. friend has brought five indictments against me, and I think I can remove his impression with regard to two if not three of them. With reference to the introduction of the new system of taking somewhat older boys, I hope the point has been nearly reached when that system may be changed. At the same time I am bound to say that that system has been introduced in the Mediterranean Squadron and elsewhere, and has been extremely well reported upon. There has been no deterioration at all.
COMMANDER BETHELL: Has the system been successful in getting the number of boys required?
MR. GOSCHEN: The Admiralty obtain quite as many boys as they require. My hon. friend asks me a question with reference to the "Britannia," but whatever the demerits of the system may be, it has increased very much the supply of officers at a time when the Navy has been extremely short of them. I have over and over again made inquiries of the commanders of ships when they have come back from foreign stations as to whether they have found any deterioration in the junior officers under them, and in no one case has a statement been made which supports the opinion held by my hon. friend. Generally speaking, the reports with regard to these officers have been extremely satisfactory. The system has enabled the Admiralty to introduce 180 cadets every year instead of 120, and there is always keen competition for the vacancies on the "Britannia." As to the question of a training squadron, my own impression is in favour of it; but the

1549
strange fact is this—that officers of great experience have said they cannot see any difference whatever in the men who come from a training squadron and those who do not. Three Commanders-in-Chief have taken the view that a training squadron is not necessary, and the bulk, or at all events a very large number, of the officers are not satisfied that the training squadron is necessary or that it produces better i results. I think that in a matter of this kind I ought to follow generally the authority of my naval colleagues rather than to be carried away by theoretical views of my own, even strengthened as I am by my hon. friend. Let me call the attention of my hon. friend to this fact. In the case of officers of the present day there is a kind of training which is extremely valuable to them, and which tries their nerves very effectually—I mean the training in destroyers—and the way in which many of these young officers who have not had the training my hon. friend desires handle their torpedo boats and destroyers excites the admiration of many men in the mercantile marine. Only a small proportion of the officers have gone through the training squadron, and the fact that our ships of war are able to enter foreign ports without the assistance of a pilot shows that they are able to perform their varied duties in a manner which is most creditable to the Navy. I cannot understand how the rumour has got abroad that ships are less at sea now than they used to be. I do not know to what date my hon. friend alludes, or whether he means ten years or five years ago. On the contrary, I can say with confidence that they are more, rather than less, at sea now than when I first took office. There; has been no diminution whatever, and I believe the admirals put those under them through more tactics and naval exercises than they used to do. Notwithstanding the enormous price of coal at the present time, I can assure my hon. friend that no hint has ever been given to any admiral to lessen the exercise of his ships at sea in consequence of the high price of coal. If my hon. friend looks at the Navy Estimates in regard to the consumption of coal he will be satisfied that there has been no stinting whatever in that direction. The last point touched by my hon. friend has reference to the instructions given to naval officers as regards contraband of war. Paper's on that subject will
1550
shortly be laid before the House, from which my hon. friend will be able to gather what those instructions are, and I think it will be more satisfactory that my hon. friend should refer to those Papers than that I should make a statement. Our naval officers are placed in an extremely difficult position, as well as the Foreign Office and the Admiralty; for the position is complicated by circumstances which might never again arise. Not only is this the first time for years and years when a question of contraband had arisen, but we are at war with an inland State to which access was gained from the sea through a small portion of a neutral State. This naturally has given rise to a state of things which has given some trouble in connection with the searching of ships, and I think my hon. friend will find from a perusal of the Papers that every care has been taken to prevent the consequences he fears might follow on the action of our officers.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): The other day the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty was good enough to say that a statement would be made as to the position of the Roman Catholic chaplains in the Royal Navy, and that an explanation would be given as to what is intended to be done by the Admiralty with regard to the Catholic Church in this matter. I asked a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty a few days ago on this subject,* and the reply which he gave to me led to some misunderstanding amongst those interested in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said the Admiralty had made arrangements which had met with the approval of the; Catholic hierarchy, and practically that nothing more was to be done.
MR. GOSCHEN: No, I did not say that they had met with their approval, if I conveyed that impression it was not what I intended. I cannot remember the exact words which I used, but I stated that the matter had been settled in consultation with the clerical authorities.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What the right hon. Gentleman has just stated is, to some ext:; nt, a justification of the statement which I made a moment ago that some misunderstanding exists on this
*See page 371 of this volume (19 Feb.).

1551
matter. The right hon. Gentleman says I he did not state that he made arrangements which had the approval of the Catholic hierarchy, but he certainly led us to understand that the arrangements which had been come to were made in consultation with the Catholic hierarchy, and consequently they were satisfactory. Such undoubtedly is not the case, because, as the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury already knows, no later than the other day a very strong statement was made on this question of Catholic chaplains in the Navy by so high an authority as Cardinal Logue in Ireland, who oven went to the length of pointing out to the parents of Catholic children in Ireland that it would be dangerous to the religion of their children if they allowed them to join the Royal Navy. I do submit that, when you have an ecclesiastic of the high authority of Cardinal Logue in Ireland making a statement calculated to discourage the Catholics of the country from joining the Navy on the ground that no provision is made for their spiritual needs and welfare, it is quite time for the Admiralty to pay serious attention to the matter. I do not propose to enter at length into the grievances of Catholics on this matter, because my hon. friend the Member for; East Mayo has over and over again placed them before the Committee. All that we claim is that Catholic chaplains in the Navy should be put on the same level as Catholic chaplains in the Army. In the Army there is no complaint whatever in this matter. Catholic chaplains have a recognised status; they hold commissions, their position is well defined, and, as far as I know, they are treated in every respect as are chaplains of other denominations. That is not the case in the Navy. Catholic chaplains are not on the same footing as Protestant chaplains, and are not given the same facilities for ministering to their co-religionists.
ADMIRAL FIELD (): They are, when in harbour.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It occasionally happens that a man may require religious ministration when he is not in harbour. You cannot expect a man not to want religious ministration except when he is riding at anchor. Considering the number of Catholics in the Navy, I think it is not in accordance with the spirit of the age
1552
that Catholic chaplains should not be placed on an equality with the chaplains of other denominations. I am much interested to hear the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, because on it will depend whether my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo will take further action in this matter.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): When this question was discussed on previous occasions, my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty expressed his sympathy with the views put forward on behalf of Roman Catholics in the Navy, and his great anxiety to meet them as far as possible. The subject is one of very considerable difficulty, as I think the hon. Member himself will be prepared to acknowledge. I have not, however, risen for the purpose of referring again to the old difficulty, but rather to tell the hon. Member what we have done. We have been in communication with certain authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, with a view to arranging a more satisfactory method for meeting the religious needs of Roman Catholic officers and men.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Have you been in consultation with the Irish hierarchy as well as with the English hierarchy?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; we have had no direct communication with the Irish hierarchy. It is one of the difficulties of dealing satisfactorily with this question, and it appears to be very difficult to find any central authority empowered to speak for the Roman Catholic Church. We have tried to deal with the Roman Catholics in the same spirit and as far as possible in the same way as we have dealt with the Wesleyans and the Presbyterians. In the case of the Wesleyans we were much assisted by the fact that they have an association with a permanent secretary, who was able to keep us fully informed as to their views, and with whom we were able to arrange. I wish there were some similar Roman Catholic association whose views would be binding over the whole Roman Catholic Church, and who would have authority to

1553
speak for it. No little part of our difficulty has been that after we had arranged to meet the views of what we believed to be the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church in England, we found other authorities claiming the right to speak in respect of particular cases, and who did not consider themselves bound by the opinions of the authorities we had consulted.
DR. FOX (): Do not the vast majority of the Catholic sailers in the Navy come from Ireland?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; but the hon. Member will see that in order to deal freely and fully with this matter it is important, if possible, that the persons representing the Roman Catholic Church should have easy access to the Admiralty and that the Admiralty should have easy access to them. Unfortunately we cannot find in Ireland an authority to whom that would apply. We have no desire to exclude the views of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland from our consideration, but from the circumstances of the case the communications, often verbal, must be made and the decision arrived at in London. Now, what we have endeavoured to do is to give fixed allowances to Roman Catholic priests for ministering to the Fleet at all our principal depots throughout the world. We have arranged twenty-one of these fixed allowances, varying from £200 in the case of each of our three great home depots—Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham—and also Malta, down to £25, which is really only a grant-in-aid given to Army chaplains for receiving Roman Catholics from the Fleet at their services. The chaplains at Portsmouth and Devonport begin at £175 a year, rising after five years to £200. They are established officers, and when they retire they will receive a pension on the ordinary conditions. The chaplains at Chatham and Malta are paid on the same scale, but are not entitled to pensions. Altogether there are four allowances of from £175 to £200, four of £100, three of £75, five of £50, and smaller grants. Where no fixed allowance is given, the Roman Catholic chaplain is paid for the services he renders to the men of the Fleet in proportion to the number of men to whom he ministers, and if the service is a special service for
1554
the men of the Fleet a further special payment is made. I think, therefore, the hon. Member will see that we have done our best to meet the wishes and needs of Roman Catholics in the Fleet. We have proceeded on exactly the same lines as in the case of the Wesleyans and Presbyterians, except that the grants to Roman Catholics are more numerous than the grants to either the Wesleyans or the Presbyterians, and even more numerous than to the two combined.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is not the complaint that there are no Catholic chaplains on board ships in the Navy left unmet? May I ask if the rank of the Catholic chaplains is the same as that of the Protestant chaplains?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, it is perfectly true that the question of Roman Catholic chaplains with the Fleet at sea is left untouched. That is another branch of the subject. On previous occasions my right hon. friend stated his anxiety to do what he could, but at the same time he pointed out the difficulties in the way. We cannot undertake to find accommodation on board our ships for Presbyterian, Wesleyan, and Roman Catholic chaplains. The proportion of Roman Catholics in the Navy is about eight per cent., that of Wesleyans about six per cent., and that of Presbyterians something less. Roman Catholic officers in the Navy would be the first to admit that it is impossible to make arrangements by which Roman Catholic chaplains should be borne on a ship's books or be accommodated on board ship at sea. Arrangements might be made for Roman Catholic priests to accompany or follow the fleets, and remain at the places where the fleets have a station, so as to be handy for service. We did that in the Mediterranean last year, and though the results were not all that could have been desired, I hope that they will be satisfactory next year. The Hon. Member alluded to a pastoral which Cardinal Logue issued the other day, a notice of which I admit I saw in the newspapers with the most profound regret. I cannot but hope that the Cardinal, seeing the attempt which the Board of Admiralty has made to meet the wishes of his church, will see fit to withdraw the opinion he has expressed. I can only say that if that opinion were to be

1555
widely followed throughout the southwest of Ireland, and if the result was that the recruits now obtained from that part of the country ceased to join the Navy, the Admiralty would of necessity have to withdraw the training ship from Queenstown, just as on a previous occasion the training ship "Ganges" had been withdrawn from another port when the Navy ceased to obtain any number of local recruits there. I think that the pastoral of the Cardinal must have been issued under a misunderstanding, and having regard to the spirit in which the Admiralty has striven to meet the wishes of the Roman Catholics, and the fact that at any rate the department has made a considerable advance on recent practice in the direction the hon. Member desires, I trust we shall not hear of any more demonstrations of this kind.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The statement of the hon. Gentleman is extremely interesting, and shows that some sort of attempt has been made to deal with the Roman Catholic seamen, but the last part of his statement will be received with great dissatisfaction in Ireland; because it means that unless the claim which the Roman Catholics have made through Cardinal Logue is withdrawn, unless Roman Catholic seamen are satisfied to enter the Navy under conditions which they think unfair to their religion, then the training ship will be withdrawn.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I cannot allow that interpretation of my words. I said I hoped that Cardinal Logue would see the propriety of withdrawing his ruling that Roman Catholic parents would not be justified in allowing their children to enter the Navy. The hon. Member himself will see, and Cardinal Logue will see, that if recruits are to be withdrawn it would be useless to keep a training ship at Queenstown.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any desire to misinterpret him, but his statement just now, to my mind, amounts to what I said. What did he mean but that unless the claim we made through Cardinal Logue was relinquished the training ship would be withdrawn? Speaking as the first authority and head
1556
of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Logue has simply said that, if he mistook not, Protestants had their chaplains on each ship, while a Roman Catholic chaplain did not even accompany the squadron. The result was that Catholic sailors were left without spiritual guidance, that they might live as they pleased, and die as if they were not Christians; and this might account for the fact that so few Catholics were found in the Navy. The Cardinal added in his pastoral that if Roman Catholic parents permitted their boys to join the Navy before this want was remedied, they would be guilty of the violation of the sacred duty of securing the spiritual welfare of those committed to their charge. Now, really, I think it would be a most unreasonable thing for the hon. Gentleman to require that a single word or sentence of that statement should be withdrawn.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I expressed the hope, which I sincerely feel, that Cardinal Logue would cease to dissuade Irish Roman Catholics from entering the Navy, seeing what we have done, and what advances we have made towards meeting their requirements, and seeing that no other cleric of the Roman Catholic Church has ever thought that these dangers to their faith were incurred by the Irish Roman Catholics under the conditions now provided.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is; not Cardinal Logue who has persuaded Irish Roman Catholics not to join the Navy; but it is the conditions insisted upon by the Admiralty which have dissuaded them. It is in the interest of the, Navy to remove these disabilities which: prevent parents sending their children into the Navy. I venture to say that if the hon. Gentleman asks the opinion of any Catholic Churchman, he will find that it is in complete accordance with that of Cardinal Logue. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us what the position of Catholic chaplains is compared with that of Protestant chaplains. Are they on equal terms?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There are two chaplains on the Establishment list who are in all respects similar—the chaplains at Portsmouth and Devonport. The other Roman Catholic priests are not chaplains in the same

1557
sense as the chaplains on the Navy List: they are not men whose whole life is devoted to the service in the Navy. The Admiralty have no claim upon them for their whole time or to order them about from one place to another. But we pay them allowances as long as they are in residence at these particular places to minister to the religious wants of the sailors.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are not a considerable number of the clergy of the Church of England in the position of commissioned officers in the Navy? There is not a single Catholic clergyman a commissioned officer. [Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN dissented.] This is one of the most important points on which dissatisfaction has been expressed. There is a list of those Church chaplains who are appointed on shore, and you ought to give them the same position and the same rank that you give to the clergyman of the Church of England. There is not a single Catholic clergyman a commissioned officer in the Navy ashore or afloat, and every fair person will see that impartial justice has not been done in this matter. We are told that there are few Wesleyans, Catholics, or Dissenters; and it comes to this, that the Church of England, as the Established Church, has every possible facility given to its members, and that no facility is given to the members of the other churches. That is simply the case, on the showing of the hon. Gentleman himself. I regret that he has not given a more satisfactory reply, and I feel sure that this matter will not be allowed to drop. It was the same in regard to the Army, and we had to keep pegging away about the Army until that inequality and injustice was completely done away with, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his Department will be troubled about this matter in the future.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I think the Civil Lord has stretched his duty almost to the utmost limit by the courteous manner in which he replied to the hon. Member. The hon. Member complains—and I will speak very frankly on this matter that the Admiralty do not give Roman Catholic chaplains to Her Majesty's Fleet. That is because Roman Catholics, in common with Wesleyans, Congregationalists, and other Nonconformist bodies, are Dissenters. In the Navy we are very
1558
pleased to receive Irishmen, for we know that we are getting good fighting material; but if Irishmen insist that their priests should come with the men, then, we say, take your men away.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): That is the whole thing now.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I say Roman Catholics are dissenters, and they have no i more claim to force their priests on board men-of-war than Wesleyans and other dissenting bodies have to force their pastors. If you want fair play, that is fair play. I can quite understand the aim and the game of the Irish Roman Catholic Members. Nothing will satisfy them except to get a priest on board every ship. But that will never come to pass as long as the Church of England is the Established Church of the land. Cardinal Logue said that there is a Protestant chaplain on board every ship in the Navy. That is not true. Protestant chaplains are only carried on board ships commanded by a post-captain. I do not know what you want, but I hope if this agitation is continued the Admiralty will withdraw the training ships from the Irish ports altogether. There is no room on board for two chaplains teaching different creeds and doctrines. We do not want to be questioned and catechised in that way; it would only breed dissension. Turning to the question of training, I disagree with the statement that there is no difference in the ordinary man and the man trained in a training vessel of masts and yards. The North German Lloyd is so impressed with the value of trained crews that they are fitting up special ships for that purpose. I do not challenge the policy of the Admiralty in dismantling the training squadron at the present time, although we fear it may be the beginning of a new policy. All I ask is that no hurried decision shall be arrived at for demolishing the training squadron. Now I pass away from that and come to. the question of the marines. I think it is grossly unfair, when marines are doing duty on shore at the front in South Africa, that they should be deprived of lodging allowance for their wives, whilst the soldiers' wives are granted separation money of 1s. per day.
CAPTAIN DONELAN (): With regard to the statement made a few

1559
moments ago by the Civil Lord, I should like to ask if it is not a fact that since the "Black Prince" has been stationed at Queenstown permanently the anticipations of the Admiralty have been realised, and the experiment proved perfectly successful.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is at present no reason to consider the removal of the "Black Prince," as a very satisfactory class of boys is being obtained. If, in consequence of the advice of the hon. Gentleman and his friends, those boys cease to enter the Navy at Queenstown, then the "Black Prince" will have to be removed elsewhere, but I hope such a condition of affairs will never arise.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: As the Irish boys have turned out quite satisfactory as naval recruits—
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the claim of the Catholic chaplain of Queenstown, whose duties have been considerably increased within the last few years, and whose allowance would be larger if calculated upon the old capitation basis. I do ask. the hon. Gentleman's favourable consideration as to this.
MR. POWER (): There is no doubt great anxiety that a certain number of Irish boys should go into the service, but the Government is not disposed to consider the religious views of these boys. If the hon. Gentleman wants these boys to enter the service then he must respect their religious convictions. It is absolutely absurd to say "we want the boys, but we do not want their priests to intrude on the ship." That view is bigoted to a degree.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I do not represent a seaport constituency, and I am very glad of it on this occasion, because I should be sorry to see any constituents of mine go into the Navy to be treated in the way they evidently would be by officers like the hon. and gallant bigot who addressed us a while ago.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not a proper expression to use.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I withdraw the expression "bigot." The difficulty of Irish Catholics in speaking here is that even gentlemen who ought to understand better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman never seem to learn anything in this House. We are sick of hearing your profession of a desire to treat everyone in religious matters on an equality. As soon as a Roman Catholic question arises the Government is dead against any concession being made. We are tired of listening to praise and flattery of the gallant Irish soldiers and sailors; if it is worth while having Irishmen with your flag you ought to give them the consolations of their religion. If these are not afforded them it will act as a deterrent to their entering the service. We all recognise the proper spirit in which the Civil Lord has approached the subject. Apparently he was not satisfied with his own statement. He only talked of it as the best that could be done for the present, and he almost gave me reason to think that if he and the Admiralty got the opportunity they would go further. Irishmen are largely taxed in cash as well as in blood, and we hold that if you take Irishmen into your Navy you should give them the same facilities for practising their religion as are given to others. We are told you make provision for the Catholic sailor when he goes ashore, but surely in that case he can easily go to any place of worship he likes. Then we are told there is no room on board ships for priests, but the room that is used for the exercise of one religion can be used for the exercise of another, just the same as is done in your gaols. To tell a young man going into the Navy that he is not to have proper religious attention is to tell him a very serious thing. The greatest terror you can put before an Irish Catholic is to tell him he will die without the priest. If a man is to be executed on the scaffold, he has the advantage of having the priest; but in the Navy he is not to have that advantage because it might cost you, perhaps, £100 a year per ship. That is not my view of the best way to induce Irishmen to enter the Navy. The criticisms passed upon Cardinal Logue are most absurd, and can only emanate from people who do not understand the duty of a bishop or a priest. The bishop is bound to tell his people not to go on board ship or anywhere else where they incur risk to

1561
their immortal souls. He would fail in his duty if he did not do it. Wherever Catholics go, they should look forward to having provision for receiving spiritual consolation when the hour of death arrives. It will be our duty, on every occasion that arises here, to keep this question pressed upon your attention until equality is dealt out to Roman Catholics in the Navy as well as elsewhere.
MR. DAVID MACIVER ()said he wished to support as strongly as he could the views as to the training of seamen expressed by the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne, on that side of the House. He felt that the saving of the cost of such training was very poor economy indeed, and he thought he had some right to address the House on the matter because he had been connected all his life with shipping matters, and he knew something of training vessels of every description. He was certain that the North German Lloyd's, who had a training vessel of their own, were very wise and sensible people, and, as they were very closely connected with the German Government, in training sailors for their own service they were also training them for the German navy. The English companies did not do it, as a rule, because they said they could not afford it, but it was the right thing to do. Any shipowner who understood his business, the man who wished to have his ships well sailed or desired them to go safely, who took a pride in his business and understood it, would not, if he could help it, employ anybody who had only been trained in a steamship; he knew perfectly well that the man most likely to navigate his ship safely was the man who had had a sea-going experience in sailing vessels. The best sailors of the present day were the men who had been trained in the small vessels running round our coasts—the fishermen class and those employed in larger sailing vessels. The number of men of that class was, unhappily, diminishing from the circumstance that steamers could be navigated so cheaply, whilst sailing vessels found it difficult to make a living. That was a national misfortune, and as time went on, unless the Navy again reverted to the system of training boys in training ships and sending them to sea, the time would come when our
1562
ships of war would be manned not by sailors so much as by men who were gunners, who, however, would be more efficient if they were brought up in sailing vessels. He spoke with some knowledge of what was required, and he wished in the strongest possible manner to emphasise the views with regard to the importance of training sailors expressed by the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne.
MR. E. J. C. MORTON ()said it was notorious that not a year ago there was considerable difficulty on the part of the Admiralty in getting a sufficient number of naval shipwrights to serve the Fleet. This class of men had certain grievances and had made certain complaints. He know that some of these grievances—or alleged grievances—were extremely difficult to meet, some of them, perhaps, could not be met at all. But it was undoubtedly due to their feeling of having these grievances that the Admiralty were unable to get a sufficiency of naval shipwrights. Trades unions, on being applied to for advice, had advised their men that the conditions of service were such that they would not recommend them, in their own interest, to take service afloat in Her Majesty's ships. That seemed to him to be an extremely serious state of things. The first question he desired to ask the First Lord was whether the plan introduced about a year ago had succeeded by which one hundred and fifty naval shipwrights were to be taught as boys over a shorter period of apprenticeship. Had the Admiralty got the one hundred and fifty boys expected, or was it the fact, as he understood, that they had not secured more than twenty or thirty boys? The second question related to warrant officers in the Navy, and this was a matter which had been brought forward every year since he had had a seat in the House. Those officers were at least equal in ability, in training, and in the earnestness which they brought to their work, to any men in the Army: but while there was a career in the Army open to a man along the quartermaster line of promotion, by which he might rise from the ranks to become captain, retiring with the honorary rank of major, there was no similar line of promotion in the Navy. It was once promised that
such a line should be opened, but nothing had been done, and he therefore again pressed for an assurance on the subject.
MR. JOHN WILSON ()said he had listened with extreme regret to the speeches made by hon. Members from Ireland. No doubt it was very desirable that their countrymen should have the consolations of their religion, but the position they took up was an impracticable one. If they were going to have chaplains for Roman Catholics (as Irish Members insisted) on every warship, then Scotsmen would insist on having their Presbyterian chaplains. Presbyterians sent more men to the Navy than Irish Roman Catholics, and Wesleyans and Methodists sent ten times as many. It would be practically impossible to send chaplains belonging to all these different denominations, and hon. Members from Ireland must see the position they took up was illogical. They should, as in olden times, make the chaplains the church militant—they should make them fight as well as preach—because, if all denominations were to be represented, they would form a considerable proportion of the crew.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The Catholic priests have fought.
DR. AMBROSE (): I am sorry the great Protestant religion is divided into so many segments. With regard to the Roman Catholic religion it is different—it is one and universal, there are no sections in it and they all believe the same thing. I believe the Admiralty object to appointing more Catholic chaplains. You have Protestant and Catholic chaplains in the force. Those Protestant chaplains are commissioned officers. I want to know whether the Admiralty will appoint the present Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy to the same position as that held by Protestant chaplains; they ought certainly to be of equal status.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON ()urged upon the Admiralty the desirability of placing a training ship in the Belfast Lough, where there would be no difficulty in obtaining a large number of boys suitable for training. The importance of such a step had been pressed for several sessions, and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would use his influence to obtain the realisation of this long-felt desire.
MR. POWERpointed out that inasmuch as Roman Catholics believed in con-
1564
fession, the presence of a minister was absolutely necessary. Some answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Clare was certainly required, as it was not right that a badge of inferiority should be put upon the Roman Catholic chaplains attached to the Fleet.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot hold out any hope that the expectations or desires just expressed will be fulfilled. I have already explained to the Committee that the position of these Roman Catholic priests is altogether different from the position of the chaplains, though I cannot for one moment admit that in any sense a badge of inferiority attaches to them. The power which the Admiralty can exercise over them is altogether different in the case of these priests from the case of the chaplains serving afloat with the ships. Under these circumstances I cannot hold out any hope that their position will be altered.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The last few words of the hon. Gentleman make it almost necessary that we should take a division on this Vote. The hon. Gentleman told us in the plainest terms that the Admiralty will not grant to Catholic priests serving as chaplains to the forces of the Navy the same position and rank as that granted to ministers in the service of the Church of England. He says that no stigma of inferiority is cast upon the Catholic priests in this matter. I beg leave to differ from him. There is no reason whatever why the Catholic priest in the pay of and serving the Navy should be in the position of not being a commissioned officer, while Church of England ministers are commissioned officers. On the face of it, it is unjust and unfair. The hon. Gentleman says he does not see his way to increase the number of Roman Catholic priests in the Navy. I am sorry for that. If the Presbyterians do not seem particularly anxious about having more chaplains, that is no reason why we should not have more. We hold our own views, and we do not follow the example and precepts of any particular section of people in this matter. We are told that amongst the crews of the ships the Catholics are so few that it would be unreasonable to ask the Admiralty to ship Catholic chaplains for their special service. But if we cannot have more chaplains, it

1565
cannot be said that we are unreasonable in asking that the present Roman Catholic chaplains attached to the naval service should receive the same rank and have the same position as the ministers belonging to the Church of England. Should I be in order, Mr. Chairman, in moving a reduction under the sub-head at which we have now arrived?
THE CHAIRMAN: Sub-head "D" refers to the marines only.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to move to reduce sub-head "D" by £100.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the question of chaplains arises on subhead "D."
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to move to reduce sub-head "D" by £100, in respect of the service of the marines. Surely I am in order in moving that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not after a discussion has taken place on another matter. The hon. Member might perhaps move a reduction on the whole Vote.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to move a reduction of £1,000 on the whole Vote.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,526,000, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 28; Noes, 173. (Division List No 47.)

AYES.

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

Lloyd-George, David

Redmond, William (Clare)

Ambrose, Robert

Macaleese, Daniel

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Blake, Edward

M'Ewan, William

Runciman, Walter

Crilly, Daniel

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

Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

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

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

O'Donnell, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. CharlesH.

O'Malley, William

Kilbride, Denis

Power, Patrick Joseph

NOES.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Charrington, Spencer

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Crty of Lon.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Clough, Walter Owen

Godson, Sir Augustus F.

Baard, John GeorgeAlexander

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Baker, Sir John

Colomb, Sir John Charles R

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Balcarres, Lord

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

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

Baldwin, Alfred

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

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

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Banbury, Frederick George

Crombie, John William

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Bartley, George C. T.

Curzon, Viscount

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

Bethell, Commander

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Bill, Charles

Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Heath, James

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Donkin, Richard Sim

Henderson, Alexander

Boulnois, Edmund

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Duckworth, James

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dunn, Sir William

Horniman, Frederick John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Butcher, John George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Howell, William Tudor

Caldwell, James

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

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

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

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

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Cawley, Frederick

Finch, George H.

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt Hn Sir U

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Kimber, Henry

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Garfit, William

Knowles, Lees

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gedge, Sydney

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Nicol, Donald Ninan

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Norton, Capt. Cecd William

Stanley, Sir Hn. M. (Lambeth)

Leng, Sir John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Steadman, William Charles

Llewelyn, Sir Diltwyn- (Swans'a

Oldroyd, Mark

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Strauss, Arthur

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lowe, Francis William

Pease, Joseph A. (Northum.)

Talhot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

Lowles, John

Penn, John

Tennant, Harold John

Lucas-Shad well, William

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Pilkington, R. (Lanes Newton)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Pilkington, Sir G. A (Lanes, S W

Wallace, Robert

Maclure, Sir John William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wanklyn, James Leslie

M'Killop, James

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Maddison, Fred.

Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A C E (T'nt'n

Malcolm, Ian

Purvis, Robert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Marks, Henry Hananel

Randell, David

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm)

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Reckitt, Harold James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

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

Monckton, Edward Philip

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

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

Monk, Charles James

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

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

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Morrell, George Herbert

Round. James

Yoxall, James Henry

Morrison, Walter

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd

Seely, Charles Hilton

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

Monlton, John Fletcher

Seton-Karr, Henry

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

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Resolution agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,), in reply to the hon. Member for Devonport, said that the scheme with regard to naval shipwrights apprentices had turned out perfectly successful. Out of the 150 required last year, 135 were obtained by the 31st December. There was no doubt that in the course of the next financial year the number provided for in the Estimates would be made up. With regard to the question of additional pensions for chief petty officers, he regretted his inability to add anything to his statement at the beginning of the financial year. A scheme was drawn up, but unfortunately it did not meet with the approval of those who had to criticise it, certain defects being pointed out which would militate against its success.
MR. KEARLEY (): Was the pension contingent upon the man continuing to serve for another five years?
MR. MACARTNEY: That was the idea. With regard to the promotion from the ranks, it was incorrect to say that the career of a seaman on the lower deck ended at the rank of warrant officer, as there were upwards of 100 men, who had been warrant officers, now holding commissions and receiving higher pay and higher pensions. Allusion had been made
1568
to the promotions to quartermasterships in the Army, but that was not at all analogous to anything in the Navy. The two services were not so analogous as to present the same opportunities of promotion in that respect.
MR. KEARLEYasked whether it was not the fact that the officers referred to as having commissions held merely honorary and not substantive rank.
MR. MACARTNEY: No, it is absolutely substantive rank.
2. £845,800, Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (): There are several points upon which I should like to ask for a little explanation. The first is on page 107. In reference to the increased sum for naval prisons, I should like to know whether any reduction of the present accommodation elsewhere is likely to result from this increased sum for prison accommodation, and what the meaning of the whole item is. I observe also that there is an additional sum of £2,000 to be spent on the prison at Bodmin for additional cell accommodation. I see from the returns that the Bodmin prison has not been full for the

1569
last couple of years. It is capable of holding seventy-two prisoners, but the average number for the year is only sixty-six. I had been hoping that an improvement would have been acknowledged on all hands in regard to the conduct of our sailors, and that by degrees we might look to a substantial reduction in these items of prison accommodation for sailors and marines, and possibly get rid of such expenditure altogether. I trust that by the gradual tendency to reduce sentences and the improvement in the conduct of the sailors and marines, we may hope for a constant reduction of this prison expenditure, although the numbers of our sailors and marines are on the increase. I view with a good deal of jealousy any proposals of this kind which appear to add to our prison accommodation, for it assumes that there will be an increase in our naval prisoners. I will not pursue this topic further, but simply ask for an explanation. Before I sit down, I should like some explanation as to why it was found necessary to remove the training ship "Ganges" from Falmouth to Harwich, rather than move a ship from Plymouth. Falmouth has long been a very desirable station for the training of boys, and I am afraid that by the removal of the ship fresh expenditure will have to be incurred.
SIR JOHN COLOMB (): I desire to ask one or two questions. I asked the other day a question about Wei-hai-wei, and the First Lord had not the opportunity of giving me a reply. I see that on this Vote £13,000 is to be taken, £7,000 of which is for a naval depot. I see that there is no expenditure up to the 31st of March., therefore the £13,000 comes in as beginning next year. Before we spend this money I think we should have some information as to whether the Government have made up their mind what they are going to do with this port. I am not going to argue it, but I am going to suggest that there are only two courses possible, that is, either to make it a Gibraltar or to spend no money beyond the expense of erecting a temporary coal store. I cannot see that there is any half way between these two courses. I think if we are going to embark upon any large expenditure, we are entitled to ask what is the policy of the Admiralty there. I asked a question last year which I will
1570
repeat now, because last year I do not think my right hon. friend was in a position to answer it. I wish to know has the delimitation of the land frontier been made, and has it been ascertained what is the total mainland area.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Admiralty have nothing to do with the mainland.
SIR JOHN COLOMB: I put a question to the Under Secretary for War as to the mainland, and I was referred to the Admiralty. I put a question to my right hon. friend on this point, and he said that the delimitation had not taken place.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Since then the matter has been handed over to the War Office.
SIR JOHN COLOMB: I understand, then, that at that time the Admiralty had charge of the matter, but since then they have entirely washed their hands of the question of Wei-hai-wei, and that now it is a War Office question. That being so I will postpone making any further remarks upon that point. I do not want to press my hon. friend, but if he is willing to tell us what is the policy of the Admiralty in regard to this particular port, I think it is important that he should give us some information. I wish to express my extreme satisfaction with what is shown on the estimates, namely, that they are going to establish a coal depot at the Falkland Islands.
MR. KEARLEY: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to make any statement with regard to the general policy of extending building slips in the various dockyards. Many important extensions are now going on for which the money has been voted under the Naval Works Act.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That subject comes under Vote 12.
MR. KEARLEY: I think pier extensions are included in this Vote. Are we to have a statement in reference to the extension of building slips?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No.
MR. KEARLEY: I think this is very important, because it has been suggested that every opportunity should be taken by the Admiralty for extending their building facilities at their own dockyards. I think we ought to hear something as to the general policy of the Admiralty in carrying out the building of those slips in their various dockyards. The question of acquiring sites for rifle ranges comes under this Vote. On the general question of ranges I made reference to the First Lord's statement in regard to the difficulties that the Admiralty were encountering in securing for the marines at Plymouth a rifle range. We have had no explanation of that, and I would like to hear something on the point.
ADMIRAL FIELD: With regard to the provision of a rifle range at Plymouth we have had no adequate explanation except that a difficulty has arisen with the War Office. Surely the Admiralty have compulsory powers to purchase, and they ought to exorcise it. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth objects to anything being done at Wei-hai-wei beyond the erection of a coal store, and he says we have no choice between either making Wei-hai-wei a coal store or making it a Gibraltar. I think there is an intermediate course which might very well be adopted. It is an important secondary base, as was pointed out by Lord Charles Beresford. I am glad to see that there is a sum of £27,000 put down for naval depots. I wish the sum had been larger, but perhaps we cannot spend more in the time. Just as you have made Portsmouth into a strong defensive position for your Fleet something of the kind is necessary at Wei-hai-wei to make it of practical service to the squadron at that station. A breakwater is required there, with intermediate openings in it for the protection of the harbour from torpedo-boats. I cordially support the erection of a coal depot at Falkland Islands, and I want to ask a question about several other places. I understand that there is to be a dock laid down at Jamaica and Singapore, and I do not see any mention of it here; neither is there any mention of the progress that is being made at the Hong Kong dock. I also desire to express my great regret that the Works Department of the Admiralty
1572
seem to have lost one of their most valuable officers in Mr. Riley, who has been absorbed by the London County Council, who appear to be absorbing everything they can lay their hands on. I am told that you let him go because he wanted a small increase of salary, which you refused to grant him, and so you let the London County Council engage him. I do not think this is to the credit of the Admiralty, and perhaps I shall be furnished with some adequate explanation on the point.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (): I desire to ask whether some information can be given to the Committee in regard to the expenditure upon Wei-hai-wei. There was £4,500 on the Estimates last year for dredging at Wei-hai-wei, and the First Lord then made an important statement, which has been quoted by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, to the effect that Wei-hai-wei was to be made a secondary naval base. I see. there is now a further sum of £13,000—£6,000 for dredging and £7,000 for establishing a naval depot. I should like to know if we can have some particulars of the work now going on.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Various questions of detail have been put to me by hon. Members. I may say that it is owing to the growth of the Navy and not to any increase of misconduct among the men that further prison accommodation is found to be necessary. The present accommodation is not sufficient at all times to accommodate the number of prisoners, and it has been found necessary to send them to civil gaols, although they had committed only naval offences. I think that is a very undesirable thing to do, and we are anxious to avoid this as much as possible in the future by providing additional prison accommodation of our own. I have been asked a question in regard to the removal of the training ship "Ganges," and the right hon. Member who asked the question desires to be informed of the reasons which led the Admiralty to take that course. He said that he regretted its removal, because it involved increased cost. The position of the training ship "Ganges" at Falmouth left a great deal to be desired, for not only was the position of the ship one of great inconvenience, but it seriously

1573
affected the possibility of landing the boys on many days in the year on account of the weather, and this affected their health and their opportunities for recreation. Under these circumstances we were face to face with the necessity of creating a new berth nearer to the recreation ground, and of building a new hospital more in accordance with medical requirements than the loft oyer a boat shed which has done duty so long. The amount of that expenditure upon new works is estimated at £20,000, but before we incurred that expenditure we thought it right to look into the question as to whether the "Ganges" should be retained at Falmouth. It had not proved very attractive as a recruiting station, and there are other ships in the west country to take all the local recruits. We found that last year out of 300 or 400 boys only thirty were recruited locally, and the majority of them came from London, the Midland counties, the Eastern counties, and other parts of the country. We found also that owing to the difficulty of landing the boys in bad weather there was a very considerable sick list, and in this respect the ship compared unfavourably with other ships. Sooner than incur this big expenditure at Falmouth we thought it better to remove the "Ganges" to a new site, and lay the money out there. I have received a letter speaking in the most satisfactory terms of the condition of the boys on the ship in its new position at Harwich, which I think will be a great benefit to the Naval Service. My hon. friend below the gangway who spoke last inquired as to what has been done at Wei-hai-wei, and what we propose to do for the future. I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to add very much to the statement made by my right hon. friend the First Lord and myself in the debate which occurred on this subject last year. Length of time for communication on matters of detail is one difficulty, and, in addition to that, it is necessary in these matters that this work can only be undertaken after a very full conference with the military authorities, and I think hot). Members will understand that recent events have rendered it impossible to have such a conference. I have been asked what has been done up to the present time. We have sent out a dredger from Malta, which is steadily at work keeping the harbour to a depth of 30ft. Beyond that a further small sum, pro-
1574
bably between £3,000 and £4,000, is being expended at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief on repairs to the pier, providing office accommodation, in fitting some of the Chinese houses for the reception of machinery, and in other matters of that kind, but the report of the year's work has not yet been issued, and I am not able to give any definite information on the subject. Then the hon. Member for Devonport asked for information about the intentions of the Admiralty with reference to new slips. We found that with the growth of ships, both in tonnage and length, several of our slips were no longer able to accommodate the largest of our cruisers and battleships. We are therefore enlarging some of these slips where it can be done economically, and we propose to build new slips at Chatham and Devonport capable of holding the largest class of ship in existence, or likely to be constructed. We have avoided the error of supposing that the limit as to length has been reached, and the slips will be so arranged that they can, if necessary, be extended in the future. Then there is the question of the rifle range for marines. There have been most lamentable and heart-breaking delays in connection with that matter, and I am afraid we are not altogether at the end of them. The military authorities are constructing a range on Dartmoor for military purposes, and we have asked them to negotiate for a range for the marines also. The difficulty experienced in connection with the acquisition of the land has been very great, and it is very unlikely that any work will be carried out during the year 1900-1. I believe the military authorities now intend to proceed by Provisional Order.
MR. KEARLEY: Would the hon. Member state the name of the landlord?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know who the landlord is, but I think it is a case where several interests are involved. I am not acquainted with the details of the negotiations, as the military authorities are carrying them out, and it is obviously desirable that they should be conducted by one Department. As to the expenditure under the Naval Works Act, the progress of the work has been pretty fully described in the state-

1575
ment of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and a Return of the estimated expenditure for the financial year will be issued shortly. As to Mr. Riley, he acted for about four years as assistant director of works. He rendered good service to the Admiralty, and discharged his duties with great zeal and ability. His reputation was so great that the county council sought him for their work, and offered a salary larger than that he was paid by the Admiralty. I was very sorry to lose Mr. Riley, but I cannot admit for one moment that there was any difficulty in filling his place from the staff. I congratulate him on having secured such a good appointment, and I have every reason to believe that he is giving the same satisfaction to the county council that he gave to us. I think it is a compliment to the staff of the Works Department of the Admiralty that the county council should have sought assistance from one of its members.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I congratulate my hon. friend on the certificate which the London County Council has given him in regard to his ability to choose good men. I rise once again, and more seriously, to call the attention of my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to the fact that there is no mention of the Scilly Isles in the Estimates. It was Lord St. Vincent who first saw the importance of these islands, and who constantly in his day directed the attention of the Admiralty to them. He had great difficulty in the matter, and he did not succeed. He had also great difficulty in connection with the Plymouth breakwater, and in that he did succeed. The Scilly Islands are more important than Dover or Portland or the other places where the Admiralty are constructing works. A breakwater across Broad Sound would be practicable, would only cost about £250,000, and would afford a station either for offensive or defensive purposes such as does not exist elsewhere. That is undoubtedly the case. During the Franco-German War there took refuge in these islands between fifty and sixty German merchantmen, and they remained there until the end of the war, in order to escape French cruisers. I have mentioned the
1576
matter again and again, but I have not seen any indication that it is engaging the attention of the Admiralty. I am encouraged, however, by the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty told us the other day that he had a special strategist in the Intelligence Department. Will he recommend that strategist to study the works of Lord St. Vincent? That is all I ask. Any strategist will agree that of all the stations where a little work would complete a safe harbour the Scilly Islands are the most important. I hope we may have some assurance that this matter will be considered. If it is considered I believe that the conclusion of Lord St. Vincent. which I have endeavoured humbly to revive, will be arrived at.
AN HON. MEMBER: I should like to ask, in connection with the considerable sum of money which is to be expended in building and enlarging hospitals, whether experts have been consulted. No branch of architecture has made greater strides in recent years than that of building hospitals.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A special study has been made of the literature of the subject, and I undertake to say that if my hon. friend visits one of our latest hospitals he will find it up to the best standard.
MR. GOSCHEM: I can assure my hon. friend that the question of the Scilly Islands has been and will be again considered, but my naval colleagues and myself consider that the work which has been undertaken is more important.

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1899-1900.

  CLASS V.
  3. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for grants in aid of the expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa."
  MR. WEIR (): I should like to know how this money is distributed over the various items. We have been told that the railway survey cost £600, that leaves a balance of £3,500. We were also told the other day that the troops were to be armed with Martini-Enfield rifles, and if we allow 30s. for each line there will then remain a balance of about £2,300. Then in reference to the troops despatched to Mauritius—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring to a discussion which took place the other day with regard to sending troops from Central Africa to Mauritius. I ruled it did not come within this Vote, as the War Office were responsible for it.
  MR. WEIR: I wish to know whether any of this money was expended in sending these troops to Mauritius.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on the item the hon. Member is discussing.
  MR. WEIR: Then are we to understand that no explanation of the balance of £2,300 on this Vote for £4,500 is to be given? It is represented by "etc." What does it mean? It should not be thrown in in such a hap-hazard fashion. As the right hon. Gentleman is not inclined to answer I have no alternative except to press the matter to a division. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made and Question put, "That Item B (British Central Africa, Grant in Aid) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Weir.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): I really cannot add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on the last occasion as to the rearming of these troops. The Vote has nothing whatever to do with the troops sent out of Central Africa.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 48.)

  AYES.

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

  Hayne, Rt Hon Charles Seale-

  Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Blake, Edward

  Lloyd-George, David

  Steadman, William Charles

  Caldwell, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan. Donal (Westmeath)

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Clough, Walter Owen

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbro'gh)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Duke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Weir and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Donnell, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Redmond, William (Mare)

  NOES.

  Atkinson, Kt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.)

  Kinlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Baker, Sir John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Curzon, Viscount

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Heath, James

  Butcher, John George

  Duckworth, James

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Knowles, Lees

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Lath

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

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. McT.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strachey, Edward

  Leng, Sir John

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Strauss, Arthur

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a

  Penn, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pilkington, Rich (L'ncs Newton

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Lowles, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  M'Killop, James

  Purvis, Robert

  Williams. JosephPowell- (Birm

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Randell, David

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Monckton. Edward Philip

  Richardsor, Sir T. (Hartle'pl)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Morrison, Walter

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Morton. ArthurH. A. (Deptford

  Russell. T. W. (Tyrone)

  Original Question put and agreed to.

  4. Motion made, and Question proposed—"That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £58,905, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for sundry Colonial services, including certain grants in aid."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon District)said he wished to draw attention to the telegrams which related to the despatches sent by President Steyn to Sir Alfred Milner immediately before the war. These despatches were, he would call it, summarised and telegraphed to the Colonial Office by the High Commissioner, and the full text of them never reached this country until after the declaration of war. On the 27th September President Steyn sent a telegram, received on the 28th, to Sir Alfred Milner containing a resolution adopted that day by the Volks-raad. That resolution instructed the Free State Government—
  "still further to do everything in its power to preserve and establish peace, and to contribute by peaceful methods towards the solution of the existing differences."
  On the same date President Steyn sent another telegram to Sir A. Milner, who telegraphed to the right hon. the Colonial Secretary—
  "In continuation of my telegram to-day, Orange Free State President has telegraphed to me at enormous length. After recapitulating history of negotiation from their point of view, he continues."
  1580
  Then followed Sir Alfred Milner's summary of President Steyn's despatch, in which he omitted whole passages of the original telegram, which covered only two pages, and was shorter than the famous Helot telegram. There was nothing that was fresh in that Helot telegram in regard to the situation; it was something like a leading article. Now, Sir Alfred Milner omitted in his telegram to the Colonial Secretary more than half President Steyn's despatch, and the passages omitted were certainly most important when; the state of matters then existing was considered. President Steyn said that the Orange Free State—
  "is bound both to the people of the South African Republic and of the neighbouring British Colonies by ties of blood and friendship. It is, in addition, bound on the one hand to the South African Republic by a solemn treaty in which this State has undertaken to assist the Sister Republic in the event of its independence being threatened or attacked, whilst on the other side there exists between it and the British Government, and the Government of the neighbouring British Colonies, long established and highly appreciated amicable relations. It has ever been, and still is, the aim and object of Free State policy heartily to support and continually to foster any measure tending not only to maintain, but to increase the spirit of harmony and co-operation amongst the Colonies and States of South Africa, and their respective Governments, and it would most deeply regret the occurrence of any untoward event that would cause a break in the cordial relations hitherto so happily subsisting between this State and all its neighbours."
  President Steyn then proceeded to point out the services which the Orange Free State had rendered to Her Majesty's Government in order to obtain a peaceful

  1581
  and satisfactory solution of the differences between Her Majesty's Government and the South African Republic. Now he ventured to say that these were most important passages in President Steyn's despatch, and ought to have been telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary. Further President Steyn pointed out how he had brought pressure to bear upon the Transvaal Government, and had induced the Government to make concession after concession. He mentioned the fact which had not been referred to in any previous despatches, that it was at his suggestion and advice that the Transvaal Government had consented to accept the invitation of the British Government to take part in a Joint Committee regarding the seven years franchise, and President Steyn pointed out that that was a very important concession. Well, all that was left out of Sir Alfred Milner's telegram to the Colonial Secretary. The importance of these omissions lay in this, that while Sir Alfred Milner could exercise his judgment upon the whole evidence before him, it was surely necessary that the Cabinet on whom responsibility rested, and especially the Colonial Secretary, should have not only the substance of President Steyn's despatch, but the very language in which it was couched. In a matter of this kind, in a matter of diplomacy, more, almost invariably, depended upon the tone and temper in which negotiations were conducted than upon the substance of them. President Steyn was a very able man, and must have weighed carefully every word and sentence in that despatch; and yet all these passages were omitted by Sir Alfred Milner. Another reason why it was unfortunate that these passages had been omitted was that, so far as he could see, this war was more attributable to misunderstanding than anything else. President Steyn and the Government of the Boer Republic were undoubtedly under the impression that no amount of concession which they could make on the question of the franchise would stave off an attack on the independence of the Transvaal. If one half of President Steyn's despatch was omitted, that was garbling it; at any rate it mutilated the despatch, and Sir Alfred Milner's summary did not even contain the substance of the original. The right hon. the Colonial Secretary, no doubt, might say that the concessions made were bogus, and that the Orange Free State and the
  1582
  Transvaal were not acting bona fide; but President Steyn's despatch, in the passages omitted in the telegram to the Colonial Secretary, met that, for he gave there evidence of his bona fides. In a matter of life and death, not merely to this country but to the Boer Republics, Sir Alfred Milner ought not to have cast away a single chance of averting all the losses of lives of brave men and the devastation that has fallen on South Africa, and should have even at the expense of £50 or £60 telegraphed President Steyn's despatch in full. But that was not the only despatch mutilated. On the 4th October Sir Alfred Milner received another telegraphic despatch from President Steyn. It was not a very long despatch, and it would not have cost much to send it over here in full. In that despatch President Steyn begged and entreated the British Government to formulate their proposals, and he gave his assurance that these would be considered fairly. But that despatch was also summarised by Sir Alfred Milner, and some of the President's entreaties were omitted altogether. Sir Alfred Milner telegraphed—
  "President Orange Free State has sent me another long telegram, which is mostly an attack upon us for pursuing what he regards as a policy of menace towards South African Republic, and seems to indicate an intention of picking a quarrel with us";
  and then he quoted half a dozen lines only of President Steyn's despatch. Anyone reading Sir Alfred Milner's summary would think that President Steyn's despatch was a violent attack upon Her Majesty's Government, like the Highbury speech on the Transvaal Government; but on reading the complete despatch, any fair-minded man must come to the conclusion that it was most moderate and conciliatory in its tone. There was one passage in particular which had been omitted, in which complaint was made—
  "of the bitter and hostile tone of the utterances made, both by responsible men and by almost the whole Press in South Africa and in England, bristling with misrepresentations and constant menace to the Transvaal, accompanied by ever increasing military preparations on an extensive scale, not only in South Africa and in England, but throughout the British Empire, which are openly stated as being directed against and intended to coerce the Transvaal ";

  1583
  and to these President Steyn said he—
  "mainly attributed the failure hitherto of arriving at an amicable and satisfactory solution of existing difficulties."
  The right hon. the Colonial Secretary might say that he had no control over the Press here. That might or might not be; but he had as much right to complain of the Press in England as Sir Alfred Milner had to complain of the Press in South Africa. It was exceedingly unfortunate that the whole of President Steyn's despatch should not have been telegraphed to England. The whole saving to the State could not possibly have been more than a hundred pounds. As a matter of fact, instead of sending every word, as was his duty, uttered by President Steyn, he summarised, as he called it, the telegrams and omitted special phrases which indicated a conciliatory spirit, and the President's desire for peace. If the entire despatch had been sent it would have given a different complexion to the whole matter. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item M, 1 (Cape of Good Hope, High Commissioner of Telegrams), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I find it very difficult to understand what the object of the hon. Gentleman is in the speech which he has just delivered. In form it is an attack on the High Commissioner, Sir Alfred Milner, for committing an offence which the hon. Gentleman describes in terms, though he says he did not intend to be offensive, as that of garbling important despatches. I suppose, however, that the hon. Gentleman really desires by a side wind to renew the rather belated discussion as to the negotiations which took place before the war. I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman. Nothing whatever has been left out in the summaries of these despatches which could have been of the slightest possible importance. Any one who takes the trouble to read the summary with the original will find that the summary gives everything that could assist the Government in coming to a conclusion. It has always
  1584
  been usual to leave a certain discretion to our officials abroad to shorten telegraphic communications where it is possible to do so without injury to their clearness, and Sir Alfred Milner, who certainly has made no sparing use of the telegraph—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not for his own despatches.
  MR. J. CHAMPERLAIN: That is a sneer which is entirely unworthy, and with which I will deal presently. I say that Sir Alfred Milner was perfectly justified in shortening these despatches and cutting out irrelevancies. The hon. Member complains that the despatches of President Steyn have been compressed. I will show the Committee at once how unjustifiable that is. The only despatch to which the hon. Member refers is a despatch in answer to a telegram from the Government inviting President Steyn to express his view in order that it might be placed before the House in a debate shortly to take place. What does Sir A. Milner do? Upon that he sends what is in itself a summary of President Steyn's views—that is to say, so far a summary that in some cases words are omitted, as is frequently done in telegraphic form. It is not a literary production in the ordinary sense, but is purely and entirely a telegraphic summary of the views he was asked to express, and most certainly the summary which he sent of the two despatches of President Steyn give the position of President Steyn at least as clearly as the despatch, in which he expressed his own views, gave his opinion. What is it the hon. Gentleman pretends that Sir A. Milner left out in the telegraphic summary? He actually says it does not contain the substance of those despatches. Now, the first summary shows perfectly clearly that the object of President Steyn was to put before Her Majesty's Government his proposal, which he had no doubt concerted with the President of the South African Republic, that we should withdraw our troops from the frontier. He made a complaint against us that we had sent a few troops to garrison Kimberley and Mafeking, on the frontier. What would our position have been if we had not taken that precaution? He prefaces this extraordinary and almost insulting suggestion, coming from the President of

  1585
  the Free State in regard to the disposition of Her Majesty's own troops in her own territory, by a statement which is purely historical, and does not contain anything that was not absolutely within the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government at the time, but which the hon. Member says contained the substance of the despatch. Sir A. Milner omitted the statement of President Steyn that he was under an engagement with the South African Republic. That engagement has appeared again and again in the Bluebooks. It was known to everybody in the country.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Except the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That interruption again shows the absolute ignorance of the hon. Member in regard to what is important in these transactions. It was known to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, but it does not appear to be known to the hon. Member, even now. He does not appear to know what was the nature of that engagement. It was an engagement binding the Orange Free State to assist the South African Republic in the event of any aggression upon that Republic, but there was a condition attached to it. I cannot now recall the exact words, but practically the condition amounted to this, that before assisting the Republic, the Orange Free State was to be satisfied of the justice of their cause—a most proper and reasonable condition. But it, was that condition which left my light hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury and Her Majesty's Government in doubt as to whether the engagement would be brought into effect, because we could not tell, with any certainty, what was in the mind of President Steyn, though we might, perhaps, have made a guess about it, and we could not tell whether he would think that the cause in which he was asked to assist the Transvaal was a just cause within the terms of the agreement. That statement was a mere recapitulation on the part of President Steyn, which it was perfectly unnecessary to go to the expense of telegraphing again to Her Majesty's Government. Then there was a rather characteristic claim by President Steyn in respect of his services, as he calls them, to Her Majesty's Government.
  1586
  Any one who has read the despatches and knows the history of these transactions, will, I think, put a very different value upon President Steyn's services from that placed upon them by the hon. Gentleman. His services consisted in concerting a plan of attack on Natal and Cape Colony with the President of the South African Republic. And when we are asked to believe in his bona fides and desire for peace, I cannot help recalling to mind the fact that a few days before the declaration of war by the two Republics President Steyn solemnly assured Her Majesty's Government that under no circumstances would they take the aggressive. A few days later the troops of the Orange Free State were marching side by side with the troops of the South African Republic into Her Majesty's colony of Natal. The hon. Member complains that President Steyn's declaration of his desire for peace was not inserted in the telegraphic summary. I do not think it would have made much difference if a more lengthened summary of his desire for peace had been inserted, but, as a matter of fact, the declaration was inserted in the summary. For instance, the summary says:—
  "This Government"(that is, the Orange Free State)"are still prepared to tender their services to further the interests of peace."
  And again:—
  "In the expectation that Her Majesty's Government will share my view that no effort should be spared to effect a peaceable settlement, I trust Her Majesty's Government will see their way clear to such a settlement."
  Therefore, if the hon. Member really thinks that a repetition of this protestation, made at the time when the two Presidents were completing their preparations for the invasion of Her Majesty's territories, should have been inserted, all I can say is that the substance of it already appears in the summary, and I do not think recapitulation would have added anything to it. The whole point of the case, on the part of the hon. Member, is that something essential was omitted from the summary. I deny that absolutely. I say nothing of the slightest importance was omitted. The summary I was an extremely full one, and gave Her Majesty's Government all the information which could possibly have influenced them in coming to a decision.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I think, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman has completely given away his own case. He said that the resolution of the Orange Free State was to stand by the Transvaal Republic if they considered the cause in which they were asked to assist was a just cause. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "We did not know—how could we know?—what was in the mind of President Steyn in regard to this; we did not know whether he would consider the cause just or not." But, surely, is not that the consideration that Sir Alfred Milner omitted the very passages which show what was in the mind of President Steyn? The omitted passages show very clearly what was in the mind of President Steyn; and that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman did not understand at the time. The right hon. Gentleman has completely justified me in calling attention to these very grave omissions from the dispatches. There is one point to which the right hon. Gentleman did not allude. There was not a single passage in any of the dispatches to prove that the Government knew that the acceptation by the Transvaal Republic of the right hon. Gentleman's own suggestion for the appointment of a joint commission was brought about by President Steyn. The right hon. Gentleman sneers—to use his
  own favourite expression—at President Steyn's referring to the services he had rendered to Her Majesty's Government. Here is the service which President Steyn did render, not merely to Her Majesty's Government but to the cause of peace. If the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion for reference to a joint commission was bona fide when it was made, and if he thought it was a basis of settlement—and he says he did consider it a very good basis and President Steyn induced the South African Republic to accept that suggestion, is not that a service to Her Majesty's Government? But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, it was not. It is becoming increasingly evident that all Her Majesty's Government wanted was a pretext to quarrel with these two Republics in order to annex them, and that therefore any efforts on the part of President Steyn which would have had the effect of inducing the Transvaal Government to accept anything which would be regarded as a basis of peace would not be considered to be a service.
  At this stage Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.) took the Chair.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 30: Noes, 89. (Division List No. 49.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Duckworth, James

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, Sir John

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Blake, Edward

  Hogan, James Francis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Colville, John

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Maddison.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Donnell, John

  NOES.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Charrington, Spencer

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Clare, Octavins Leigh

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Ernest

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Butcher, John George

  Curzon, Viscount

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm,

  Morrison, Walter

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Heath, James

  Murray Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Howarth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Strauss, Arthur

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

  Knowles, Lees

  Penn, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newt'n)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans'a

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Long Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (T'nt'n)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Bobert

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Lowles, John

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wilson, John. (Falkirk)

  Lucas Shadwell, William

  Richard son, SirThos (Hartlep'l

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellisonton

  Ridley, Rt Hon Sir Matthew W.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmor

  Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

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

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Resolution agreed to.

  5. £10,000, Supplementary, Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.
  MR. CALDWELL ()asked for an explanation of these subsidies.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO TILE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): What happened was this. When the Transvaal war broke out the Eastern Telegraph Company were laying another wire between St. Helena and Cape Town, and in the ordinary course the vessel which was laying that cable would afterwards have returned to England and laid the wire between St. Helena and Ascension. If that course had been followed, the result would have been to delay by about three months the laying of the last link in a cable which would give us an alternative route. In order, therefore, to get this alternative route open as soon as possible we arranged with the company that they should send an extra ship out from England to lay the cable between Ascension and St. Helena concurrently with that between St. Helena and Cape Town, and we undertook to pay whatever the cost might be up to £15,000 if the wire were laid by Christmas instead of, as was originally intended, by March 31. The company agreed to those terms, and, as a matter of fact, the cable was laid by December 15 or 16, and instead of the extra cost involved being £15,000
  only amounted to £10,000.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the explanation was satisfactory.
  6. £2,847, Treasury Chest Fund.
  MR. CALDWELLasked for an explanation of the Vote.
  MR. HANBURYsaid the simple explanation was that in the case of most of these Treasury chests, and in the case particularly of Hong Kong and Mauritius, the currency was silver, and at the beginning of each year the value of the rupee or Mexican dollar was worked out. As a matter of fact, the price of silver went up, and therefore, of course, they were to that extent the losers. That was the whole explanation of the loss.

  CLASS VI.
  7. £60,686, Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (): This Estimate is a large one, and shows an increase on the year of upwards of £2,000. Its object is to redress the difference between the interest which the State pays to the savings banks and friendly societies and the interest which the State receives from investments in Consols and other Government securities. That is a loss to

  1591
  the State, and I think the time has come when it might well be considered whether some other forms of investment might not be added, so as to reduce this loss. In 1903, when the interest on Consols will be reduced from 2¾ to 2½ per cent., that question will become a pressing one. I think also that more power should be given to local trustees and managers in the investment of their funds, especially in local securities, such as Municipal and School Board ones charged upon the rates. They have a better knowledge on the spot, and they are able to take up and to realise such local securities more quickly than is the case with securities with which their knowledge is more or loss limited. This Estimate, of course, though large, is not one which is in reality a loss to the State, for whatever may be given to friendly societies is in aid of some of our best institutions. With regard to the savings banks, I think they are a chief means of encouraging thrift in this country. Apart from the moral value of these institutions, I should like to impress on the Committee that they are a very material saving to the State: they increase its productive power by enabling many who would otherwise never become capitalists to begin business, and they encourage some of our best national characteristics. I believe the banking interest have had the idea that savings banks aided by the State were institutions adverse to their interest; but my experience has taught me that in many cases the savings banks are the beginners of capital for large numbers of persons, who go into business, and thus feed the banking interest of the country. This Vote in aid of these institutions is therefore extremely useful. There are some striking figures in connection with the savings banks. There are now 231 of them. They have depositors to the number of one and a half millions, and deposits amounting to upwards of £50,000,000, in addition to which about £1,000,000 of stock has been purchased through the banks for depositors; and that amount would have been yet larger if even now depositors thoroughly understood the machinery through which such purchases through deposits are made. These figures are not only large but increasing, and last year, so far as deposits were concerned, was the highest recorded. There is no less than £1,000,000 sterling marking the margin between liabilities and assets. I have the
  1592
  honour to be chairman of the Inspection Committee of the Trustee Savings Banks, and our experience, which is consistent, tolls us that these moneys voted by the State are well expended. Touching a point on which there are differences of opinion, I may, speaking in general terms, say that the moneys are utilised in the way Parliament intends. These savings banks come well within the principle for which the banks were founded. In order to test this point I had some figures extracted, and I. find in eight typical banks the average deposit is £38 odd, and by way of seeing whether those deposits. belonged to the classes for which the banks were intended I had information prepared, and I found that, with the exception of at the most about 5 per cent., the deposits were made by those classes which it was proposed to benefit. There are two classes of depositors, the former of whom would lead one to form a contrary opinion, and on this point the National Debt Commissioners have recently made an inquiry. Those are the depositors who make the maximum deposit of £50 in one sum, and the reason of that is largely the effect of the Workmen's Compensation Act. People obtain large amounts, and are advised to put them into a savings bank. Sums are also banked by parents in the names of their children on birthdays and the like, and those accumulate to considerable sums, while the future owners of them are increasing in social position. Re-deposits in one sum of amounts drawn out separately also account for high deposits since, and under the Act of 1891 there has been an appreciable improvement in the condition and management of the banks. The statutory defaults are few and comparatively trivial, and I am bound to say representations made by the Committee have almost invariably been well received. There is a marked improvement, the working expenses have been reduced generally to an economical point, and in many cases the rate of interest has been increased in a corresponding degree, while there is every reason to believe, humanly speaking, that the banks are safe depositories for the savings of the poor. While speaking on these points I might say the Act of 1891 has served its purpose, and if the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary could see his way to carry out some administrative—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole question of savings hanks is not open to discussion on a Supplementary Estimate.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I know I may not go into the details of these matters, but I feel that if a Committee could be appointed to inquire into the requirements of administrative reform, or a Bill such as my own passed for the purpose of enlarging the powers of investment, for the amalgamation of banks, for the superannuation of officers, etc., it would be of great service. These matters might be dealt with by some Departmental measure, and I hope the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give them their consideration.
  MR. BARTLEY ()said that the Vote raised a question of great importance which would have to be considered by a Committee of the Treasury or someone connected with the Treasury. He hoped the temporary but serious situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed would not be made an excuse for putting off the inquiry, but that the whole of the savings banks would be put on a better basis. He was the last to object to a Vote of £60,000 for the purpose of promoting thrift, but the question was—was it wise to depart from the rule? The numerous defaults of the banks and the enormous liabilities which they were undertaking should be the subject of an inquiry, and he hoped the Committee which had been announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inquire as to what the class of persons was who used the banks.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the principle upon which this question was being treated by hon. Members opposite amounted to nothing less than State socialism. Subsidies were granted out of the Imperial funds in order that investors might have a higher rate of interest than was realised by the Government itself. When the banks were created it was intended that they should be self-supporting, and it was never intended that a subsidy should be given. He was of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could invest the savings
  1594
  banks money at a higher rate of interest, in which case the deficit which appeared in the Estimate would disappear. It was expected that investments under the Colonial Loans Act of last session would afford additional opportunities for investing savings banks deposits at an increased interest. It was not wise that the managers of local banks should have power' to borrow money on local securities, leaving any losses to be made up by the Government. The principle was not sound.
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot follow my hon. friend below the gangway in the statistics which he gave. The thing which we should have judged is the deficiency which is to be made up by the Vote. That deficiency arises from three causes. One cause is very satisfactory—namely, the increased number of depositors and the increased amount of the deposits. Another factor which necessitates the Vote is the increased difference between what we have to pay and what we receive from our securities. It is always well to remember what a great advantage savings banks are in the way of encouraging thrift, but still there is now a state of things that was not originally contemplated. The price of Consols has lately risen very high, and the greater portion of the loss was due to the fact that we had to buy Consols at a price which did not give a sufficient interest on the investment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognising that the time has arrived for re-considering the position, gave notice a fortnight ago that a Bill dealing with the whole question would be introduced.

  CLASS VIII.
  8. £500, Supplementary, Temporary Commissions.
  9. £23,327, Repayments to the Local Loans Fund.

  CLASS III.
  10. £1,440, Supplementary, Prisons, Scotland.
  MR. CALDWELLasked for some information upon this Vote. He noticed that there was an increase of £ 1,440 over the original Estimate, and the under estimate was apparently due to the increased number of prisoners. The Estimate of 1899-90 showed a decrease of £300 on the preceding year in respect of "clothing," but it was now discovered that in place of that decrease there should have been an increase of £279. He desired to know the reason why a decrease had been assumed in the Estimates of the present year, when, as a matter of fact, there had been an increase. If those who prepared the Estimates had gone back to the statistics of the previous year they must have seen that prisoners in Scotland were increasing, the increase being most considerable during the last half of the year. They might have assumed, therefore, in the Estimates for the current year that there would be a large increase of prisoners during the present year. The Estimates for the ensuing year had now been issued, and seemed to be based on the footing of there being a decreased number of prisoners as compared with the current year; but no doubt the Lord Advocate would have to come later on for an increased Supplementary Estimate when he found, as he would find, that crime had increased with the increased expansion of trade. Of 49,569 persons convicted there were only 9,666 who were illiterate, and ninety-nine were of superior education. It was interesting to observe the close connection between wages and drink. When wages, were high the consumption of drink increased, and there was a close connection between drink and the number of convictions. The increased prosperity of the country led to increased drinking and to an increased number of commitments in respect of those particular crimes—drunkenness and breaches of the peace—that accounted for four-fifths of the prisoners in Scotland. Wages in Scotland were paid mostly on Saturdays and Wednesdays, and in 245 cases inquired into by the Secretary for Scotland, 101 of the crimes were committed on Saturdays, and forty on Wednesdays, leaving a balance of 104 to be distributed among the other five days of the week. The largest number of commitments were in respect of drunkenness and breaches of the peace, which occurred mostly in those districts where the public-houses were open
  1596
  till eleven o'clock, a smaller percentage occurring where they closed at ten o'clock. In Glasgow and huge cities the proportion of committals was eighty-three in 10,000 persons, while in the smaller boroughs the proportion gradually declined, till, in country districts, where the ten o'clock closing was universal, the percentage was only thirty-four in 10,000. That was an important difference, and it was impossible to overlook the connection between the supply of drink, the hour of closing of public houses, and the increasing number of prisoners for whom they were asking for extra provision in this Supplementary Estimate. He wished to know whether the Scotch Office had been considering this increased number of prisoners, and how far they could reduce the number in the future? He did not ask them to produce legislation, for that would be out of order on this Vote, but, short of legislation, had they any other method of dealing with the difficulty? They had tried moral means, such as visits by ministers of various denominations and female visitors, and also the institution of Bible classes and other agencies; but he was afraid they were not doing much to arrest crime. With regard to the increased cost of escorting and removing prisoners, if the number was likely to go on increasing it would be better to increase the cell accommodation instead of having the expense of removing the prisoners from one prison to another. He should be very glad to hear from the Lord Advocate what the Scotch Office proposed to do to deal with this great increase of drunkenness and breaches of the peace. His own view was that much good might be done by leaving to local authorities the power to close public-houses at an earlier hour.
  MR. PARKER SMITH (): I think the points alluded to by the hon. Member opposite raise an important question which ought to be considered by the House. For several years past this Vote has fallen under the action of the guillotine, and I do not think the Supplementary Estimates is the proper place to raise this question. I hope we shall have a chance of raising it on the Estimates, because it involves matters that require careful consideration. There is the question of the great increase in the number of prisoners, and the question whether short sentences produce any good at all. Last session some of us

  1597
  were anxious to raise this question, and the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the anxiety of Scotch Members, appointed a small Committee, which is now inquiring into some of these questions. Before the Estimates come on I hope we shall have made our report, so that the result of our investigations will be in possession of hon. Members at large. There are other questions outside the scope of our reference, but in the course of our investigations we have been able to form opinions on other matters, which opinions I hope we shall have an opportunity of expressing to the House. I would appeal to the Lord Advocate to exercise the power which the Government have of alternating the Votes so as to give us this year an opportunity of discussing these questions.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I can assure my hon. friend who last spoke that I think it is desirable that we should have a discussion upon the management of prisons this year, and I hope we shall have it upon the Estimates. I would remind him, however, that some of the questions alluded to are scarcely pertinent to prison management. Short sentences have been mentioned, but I do not see how anything done or left undone by the Prison Commissioners can affect the question of sentences. I am quite aware that it is a very important matter. A well-known authority has declared in favour of short sentences, and others take a different view. In the same way the question of drunkenness is again scarcely a question of prison management. There is, however, a Committee sitting upon the subject, and I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing that on the Estimates this year. The hon. Member who raised this discussion, in a very interesting and painstaking speech, scarcely touched upon the question of prison management. But he has furnished his own answer. The Supplementary Estimate before the House is necessary because of the increase in the number of prisoners, and the increase in the cost for escorts and conveyance is caused by a greater number of commitments and transfers. The policy which has been steadily maintained by my noble friend is that, so far as possible, the expense of the transfer and escorting of prisoners shall be avoided. The rest of the hon. Member's speech
  1598
  cited statistics, and he complained that the estimates had been prepared with a certain want of care, because they had not foreseen that this increase would be necessary. I do not think that the present commissioners can be very much to blame for that. It was impossible to foresee the prosperity of the country. The hon. Member said that there was really no increase in serious crime, but in minor crime there was a great increase, which was due to the increase in prosperity and to drunkenness and breaches of the peace. His speech seemed to come to this that wages and drink were closely associated; that Scotchmen were not so bad as Irishmen; and that Irishmen, if they had not a double dose of original sin, had a good deal more than other nations. When the hon. Member asks me what we propose to do apart from legislation really the answer is rather a difficult one. He speaks of Bible classes, and asks if we rely upon Bible classes and female visitors to remedy this evil. He unwillingly admits that these good efforts have not had the success that you might have expected, but I notice that he did not work out the percentage, as he did in the case of the ten o'clock and eleven o'clock closing. Had he done so he would have found that the increase of crime varied inversely according to the increase of Bible classes. It is asking me rather too much to state what we propose to do to stop what is, I am afraid, only human nature. Whenever there is prosperity in the country minor crimes, such as drunkenness and breaches of the peace, will be increased, and I am afraid that, as long as human nature is human nature, that will probably be true. So far as the question of this estimate is concerned the hon. Member has completely found an answer for himself, and I should not be justified in detaining the Committee any longer in replying to his arguments.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I regret that the Lord Advocate has not treated this subject more seriously, and I think these figures might have been more carefully Estimated. The connection of crime with intemperance in Scotland raises a very serious question, and the Lord Advocate has been good enough to promise us an opportunity of discussing it upon the Estimates. I am aware that the granting of those opportunities does not lie with

  1599
  the Lord Advocate, for we all know that the time is so limited and occupied by larger Votes of wider scope and greater interest, which are likely to monopolise the whole time, and I am extremely sorry that we have not had a better opportunity this evening of considering this very important point. It could not have been better introduced than by the speech of my hon. friend. He has disclosed the whole situation, and shown the manifest connection between prosperity, high wages, and lax expenditure, and the results in Scotland. His theory is supported by the reports of inspectors and superintendents of police in every borough in Scotland. It is a very serious matter, and I am sorry the Lord Advocate did not take a more serious view of it. He would have immensely encouraged those struggling with this difficulty if he had given it some support. He would not have been acting rashly if he had helped my hon. friend to draw public attention to the fact that there is this constant connection between prosperity, drink, and crime, for a great deal can be done here by stimulating, directing, and guiding public opinion to form a healthy judgment on these matters, and by encouraging a more vigilant administration to aid the efforts of those who are deeply concerned in this matter.
  MR. CALDWELL: I find fault with those who prepared this Estimate, because they have not taken into consideration the increase of crime in Scotland in 1898. For that year the number increased to 5,000 over the previous year, and it was greatest during the last half of 1898. When preparing the statistics for 1899-1900 they should have known of this increase in crime. The Estimate for the ensuing year is practically upon the same erroneous basis, which gives an erroneous impression, because it will appear that next year we are calculating upon a diminution of prisoners when there is not a vestige of reason for believing that this will be the case.

  CLASS IV.
  11. £3,000, Supplementary, Science and Art Department.
  LORD HUGH CECIL (): I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Council if he will take this opportunity of giving the Committee some information with regard to the new department.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this question.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: We are asked to vote new money for the expenses of this department, rendered necessary by virtue of reorganisation, and the money may he used in a way we might object to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The matter to which the noble Lord refers cannot be raised upon this Vote, because it is a Vote to supplement the grants which have been given during the present financial year, with which the new department has nothing to do.
  MR. CALDWELL: Will the Vice-President of the Council explain if there is any of this amount provided for Scotland'?
  THE VICE - PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): No; for Scotch education there is another Vote altogether.
  MR. CALDWELL: What I wish to point out is that these Science schools in this Vote are specially for England and Ireland, and you have not got any such schools in Scotland paid out of Imperial money.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If that is so, the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss them.
  MR. CALDWELLthought he was entitled to object to any money being voted to England and Ireland only, whilst there was no corresponding grant to Scotland. He merely desired to emphasise the point that there was not the same kind of school in Scotland paid out of Imperial money, although Scotland had its ordinary grant, with England and Ireland, for Science and Art classes.
  SIR J. GORSTpointed out that this was a Vote for Science and Art in

  1601
  England and Ireland, and that there was a separate rote for Science and Art in Scotland.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY [27TH FEBRUARY].
Resolution reported:—
SUPPLY [27TH FEBRUARY].
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900-1.
  "That 114,880 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, including 18,805 Royal Marines."
  SUPPLY [23RD FEBRUARY].
  Resolution reported:—
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900-1901 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £16,626,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901 namely;—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  Class I.

  £

  Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

  20,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  40,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  17,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  18,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  12,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  12,000

  Revenue Buildings

  140,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  135,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  80,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  2,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  6,000

  Rates on Government Property

  230,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  70,000

  Railways, Ireland

  70,000

  Class II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  £

  House of Lords, Offices

  3,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  13,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  39,000

  Home Office

  50,000

  Foreign Office

  30,000

  Colonial Office

  23,000

  Privy Council Office, etc.

  5,000

  Board of Trade

  60,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture

  75,000

  Charity Commission

  16,000

  Civil Service Commission

  18,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  24,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  2,200

  Local Government Board

  80,000

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  10

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  11,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  10

  Registrar General's Office

  17,000

  Stationery and Printing

  250,000

  Woods, Forests, &c, Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  23,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  25,500

  Fishery Board

  8,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,500

  Registrar General's Office

  2,000

  Local Government Board

  4,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments

  16,000

  Department of Agriculture

  65,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  22,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  16,000

  Registrar General's Office

  7,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  6,000

  Class III.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  40,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  27,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  140,000

  Land Registry

  14,000

  County Courts

  14,000

  Police, England and Wales

  22,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  260,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  140,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  18,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  15,000

  Crofters Commission

  2,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  35,000

  Ireland:—

  £

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  35,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  45,000

  Land Commission

  50,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  46,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  40,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  600,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  45,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,500

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,500

  Class IV.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Hoard of Education

  4,000,000

  British Museum

  80,000

  National Gallery

  9,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  4,000

  Scientific Investigation, &c, United Kingdom

  15,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  38,000

  London University

  5

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  630,000

  National Gallery

  1,400

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  600,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  1,400

  Queen's Colleges

  2,500

  Class V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  220,000

  Uganda, Central and East Africa Protectorates and Uganda Railway

  300,000

  Colonial Services

  230,000

  Cyprus, Grant in Aid

  31,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  38,000

  Class VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  280,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc.

  3,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1,000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  17,000

  Class VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  8,072

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  8,000

  Paris Exhibition, 1900

  29,000

  Total for Civil Services

  £10,086,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenue

  830,000

  Post Office

  3,600,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  210,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  1,550,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £6,540,000

  Grand Total

  £16,626,000"

  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. WEIRdesired to call attention to the serious state of affairs existing in the Moray Firth owing to foreign trawlers trawling in these waters. No sooner had British trawlers been prohibited from trawling there than there was a considerable increase of foreigners. No less than fifty-five foreign trawlers were seen in the Firth last year by the Fishery Board cruisers, and several of them were seen on various occasions. The object of the bye-law made by the Scottish Fishery Board was to keep out trawlers, and to preserve the rich fishing banks of the Moray Firth. He thought steps ought to be taken by the Foreign Office to close the Firth against foreign trawlers. This matter had been brought to the attention of the authorities time after time, hut nothing had been done, and the result was that the fisheries were being ruined. He suggested legislation which should exclude all trawlers. He also suggested that there should be better facilities for storage of Scotch herrings at St. Petersburg, and better accommodation at the new port for landing herrings. He deplored the fact that although a Hydrographical Conference met last summer to inquire into the whole question of the fisheries, and to suggest means to solve the difficulty, no report had yet been issued. It had always been supposed that this country was taking the lead in the matter, and it was somewhat surprising to find that that was not the fact. Having regard to the fact that the deliberations of the conference were concluded last summer, it was quite time that a report was issued. Another matter to which he desired to draw attention was with respect to the British North Borneo Company. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated that there had been certain correspondence between the company and Mat Salleh. That correspondence ought to be placed upon the Table of the House, so that the House might ascertain whether Mat Salleh had been treated fairly by the company. He understood with regard to Malta that in fifteen years from last March the Italian language would not be allowed in the law courts, and that English was

  1605
  to be the official language. Such a change was opposed by all sections of the Maltese, who had a right to expect that the ordinance passed by William IV. should be continued, and that the language which had been the official language for nine centuries should not he taken away. He hoped the Government would not create another Ireland in Malta. He desired also to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a serious state of things on the coast of Scotland, where trawlers carried on their work with covered lights. No doubt there were penalties for this offence, but they were not sufficiently heavy. They should he made infinitely heavier, in order to put a stop to this robbery of the seas. No one knew how many fishing boats had been run down by this practice. The right hon. Gentleman had also promised that liberal concessions would be made to the poorer districts of the Highlands of Scotland in the matter of light railways, but up to the present nothing had been done. He asked that Lemberg lights should be provided on the coast of Ross-shire and Sutherlandshire, and at dangerous places in the Western Islands. What between the Board of Trade, Trinity House, and the Northern Lighthouse Board it seemed as if absolutely nothing could be done. The sale of Crown salmon rights in Scotland ought to be stopped. The supply of salmon was decreasing, and more should be done in the way of erecting salmon ladders, as in Norway and Sweden, to allow the salmon to get higher up the rivers and into the inland lochs. He was sorry that the Secretary for Scotland was not in this House. The Lord Advocate had his own legal department to attend to, and much of his time was occupied in Parliament Square, Edinburgh. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman did what he could, but he had too much legal work. The Secretary for Scotland ought to be in this House, in order that the Scotch Members might be in direct communication with him. As to the last deer forest return, the Scottish Office admitted that it was inaccurate. There ought to be no difficulty in obtaining accurate statistics of the area of deer forests in the Highlands. He trusted the Lord Advocate would impress on the Secretary for Scotland the need for more attention to Highland matters. The Secretary for Scotland
  1606
  should not be in the miserable plight of being unable to obtain accurate information in regard to the deer forest area. There must be something radically wrong. He also wished the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would arrange for a better mail service between Stornoway and the mainland.
  MR. HAVELOOK WILSON (): When I venture to bring shipping questions under the notice of Parliament the President of the Board of Trade unfortunately loses his temper and gives my statements a flat contradiction. I am going to prove to-night that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be more careful in giving flat contradictions to Members of the House. Last year I made a charge in regard to the manner in which the business of the Consular Office in Now York was carried on. I said that in that office a state of affairs existed which was a disgrace; that seamen were plundered by crimps, and that shipowners shared in the spoil. The right hon. Gentleman replied that Her Majesty's Consul at Now York had stated in a despatch that there was no foundation for the statement I had made. Now, I have a letter dated 10th April, 1895, which Her Majesty's Consul sent to the Superintendent of the Mercantile Office, Mr. Frederick Wood, Dock Street, London, in regard to a complaint by Thomas O'Brien, who had been charged by the crimps 12 dollars for engagement, and at the termination of the voyage he had been swindled out of 16 dollars more by the captain for the privilege of leaving work. The Consul replied—
  "It is a matter of common repute that they pay bonuses to shipowners for the privilege of supplying crews, and there can be no doubt that they recoup themselves by levying fees from the sailors for whom they procure employment."
  That letter was signed "C. O. Sanderson." I would like to know on what ground the right. hon. Gentleman denied my statement. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the reports in regard to the desertions of seamen he would have found that it was stated deliberately that the reason why seamen were charged these enormous fees for employment was because' a large number of shipowners had entered into contracts with the crimps to supply the men. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman

  1607
  thought this was a trifle, but I will tell him what I mean. In New York every year then; are engaged on British ships over 100,000 men, and these have to pay on an average six dollars, or a total of 600,000 dollars. £120,000 is a very big sum to take out of the pockets of these sailors for the privilege of going to work. But when they go to sea they have to pay larger sums to the captains for the privilege of being released from their work; so that in one port alone in the United States British seamen have to pay close on a quarter of a million of money out of their wages. Hon. Members who represent seaport constituencies ought to be in their places in the House to expose and resist this swindle. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that they had been in correspondence with the Consul at New York, and that they were doing all they could to stop the practice, but it is two years since I brought the matter under the notice of the House of Commons, and surely it could not take the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade that time to rectify such a matter? All they have got to do is to give definite instructions to Her Majesty's Consuls not to permit shipping agents, crimps and loafers to go into the Consular offices at the time men were being paid off. If the sailors had votes this matter would have been very differently treated. The other night I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the section of the Act which dealt with the rating of able seamen, and I asked the question why the Board of Trade allowed men to be signed on articles and agreements when they were unable to produce certificates showing that they had served four years before the mast. The light hon. Gentleman said that that was no hardship to the men, but I hold that it is a very serious hardship to real able seamen if men were engaged who could not do the work. The right hon. Gentleman said a few nights ago that they had no power to refuse to put men on the articles of agreement as A. B.s if the captain so desired. I say that this section says altogether different from that. It says distinctly that a man shall not be entitled to the rating of A. B. unless he can prove four years sea service before the mast, and if the Board of Trade wish to stand on their rights all they have to do is to say to the shipowner, or captain, or anyone else who engages the men as A. B.s, that unless
  1608
  the men are able to prove four years sea service they cannot be entered as A. B.s. They may be taken on as boys, or ordinary seamen, or stewards, or carpenters, but they cannot be given the rating of A. B. unless they are able to prove their sea service in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. The right hon. Gentleman has not paid any attention to this section, and I anticipate that when he gets up to reply he will simply ignore the question altogether. That, however, will not prevent me endeavouring to press it home, and I intend to keep on pressing it until I get some satisfaction. I have consulted a learned counsel with regard to this section, and he tells me distinctly that the Board of Trade have no right whatever to issue instructions to superintendents to give men the rating of A. B. when they are not able to prove their sea service. I trust that the President of the Board will reconsider his decision in this matter, and that he will endeavour to carry out the law. I do not want any special privileges for sailors and firemen. I do not ask for that at all. I only ask for common justice. I say that if an Act of Parliament is passed for the benefit of seamen, we have a right to see that that Act of Parliament is carried out in a proper manner. I know there is no fine or penalty provided under this section. But still it is within the power of the Board of Trade to refuse to enter a man as A. B. unless he is able to prove the proper period of sea service. Now. I come to the question of accommodation on board ship. The right hon. Gentleman the other night, in reply to statements which I made as to the accommodation provided for lascars, said I was pressing this matter, not for the benefit of the lascars, but with the view of driving them out of British ships altogether. There may be some truth in that statement. I know the lascars would not be employed on British ships were it not for the fact that their labour is cheap, and that shipowners can impose upon them by robbing them of their proper accommodation. Of course, having the right to engage these lascars, they are naturally displacing British labour, and we see how serious this matter is when we bear in mind that whereas in 1860 there were but 350 lascars employed, there are now something like 31,000 on British ships. Ship-

  1609
  ping companies which formerly employed only white labour are now going in for lascar labour, in order that they may compete with the P. & O. Company and the British India Company, so that it may eventually be the case that the whole of our British ships will be manned by lascars. The Board of Trade by their inaction are helping them in the matter. There is another reason why I. object to these lascars being used other than that they are replacing British seamen. We have complained for a long while about the accommodation for seamen on board British ships. A. Royal Commission which sat in the year 1891 recommended an alteration of the law in this respect. It recommended that the accommodation should be increased from 72 cubic feet to 120. But there is no Government that has been good enough to alter the law in that direction. If it is possible for shipping companies to escape providing proper accommodation by employing lascars, naturally they will employ coolie labour, and British seamen will not be able to get employment at all.! submit, therefore, I have a right to insist that if coolie or black labour is to be employed in the place of British seamen for the sake of cheapness, they shall not be sweated by the shipowners, and shall be worked only under fair conditions. The right hon. Gentleman went on to contend that lascars did not require the same amount of accommodation as white men. Just fancy that from the Imperial Government from a Government which talks so largely about the British Empire and the "sons of the Empire." Fancy the right hon. Gentleman getting up in the House of Commons to say that some of the sons of the Empire do not require much accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a petition sent by these lascars to Her Majesty the Queen. He said that they had petitioned to be left severely alone, and that they were quite happy and contented with the accommodation provided for them by the P. and O. Company I do not believe that the lascars ever wrote that petition. I know they did not. It was prepared for them by some of the agents of the P. and O. Company. I remember one passage in the petition in which they are made to say, "We like to huddle together in our beloved Indian fashion." That may be
  1610
  very nice for the lascars in the open air in India, but when they come to this country we have no right to allow them to huddle together in this manner to the danger of the health of the public at large. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a trip one night to the Victoria and Albert Docks, and to see these lascars huddled together on the P. and O. boats. Let him see how they are crowded together in their dens and dungeons. However the right hon. Gentleman may endeavour to justify his assertion that the lascars do not require the same accommodation as white men. I am bound to say that I do not care what his opinion may be. for I have the law on me side and that is good enough for me. The law says that British seamen shall have twelve superficial feet and seventy-two cubic feet allotted to each of them, and if any shipping company or person commits a breach of that law he is liable to a fine of £25 for each offence. I asked him a question the other day as to a ship called the "Australia," on which the men each had only nine superficial feet instead of twelve. I inquired if the right hon. Gentleman would take action. He declines to do so. and he says that there are other mutters which ought to be taken into consideration. Why does he show this great consideration for the P. and 0. Company.' Why this reluctance on the part of the Government to compel this company to obey the law? They get £100,000 a year from the Government in the form of a subsidy for carrying mails and troops, and yet, although they get this huge subsidy, there is reluctance on the part of the Government and of the President of the Board of Trade to enforce the law. I say I have some ground of complaint, and that the inhabitants of the East-end of London also have some grounds of complaint against the Government in this matter. Quite a large number of these natives die from cholera and other Asiatic diseases, and by and by we shall have cholera brought into this country, and we shall be able to fasten the responsibility for that on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, because he will not insist on the P. and O. Company providing these men with proper accommodation. Disease may be brought into our land by reason of that failure of duty, and thousands of people

  1611
  may die in consequence. There are I several other matters in connection with the Board of Trade which I am not satisfied with. There is the question of foreigners engaged on British ships. I know there are certain foreigners we are hound to employ, because, at the present time, unfortunately, the supply of British seamen is not sufficient to man the whole of our ships. But there is no reason why we should employ foreigners who are not seamen. The fact that they are not seamen and are not competent to he seamen acts to the disadvantage of resident foreigners in this country and of British seamen. I was making inquiries the other day as to why so many young Swedes and Germans were signed on on our ships at Continental ports; and I was told by a very intelligent German that the reason was this, that in their own country's ships no man can engage as A. B. unless he has served four years at sea, and he must be qualified to do his work. It has to be entered in his discharge and engagement hook that he is a competent A. B., and he cannot engage on a German ship unless he is able to produce that hook. The same law applies in Holland and Belgium. The result is that these young foreigners, after serving about twelve months in their own country's ships as boys, make their way to other ports on the Continent, where British ships are to he found, and partly to avoid conscription, I admit—there they engage on hoard British ships as able-bodied seamen, although they have only done twelve months sea service and, of course, are not competent men at all.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member intend to suggest that under the present law that practice could be stopped by the Board of Trade?
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is right in that contention, he is in order.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I contend that the power exists under Section 126 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which provides that a seaman shall not he entitled to the rating of able-bodied seaman unless he has been at sea four years. I say under that section the President of
  1612
  the Board of Trade can prevent the employment of these young foreigners.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of allowing incompetent seamen to be shipped as able-bodied seamen. At present he seems to be going into the question of allowing foreigners generally to be shipped.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I am complaining that these foreign seamen are allowed to get engagements on British ships under circumstances which amount to an evasion of the law, because they are not competent men and do not comply with the Act of Parliament, and the Board of Trade and the Consuls allow them to sign on British ships as able-bodied seamen when they are not competent to sign on as such, according to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. That is not the only thing I have to complain of. In regard to the articles of agreement the right hon. Gentleman has made some slight concession. He has promised that articles of agreement shall be translated into a number of European languages, so that when foreigners who cannot understand our language are being engaged on board British ships a copy of the articles of agreement in their own language shall be handed to them to read. But it may so happen that they may not be able to read, and what I want to insist on is that these articles of agreement shall be read out to the men so that every man may thoroughly understand what he is signing. Surely the Board of Trade can do something in this matter. I believe that if the Board of Trade would only insist that wherever crews of this kind are being engaged, the captain should be compelled to find competent interpreters to interpret the articles to each seaman in his own language it would be found that the trouble was so great that the experience would in the future be avoided, and British seamen would be employed. I thoroughly understand why it is that these foreigners are preferred to Englishmen. It is a fact, that foreigners who have been resident in England for any length of time, and who can speak the English language fluently, very often find that they have just as much difficulty in getting employment as the Britisher, for the officer says to them, "You know too much." It is not a good

  1613
  tiling to know too much on board a ship, more especially when the articles of agreement are being read out. The captains do not want the men to understand too much; the less they understand, in fact, the better, so that when settling day comes the advantage will be all on one side. It is for that reason that many captains and owners prefer foreigners who cannot speak English. Another matter of which! have to complain is their failure to pay the passage home of seamen discharged at foreign ports. Under the 186th Section owners are directed to pay all the expenses of sending seamen home to the United Kingdom when they are discharged at foreign ports. Now, it ought to be the duty of the Consuls, when men are being discharged at their offices, to see that this section is carried out, The section says that,
  "Masters shall, besides paying the wages to which the seaman or apprentice is entitled, either provide him with adequate employment on hoard some other British ship bound to the port in Her Majesty's dominions at which he was originally shipped, or to a port in the United Kingdom agreed to by the seaman, or furnish the means of sending him back to some such port, or provide him with a passage home, or deposit with the Consular Office such a sum of money as is by the office or merchant deemed sufficient to defray the expense of maintenance and passage home."'
  I submit that under that section the responsibility rests upon the Consul, when a captain is discharging his crew in a foreign port, to say to that captain, "You must deposit in this office sufficient to pay the man's expenses to the port at which he was engaged, and also his maintenance at so much per day, so as to provide him with keep." Now, I find that when crews are being discharged before the Consul at Rotterdam or Antwerp, if a man asks to be sent home to his port of engagement Her Majesty's consul, instead of insisting upon the captain depositing an amount of money sufficient to provide for the maintenance and passage of the sailor, tells the captain to deposit ten shillings, which is the exact boat fare from Rotterdam to Harwich. And then when the man arrives at Harwich he has to pay his train expenses to Newcastle or Cardiff out of his wages, which may only be a small amount. If subsequently he tries to recover his fare—I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would give some attention to what I am saying, for I am
  1614
  certain he cannot reply without knowing what I am talking about I say that when the man avails himself of this section to claim his fare in a court of law, the owner of the ship produces the agreement with the endorsement of the Consul, and that shuts the man out of court altogether. The Court says, "The Consul said ten shillings was enough." That is treated as sufficient answer to the claim, and the man is prevented getting all he is entitled to. I have been in correspondence with the Board of Trade on this matter. I have asked the Board of Trade if they cannot see their way clear to advise consuls to insist upon payment of the full fare with maintenance. If they cannot do that, surely they could advise Consuls to leave it an entirely open question, so that if the man chooses to claim his full fare in a court of law he may not be faced with the endorsement of the Consul on the articles of agreement. Let it be left open to the man to settle the matter with the shipowner in a court of law when he arrives in the United Kingdom. Can it be denied that that is a fair proposal to make to the Board of Trade? If the Board of Trade will not do their duty then leave it open to other people to do it for them. I think I have kept the House a sufficient time, although I contend that I am perfectly justified in making these complaints, seeing that seamen are not able to come to this House and make the complaints for themselves. As their representative it is my duty to avail myself of every opportunity that I can get, and to keep on knocking at the door of this House of Commons until the Government do some thing in the direction of improving the conditions under which seamen live and labour. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are anxious to do all they can for "poor Jack." I wish they would help him to save the £120,000 which he is swindled out of in New York every year. If they will do that then we will begin to see in the right hon. Gentleman a sweet little cherub sitting up aloft looking after the interests of poor Jack, and the President of the Board of Trade will earn the gratitude and respect of the whole of the seamen of this country.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL (): As regards the system of crimping as practised in New York and other

  1615
  American ports I think we are entitled to a definite reply from the Government. I have read very carefully a volume detailing the complaints of British subjects in South Africa which more or less brought about the war, but I have not read in that volume anything to compare for a moment with what I have read in the
  volume published by the Government with reference to the desertions of seamen in foreign ports. If what the Consuls state in that volume is true—if half of it is true—I say it is the duty of the Government to interfere, and to prevent this system which is robbing seamen of their wages. In South Africa millionaires complained, but these are the complaints of working men. I have one particular case which I wish to put before the President of the Board of Trade. A man named McDonnell, who resides in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and who is an inteligent working man, met with an accident in New York, and had to be confined in one of the hospitals. He was left penniless, and was compelled to work his passage home, and he told me that before he could obtain employment in an English ship he had to sign for thirty dollars, out of which the boarding master deducted twenty dollars, and he only earned ten dollars for work for which he should have obtained thirty dollars. I maintain it is the duty of the Foreign Office to protect these helpless men, and to see that no one comes between them and the captain of the ship. I say it is the duty of the Government to communicate with the Government of the united States on this matter. If a system existed in this country under which foreign seamen were subjected to these deductions, then I think the Government would step in and protect these men from being robbed. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough stated that in New York alone £140,000 a year is deducted from seamen's wages by these crimps. It is a scandal, and ought not to be allowed to continue. It is quite evident that the President of the Board of Trade is callous in this matter, but I would ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affair's, who I think is a very reasonable man, whether' such a system should be allowed to continue without protest. If the Government are not prepared to deal with it, then the agitation must go on, and I hope the sense of justice of hon. Gentlemen opposite will
  1616
  lead them to support the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in demanding justice and protection for these men.
  MR. MADDISON (): I feel this question is of such importance that I must trespass on the time of the House in discussing it. The hon. Member for Middlesborough is a very persistent man, and he has a very great and sacred cause to defend. I have spent most of my life in a seaport. I have been constantly brought into contact with seamen, and I venture to say there is no class in the community who render greater services to the Empire than the merchant seamen of this country, and no class who have benefited less by the prosperity of the country. Looking at these and other considerations I believe we have a good case, and I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will realise that anything that can be done to improve the lot of our seamen ought to be done. I was very sorry to hear the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the other night. He discovered allegations that were never intended, because no one had disparaged Mr. Sanderson, and he went on to say that he knew nothing about those illegalities. What are the facts? The shipping office in New York is not in the same building as the Consular office, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman could only know if he made definite inquiries. But my hon. friend, as a responsible Member of this House, has said that he himself during a period of four months continually witnessed scenes which the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs admitted were, if true, very shameful. His attitude did encourage me more than that of the President of the Board of Trade. Our ease does not rest on mere hearsay. In the report on the desertion of seamen which was presented to the House on the motion of the gallant Admiral opposite—who I am surprised does not help the mercantile seamen as assiduously as he helps the bluejacket and the marine—I find that the Consul at Philadelphia states that the blood-money is often as high as twenty dollar's, which is deducted from the seaman's advance. Then the Consul at Portland, Oregon, says—
  "The manner of engaging has always some bearing on that of desertions"

  1617
  —I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman understands the gravity of the desertions of British seamen—
  "because it is on that that crimps thrive. I have often found it difficult to induce masters of British vessels to engage independent seamen requiring in many cases no advances, and who were outside crimps' houses. If they did so the boarding-house keepers would refuse to furnish the rest of the crew."
  Talk about paramountey, but the crimp is paramount here. Then the Consul goes on—
  "Some time ago the Mariners' Home, a respectable institution, had to be closed because British shipmasters preferred to patronise crimps, and would not take seamen from the Home."
  I appeal to the House whether my hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough is not quite justified in bringing this matter forward, even at this late hour, in the absence of any satisfactory reply or any clear indication that the two Departments to whom we have appealed are doing anything. I find that the Acting Consul General at San Francisco slates that there has been a decrease in desertions at that port, which—
  "is attributed in a great measure to the contract system for supplying seamen to British ships in force here for two or three years. Under this system the iniquitous charge of bonus or blood-money for supplying seamen, principally levied by boarding-house proprietors, has been abolished, and the inducement to seamen to desert is not so great as formerly."
  I submit that this is a long-standing and grievous evil, which is sapping the moral and physical strength of the mercantile marine. We not only present the evil, but we maintain that it can be very easily remedied. I do not say that we can have a system that will prevent seamen from deserting if they have sufficient justification. I would be very sorry to see that instinct die out. The President of the Board of Trade seems to have come to the conclusion that everything my hon. friend brings up is tainted, and not to be taken notice of. But here we have the testimony of competent officials which is not tainted. Consul Laidlow supplies the remedy. He says—
  "A comprehensive Consular Convention should be concluded with the United States, giving the same exclusive jurisdiction now enjoyed by French and German Consuls, including power to call on the local authorities for necessary assistance."
  1618
  I ask why the Government have not acted on that suggestion. The French and Gorman Governments, who have not a quarter of the interest that we have in the mercantile marine, have seen the evil and have taken steps to remedy it. in conclusion, I would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to stop this system of crimping. I am not unreasonable. I know my hon. friend in his zeal brings a whole catalogue of grievances forward, but that is no reason why attention should not be given to one particular grievance which stands out. With reference to lascars, the right hon. Gentleman, in referring to my hon. friend's speech, made a retort which was justified. He told my hon. friend that his desire was not so much to benefit the lascars as to get rid of them. I do not see why foreigners should be excluded from British ships any more than they are excluded from British workshops. I would resist that most strenuously. I only know men, not nationalities. However, I would not wish to see ships manned with lascars, because they are not equal to British seamen: but as long as they sail under the British flag they come under the Imperial law, and they should have the full benefit of it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the lascars had presented a petition, in which they prayed not to have their beloved Indian fashion interfered with. Does the right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced politician, really believe that that was a genuine petition? He knows very well that these men would sign a petition even to have their wages reduced if the same steps were taken to induce them. The Government allow the P. and 0. Company to employ this inferior labour not for the good of the community, not for the good of the lascars, but for the company's own gain; and this is the Government that want to keep out pauper aliens! I cannot see the consistency or the justice of trying to help the wretched workmen of the East End of London by keeping out pauper aliens, and at the same time encouraging rich shipping companies to employ lascar labour.
  MR. BRODRICK: The three hon. Members who have spoken last have referred to a subject which is only remotely

  1619
  connected with the Department which I have the honour to represent. It must be obvious that what these three hon. Members have asked is considerably beyond what is in the power of the Government to perform. What the Government is performing is a very small modicum of what they desire. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the paper from which extracts have been read was not ordered by the House, but was published by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade on Reports supplied by the Foreign Office in order that the subject should be brought before the public. The Board of Trade pressed the Foreign Office to get the information in order that it might be placed before the shipowners of this country, and the Board of Trade is constantly pressing this subject on the attention of shipowners who can do most in the matter. There has been no remissness on the part of the British Consuls, nor any defect in the British law. If the practice complained of could be stopped by British consuls it would be stopped. The practice can only be checked by the British Consuls in their own offices, but there is nothing whatever to prevent the system, which is undoubtedly an abuse, being carried on immediately outside these offices in New York and other ports. The main fact remains that we are dealing with a foreign country, and that we cannot deal with these matters by a single piece of legislation in this House.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: You can make representations to the United States Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: Constant representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government on this subject, but the point I was going to make is that in order to give effect to these representations legislation would be necessary by the different States of America which it is not in the power of the United States Government to bring into being. The law in Portland might be different from the law in New York, and I would urge that we should not be pressed to give an undertaking which it is not in our power to carry out. Her Majesty's Government can do only two things. They can bring the facts to light and endeavour to preserve order in their own shipping offices. Those who can assist most are the shipping masters
  1620
  who engage the men, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the Chamber of Shipping can assist to a very large extent in this matter. I do not wish hon. Gentlemen to carry away the idea that the Government are in the slightest degree remiss about this matter. We desire that the abuse should be remedied. The Board of Trade has been most active throughout with regard to it, and, so far as the Foreign Office can support them, though it can only be in a modified form, we are perfectly ready to give the best attention to the subject. There is one thing we cannot do—we cannot amend the laws of the United States, nor, so far as I am aware, can the United States Government, in consequence of any representations from this side of the water, exercise the same authority throughout all the States as can be exercised by this House over the United Kingdom. My light hon. friend informs me that in the course of the last few weeks he has been taking steps in the matter, and I think hon. Members would do well to wait and see whether something effective cannot be done in the direction they desire.
  MR. MADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied with reference to the Consular Convention mentioned by Mr. Laidlow.
  MR. BRODRICK: We will give our best attention to the subject, but I cannot be expected to promise more than we may be able to perform. I would ask the hon. Member to exercise patience in the matter. With regard to the variety of questions put to me by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, we will endeavour to obtain the observance of the local laws by trawlers in the Moray Firth, but to give an undertaking such as he desires would open up a very large question connected with the fishing industry.
  MR. WEIR: I asked for information as to the progress of storage accommodation.
  MR. BRODRICK: I mentioned last year that as a result of representations by Her Majesty's Government the accommodation was considerably increased, and if it is not now sufficient it is not for want of pressure on our part. He also asked me to give a pledge that certain

  1621
  Papers with reference to North Borneo should be laid before the House. I am not aware of any correspondence on the subject which has not been given to the House. As to the question of the use of the Maltese language in the police-courts of Malta I can only tell the hon. Member what I told him before.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I desire to say that I entirely sympathise with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, and will support him with my vote. He knows what he is talking about, and the British seaman ought to feel grateful to him for the ability with which he has championed his case before the House. Surely the Government have some machinery at their disposal which would enable them to get information on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government cannot make laws for the United States, but they can set their own house in order. They might set to work at once by means of a Royal Commission and get the facts, and if it is proved that the statements of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough are true, they could then approach the American Government. It is notorious that sailors suffer from these grievances, and it appears an extraordinary thing to me that the Government should treat them so lightly. It is not by treating sailors in this manner that the youth of the country can be induced to enter the mercantile service. This is in a sense an Irish question, for any question that concerns the working classes always appeals to the Irish Members, and when a reasonable and just case is made out we are always ready to support it. If my hon. friend goes to a division, as I hope he will, I shall be very glad indeed to vote with him.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is unfortunate that a matter of this importance should come forward at such a late hour, and I think it would be a better practice if Report of Supply could be brought forward at such a time as would enable matters to be conveniently discussed. I may be asked why I interfere in this debate. My reason is rather a practical one. Several years ago, before I entered the House, I myself was for several years in the mercantile marine, and I sailed on a British ship as an apprentice. I lived practically with
  1622
  the men, and spent most of my time in the forecastle, and took every opportunity of observing as closely as I could the circumstances under which sailors in the mercantile marine lived; and nothing has ever succeeded in effacing from my mind the impression which I then formed of the disagreeable conditions under which they live. I remember at that time comparing most unfavourably the conditions under which British sailors lived with the conditions under which men in the same position in the American mercantile marine lived, the latter being in every respect infinitely superior. That is one reason why I am interested in this matter. The second reason is that a great many sailors in the mercantile marine are Irishmen. Hon. Gentlemen have referred to the circumstances under which mercantile sailors are engaged and discharged in foreign ports. We have heard of the proceedings of the crimps in New York, but I go further than the hon. Member who raised this debate. I think that there should be a strict inquiry, not only into the circumstances connected with the discharge and engagement of sailors in foreign ports and in this country, but also into the circumstances connected with their lives on board ship. With reference to the foreign part of the question I must say that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did not display that sympathy which we have a right to expect from him. Apparently the President of the Board of Trade is not prepared to deal with this question in that spirit of sympathy which it deserves. Many people in this country look upon the subject of the manning of the mercantile marine as one of vital importance, and I do not think it should be suggested to be any disparagement of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that he represents the interests of merchant sailors. I have often wished that we had in this House a man to deal with these matters like Mr. Clark Russell, who has taken up so ably the question of the mercantile marine. We want someone like him to second the efforts of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. I consider that the answer of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is quite unsatisfactory, but I am not prepared to blame him. It is quite evident to me that he has not grasped this question at all. The attitude of the President of the Board of Trade is certainly not particu-

  1623
  larly sympathetic, but neither he nor the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, nor the Government generally, appear to have got the necessary information to allow them to realise the importance of the question. I have a suggestion to make. This is not a very busy session, we have no great legislative programme to deal with, and I would suggest to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and his friends that they might well ask the Government to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole circumstances under which men are engaged and work in the mercantile marine. An announcement that such a Committee was to be appointed would give intense satisfaction to large masses of people in this country. I remember well the time when Mr. Samuel Plimsoll raised his agitation in this House. I was not a Member then, but I have a vivid recollection, seated as I was in the Strangers' Gallery, of seeing him expelled from the House, and of noticing his wife drop the speech which he wished to make on behalf of merchant seamen from the Ladies' Gallery into the Reporters' Gallery. Everybody now acknowledges that Mr. Samuel Plimsoll performed a service of the greatest possible benefit, and his memory is revered as that of one of the greatest humanitarians of the age. I am glad to see the hon. Members for Middlesbrough, Stockton, and the Brightside Division of Sheffield following in his steps Although coffin ships may not be sent to sea as they were before the Plimsoll line was established, I venture to assert that the conditions under which our merchant sailors are compelled to live are such as to disgust the minds of impartial men. Reference has been made to the employment of lascars by the P. and 0. and other companies. I do not know whether it would be in order for me, at this stage, to go into that question. In any case it is too late to do so to-night, so I will merely say this, that in my opinion, and in the opinion of many Irish seamen, it is not fair that large and wealthy ship-owning companies, which draw from the taxpayers of the country enormous sums of money every year, in the form of subsidies for mail contracts, should employ cheap black labour in the place of British and Irish seamen, many of whom are to be found eager and willing to ship on reasonable terms. Such a
  1624
  practice is highly detrimental to the interests of this country. No doubt these lascars are taken on because they accept low wages, but it should not be forgotten that in times of stress, trial, and crisis they would be found of far less value than Irish or British seamen should their services be required. I have repeatedly travelled by the boats of one of these companies between this country and Australia, and I know that, among many people, there is a preference for travelling by the Orient Steam Company, because their vessels are manned by British, Irish, and colonial sailors, while the P. and O. Company's boats are largely manned by lascars. If any hon. Member representing a maritime constituency thinks that my observations are not justified, I am ready to go down with him and discuss the matter with his constituents, and I venture to think he will find that they agree substantially in all I have said. I admire the hon. Member for Middlesbrough for sticking to this question. I have still a lively recollection of the miserable pigsties and dens in which sailors are forced to live on ships. They hardly have room to lie down. With all respect, I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to give further consideration to the case of these men, than whom are to be found no class more unfairly treated and more underpaid. I do not ask him to say definitely forthwith whether he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, should one be moved for; I know he must first consult his colleagues; but I do think this is a matter which should engage the careful attention of the Government.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON (, Cockormouth): I am not following with another speech, but I wish to call the attention of the Home Secretary to something which has occurred to-night, and to explain the circumstances. A meeting was announced to be held in Exeter Hall to-night, the object being to stop the war. It was quite an orderly meeting, but I suppose it will not stop the war. In consequence of the announcement that the meeting would be held, the following notice appeared in an evening paper, and I believe it was also published on placards. But I am not quite certain on that point. I think the House will see, however, that it is a

  1625
  distinct incitement to, I will not say riot, but to disorderly conduct
  "Pro-Boers in Exeter Hall. Stop the War meeting to-night. Ought not to be allowed to meet and thus publicly condemn the war. People who rejoiced exceedingly last night can maintain their enthusiasm by going to Exeter Hall to-night and showing the pro-Boers that their sentiments are not popular."
  I believe that these sentiments are not popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but then they show it in a proper way, and they do not attack me. [An HON. MEMBER: We ought to do so.] We were all orderly at Exeter Hall. I was there. Soon after we had commenced the meeting, however, a tremendous noise was heard, the door was forced open, in spite of our attempts to keep it closed, and a number of men rushed into the room shouting and yelling and waving the Union Jack, an emblem which I, as a patriotic Englishman, am very sorry to see so often used as an implement of disorder. Well, this body of assailants was repulsed. I am happy to say we were strong enough to do that. The meeting again proceeded in an orderly manner for fifteen or twenty minutes, when news came up that there was a violent contest going on on the stairs, that it would not be safe to continue, and that the best way would be to conclude the meeting. We decided to do so, and the question then was how to get home. Just as we had decided to break up the meeting fresh news came that our forces had rallied and again repulsed the enemy. The result was that we managed to hold the meeting quite decently. It was a ticket meeting, paid for with our own money. After another interval we were again disturbed by hideous shouts and roars outside, but at the end of two hours we concluded our meeting. My hon. friends who were with me managed to get out by a side door, which was kindly opened for us; we got into a four-wheeled cab, and told the driver to take us by the most unfrequented ways to this House, which we reached in safety. I bring this before the House because I am informed that when a message was sent to the police they did not seem at all inclined to come and keep order. At all events they were very tardy in doing it. I believe they did come at last, and I really believe there would have been serious work if they had not come. What I want to do now is to call the attention of the
  1626
  right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who is the head of the police force, to the facts, and ask him to be good enough to give orders to the police that on future occasions like this they shall protect the people attending these meetings. However unpopular our opinions may be, I think we ought to be allowed to express them, and the more so because we are so small a minority. I appeal with confidence to the right hon. Gentleman to protect orderly people who are engaged in holding a perfectly legitimate meeting. As I understand it, one of the reasons advanced for this war in the Transvaal is that our fellow-subjects out there were not allowed free speech, and yet that is the very privilege it is sought to deprive us of.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): However little the sympathy which the majority of this House feels with the opinions of the hon. Baronet on the Transvaal War, I am quite sure he has our sympathy in the unfortunate experience he has been through to-night. But many of us have had somewhat similar experiences at political meetings in various parts of the country, and not a few hon. Members have had to escape by back doors and travel by unfrequented streets to their homes in the course of their careers as political candidates. Of course, there is a more serious side to this question. I knew nothing of the intention of the hon. Baronet and his friends to hold this meeting, and I have only heard of the circumstances to-night. The hon. Baronet is quite within his right in calling attention to it, but, of course, until I have had an opportunity of making inquiry, I can say nothing about the conduct of the police, or whether they were or were not wanting in their duty. As the House knows, it is a very delicate matter for the police to interfere in these meetings.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I only complain that they were rather tardy.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: On an occasion which closely approaches to a riot it is difficult to say whether, in coming on the scene, the police are or are not tardy. I can only promise that I will make some inquiry, as at present I know nothing at all about the matter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 50.)

  AYES.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  Baird, John G. Alexander

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Penn, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pilkington, R. (Lanes. Newton

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Purvis, Robert

  Bethell, Commander

  Heath, James

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Bond, Edward

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hozier, Hn James Henry Cecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbysh're

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Lowles, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

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

  Curzon, Viscount

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Douglas, Kt. Hon. A. Akers

  Moore, William, (Antrim)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Finch, George H.

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Flower, Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  NOES.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Walter

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on. Tees)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Crilly, Daniel

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Havelock Wilson and Mr. Maddison.

  Duckworth, James

  Randell, David

  Engledew, Charles John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  DEATHS FROM STARVATION, OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Address for "Return of the number of all Deaths in the administrative county of London in the year 1899 upon which a Coroner's Jury has returned a Verdict of Death from Starvation, or Death accelerated by Privation; together with any Observations furnished to the Local Government Board by Boards of
  1628
  Guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 334, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. Talbot.)
  It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at a quarter after One of the clock till Monday next.

EARL OF DESART.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Hamilton John Agmondesham Cuffe, Earl of Desart, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted 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:
South-Eastern Railway [H.L.].
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramroads [H.L.].
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railways (Abandonment) [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  HAMMOND (G. H.) COMPANY RILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
  Committed for Tuesday next.

  SOUTH - EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE) GAS BILL [H.L.].
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.].
  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  WIRRALL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].

  GREAT BERKHAMPSTEAD WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order).
  NATIONAL MARKETS AND STORES AND WORKSHOPS BILL [H.L.]
  The LORD CHANCELLORinformed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Order of the Day for the Second Reading discharged. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

  BIRMINGHAM UNIVERSITY BILL [H.L.]
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  Read 2a (according to Order).

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY (ESTIMATE).
  Approximate Estimate of Expenditure under the Barracks Act of 1890, and Military Works Acts of 1897 and 1899. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Four of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.