Sitting of 8 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. Speaker MR. Speaker: laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely:—
  Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. Speaker MR. Speaker: laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
  London and South Western Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  DUBLIN ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I understand that this Bill has been postponed until the 22nd instant by arrangement.
  MR. GALLOWAY: May I ask if it could not possibly be taken before that date? There are several Bills of a like character which are to be

  353
  referred to a Select Committee, and think that it would be a great pity if the proceedings of that Committee were delayed by reason of this Bill not being ready.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I can assure the hon. Member that he need be under no apprehension in regard to this matter. There are considerations entirely separate affecting this Bill, and I do not think anybody will be disposed under the circumstances to delay the proceedings of the Select Committee by unduly postponing this Bill. The object of the postponement is to endeavour, if possible, to come to some general agreement, and I do trust that the House may not be troubled by any debate upon the Bill.
  Bill ordered to be read a second time upon Thursday, 22nd March.

  CHRISTCHURCH, BOURNEMOUTH, AND WINTON TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To empower the Poole and District Electric Traction Company, Limited, to construct Tramways from Christchurch and Winton to Bournemouth, and in Bournemouth; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL (BY ORDER).
  MR. LOUGH: In moving the Instruction which stands in my name, I may say that I did somewhat hope that it would be hardly necessary for me to trouble the House with the matter, as similar Instructions have already been before us, and have been agreed to, but a paper has been circulated this morning which seems to suggest that there is some objection to my proposal. According to that paper, the first objection is that the only reason for the Instruction is because a Select Committee has made recommendations in regard to this company. I do not think there could be any stronger reason for carrying this Instruction. This Select Committee has given nearly twenty days consideration to the question of London gas after an interval of twenty-five years, and if this House does not instruct the Committee to which the Gas Light and Coke Company's Bill is to be referred, to have regard to the decisions of that Committee, they may hear nothing
  354
  more of its recommendations. Perhaps the chief argument used, however, is that the company was not heard against the recommendations before the Committee. Now, evidence was given before that Committee on behalf of the company by its secretary and chairman. They occupied seven whole days, they defended the views of the company in every way, and I do not think that in any sense it can be suggested that the company was not fully heard. But it is suggested that if we carry this Instruction, one part of which is that the standard price of gas shall be reduced, the reduction of the standard price will not really reduce the price of gas to the consumer. That is a little misstatement, because it will immediately reduce the price of gas, and I think the argument used in the paper which has been circulated is not a bona fide argument. The argument is this, that the reduction of the standard price can only affect new capital, and that, as the new capital is raised under the auction clause, whatever the terms may be it cannot affect the price of gas. That is hardly a candid argument, because if the Instruction is carried it will prevent such a large dividend being paid by the company, and there will be directly a reduction in the price of gas. Then, I may be asked, "Is it a fair thing?" "Is there a precedent for a reduction in the standard price of gas?" Yes, we had a precedent in the case of the Lea Bridge Company. The matter was fully considered before a Committee of this House; and, therefore, I do not think any value can be attached to the argument against this part of the Instruction. The second part of the Instruction deals with the company's area, and again I am asked if there is a precedent for transferring the area of one company to another. But this is a very peculiar case indeed. This matter was fully considered by the Select Committee, and when we remember the cheap price at which the gas is sold south of the river, and that that cheap price puts an extra tax upon all the consumers north of the river, I think it will be admitted that there is a good case made out for this particular recommendation of the Committee. There is one other point to which I must allude. There is a reference in the Instruction to the price charged by this company for the use of its "slot" meters. That is, perhaps, the most important recommendation,

  355
  because in two portions of the area supplied by the company the charge for the use of these slot meters differs to the extent of 50 per cent. This company charges 9d. per thousand cubic feet north of the Thames for the use of these meters, and 1s. 2d. on the south side, and I do not think it can be suggested that there can possibly be the slightest reason why this great difference should exist. The Committee fully considered this point, and recommended that the charge should be the same in both parts of company's area. I understand that it is proposed to refer this Bill to the same Committee as the South Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, and unless we carry this Instruction the Committee will not be cognisant of the decisions arrived at by the Select Committee after full consideration. I therefore beg to move the Instruction which stands in my name, and I hope the House will unanimously agree to it.
  *MR. MARKS: I beg to second the Instruction, and in doing so I should like to remind the House of the circumstances under which the recommendations embodied in the Instruction now before the House were made. A Select Committee was appointed last year to inquire into the affairs of the metropolitan gas companies. It investigated the affairs of all the gas companies in London, but it was an open secret that the complaints were mostly levelled against one particular company. The chief culprit against whom complaint was made in respect to the supply of gas was unquestionably the Gas Light and Coke Company. There were three charges practically made against that company. The first was that it charged excessive prices for its gas; the second, that the company was badly managed; and the third, that it had systematically disregarded the public interest. Upon each one of these three points the Committee took evidence at great length, and each point was proved up to the hilt. The Committee examined witnesses from the Board of Trade, the Corporation of the City of London, the County Council, and several vestries of the metropolis, as well as representatives of the three gas companies supplying the metropolis with gas. It can, therefore, hardly be contended
  356
  that the inquiry was in any way one-sided, or that the parties interested on both sides were not given ample opportunity of being heard. Having heard the evidence, the Committee reached the conclusion that there had been bad management of the company, that it had not complied with the obvious intentions of Parliament when it granted, the company its privileges, and it made certain recommendations with a view to remedying the admitted grievances. These recommendations are embodied in the Instruction which has now been moved. It may be urged that this Instruction is of too mandatory a character. I would submit that, if there over was a case for a mandatory Instruction to a Committee, it is the present case, because the Gas Light and Coke Company have for years past been complained against, and endeavours have been made to voice those complaints in this House and in other places. It has been for years urged—unfortunately, in vain—that this company has failed to fulfil its obligations to the public, and it was not until six years of agitation had elapsed that the appointment of this Select Committee was secured. The recommendations made by the Committee go to the very root of the matter, and it was intended that they should be applied when the company should come to Parliament again for an alteration or extension of capital powers. Now, the Gas Light and Coke Company has come to Parliament for a further extension of its capital powers. It has come with a full knowledge of the investigations made before the Select Committee, and a full knowledge of the recommendations of that Committee, and it has, in a spirit of cynical indifference, flouted the recommendations of that Committee, and practically set at nought the authority of this House. If, as this Select Committee did report, there exists a genuine cause of complaint against the Gas Light and Coke Company, there is only one way in which these grievances can be dealt with, and that is by taking advantage of an occasion like this when the company comes to this House asking for further powers. This is the opportunity for securing that the recommendations of the Select Committee shall be carried into effect. Here is no question for any particular set of men, or for any particular section of this House. Here

  357
  is an exceptional opportunity to show that honourable Members in every quarter of this House are resolutely determined to resist oppression and unjust treatment of the public on the part of any great corporation which, by favour of Parliament, is permitted to can on at a large profit the supply of a common necessity of life. The charges made by the Gas Light and Coke Company are admittedly high. By comparison with the charges of other companies they are extortionate; they exceed the charges of the South Metropolitan Gas Company by something like 33 per cent., and it cannot be contended that the difference in price is due to any legitimate difference in the circumstances of the two companies. According to the Report of the Select Committee, these excessive charges are due to mismanagement on the part of the company itself, and to a long continued and systematic disregard of the public interest. I do urge that on an occasion like this, when it is in the power of this House to remedy a real public grievance, the opportunity should not be allowed to pass unimproved, If this opportunity does pass now, the metropolitan gas consumers may find themselves for another twenty-five years, or even for an indefinite period, bound hand and foot by the privileges which this House affords to the Gas Light and Coke Company; privileges which were afforded on the understanding that they should be used for the benefit of the public, and for the legitimate profit of the company. There is no reason why consumers on the north side of the river should be mulcted to the extent of 33 per cent. more than those on the Surrey side, and I earnestly hope that my hon. friend will, if necessary, press this Instruction to a division.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert clauses in the Bill to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Gas Companies (1899), as follows:—

  "(1) That the standard price should be reduced to 3s. 3d. to carry the standard dividend of10 per cent., and that the existing scale of increase and decrease for dividend of ¼ per cent. for every penny of decrease or increase of price below or above 3s. 3d. be maintained, and that a
  358
  secondary or additional scale be imposed which should permit of an increase or decrease of dividend over and above that regulated by the present scale of ¼ per cent. for every complete 3d. of decrease or increase below or above the standard price of 3s. 3d.

  "(2) That the area south of the River Thames, at present part of the district of the Gas Light and Coke Company, should be transferred from the Gas Light and Coke Company to the South Metropolitan Gas Company, fair and reasonable price being paid.

  "(3) That the charge made by the Gas Light and Coke Company for the rents of automatic meters and stoves should be the same to consumers north and south of the Thames for fittings of the same quality and capacity."—(Mr. Lough.)

  SIR JAMES RANKIN: Notwithstanding the speeches of the mover and seconder, I rise to propose an Amendment of a similar character to that which I moved on a like Instruction the other day.* I do so because I do not think it is giving the Gas Light and Coke Company fair play to pass this mandatory Instruction before they have been heard on the various points involved. I may point out that, although I agree in the main with this Instruction, and I hope that the principles embodied in it will be adopted, I do think that the reduction in the standard price of gas is a very drastic reform to be undertaken. It certainly should be seriously considered before any such alteration is made. I do not wish to delay the House on this matter, but I think it is altogether against the spirit of the view taken by this House of Commons in regard to the operation of Private Bill Committees to pass such a mandatory Instruction unless there are circumstances of an exceptional character to justify it. Although I hope that many of the recommendations contained in the Instruction will be adopted in the Bill, I certainly hold to the opinion that the companies should be heard, and heard fully before any determination is come to on the point. It should be remembered that circumstances have altered very much since the standard
  *See discussion on the South Metropolitan Gas Bill, 6th March, 1900 (page 189 of this Volume).

  359
  price was fixed, and if the standard price is altered, it is quite possible that the standard dividends will also have to be altered. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for West Islington should have brought forward the matter again to-day. I understood that he had accepted the view of the House on the South Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, which was discussed the other day, when words were inserted similar to those which I am moving now. I think, if he will agree to the insertion of the words I have to propose, the matter may be allowed to go before a Committee in whose wisdom and fairness we can trust.
  MR. BOULNOISsaid he wished to second the Amendment of his hon. friend. He hoped the House would accept it, emanating as it did from the Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the subject last year.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the second word 'to,' to insert the words 'inquire whether it be desirable to.' "—(Sir James Rankin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the speech of the hon. Baronet was mainly directed against the recommendations of the Select Committee, but it was too late to take up that ground now, because he himself was not only Chairman of the Committee, but had also concurred in its recommendations. The hon. Baronet said that the recommendations were too stringent and that the company had a right to be heard. But the company had been already heard, and the effect of the Amendment would be to re-open the whole question. That was a prospect which Mould appal the ratepayers of London, because, directly or indirectly, the expense of another prolonged inquiry would fall on them. In the memorandum which had been issued in connection with the Bill there was a reference to him which was inaccurate, and which he wished to contradict. It was stated that the Committee was appointed in 1898, but that it did not commence work that year because of the action of Mr. Pickersgill in moving to widen the scope of the inquiry. That statement was absolutely inaccurate.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he did not think the responsibility for the statement rested with him, but as far as he might have been responsible he entirely withdrew it.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that the Committee was only appointed a few weeks before Parliament was prorogued in 1898, and it was absolutely impossible that it could have proceeded with the inquiry that year. It was true that in the following year he did propose an Amendment making the Instruction more specific. In that Amendment he anticipated the objection which the company now advanced, namely, that they had no specific notice that the Committee would consider whether or not the statutory conditions as to the price of gas and the dividend should be revised. The Government declined to accept that Amendment, and he then stated that he would not press it, and that he threw on the Government the responsibility of declining to take a step which would make the inquiry really beneficial.* If that Amendment had been carried the company would have had specific notice, and there would have been no ground whatever for the objection now raised. The House, not having accepted that Amendment, would now, he was afraid, be bound to assent to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Ritchie,): The remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down were, I think, more interesting to himself than to the House. The main question that is to be decided now is really the same question that was decided the other day in connection with another Bill, and I should have thought that the hon. Member for West Islington would have immediately accepted the Amendment of my hon. friend and have obviated any further discussion. The hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green appeals to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Gas Companies, but the chairman of that Committee is the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment now before the House, and I have no doubt that in doing so he voices the views of that Committee. The recommendations of the Committee were never in-
  *See The Parliamentary Debates (Fourth Series], Vol. lxviii., p. 423.

  361
  tended to be dealt with by the House on the Second Reading of a Bill, but to be considered by the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and it would be unwise for the House to commit itself to the ipsissima verba of this Instruction without hearing evidence. I hope the Amendment to the Instruction will be accepted, and that the Instruction will go to the Committee, not as a mandatory Instruction, but as an indication from the House that the recommendations should be considered if that course is deemed advisable.
  *MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid, as a member of the Select Committee, he hoped the House would accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. It would be a very dangerous proceeding to lay down that any recommendation made by a Select Committee on questions connected with Private Bill matters, which, though it had heard evidence, had not heard parties by counsel, should be necessarily binding on all parties concerned when they tried to obtain a private Bill.
  MR. COHENsaid he was quite sure he would not be accused of not being in sympathy with the recommendations of the Select Committee, because it was on his motion that the Committee was appointed. He was glad that the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green now saw that his action last year was not to the advantage of the consumers.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I said directly the reverse.
  MR. COHENsaid he was sorry that even yet the hon. Member did not realise that his action last year was not to the advantage of the consumers. He had very little sympathy with the Gas Light and Coke Company, whose want of management had been abundantly proved before the Select Committee, but it was to the interest of consumers that the company should be given fair play. If the company were allowed to say all it had to say before the Select Committee, he was quite sure that the wisdom and necessity of nearly all the recommendations of last year's Committee would be established, and safeguards would be inserted in the Bill in the
  362
  interests of the too long suffering consumers. There was another reason for not making the Instruction a mandatory Instruction. The London County Council—a body which could not be accused of any sympathy with the company, or want of sympathy with the consumers—had recommended another arrangement which would be brought before the Committee, and the Committee would be able to decide what was just in the interests of consumers in North London, and also what was just to the company.
  MR. LOWLES: thought the recommendation of the Committee that the principle of a sliding scale should be adopted was a clear and definite notice to gas companies of the views entertained by the House. Although he did not go so far as some hon. Members with regard to the alleged mismanagement of the Gas Light and Coke Company, there was the strange anomaly that on the south side of the Thames the charge was one-third less than on the north side, and that the South Metropolitan Gas Company was subject to the same price of 3s. 3d. now sought to be imposed on the Gas Light and Coke Company. He sincerely hoped the recommendation would be carried.
  MR. LOUGH: explained that the reason why he had not included the suggested Amendment was that there were certain technical difficulties in the way. He strongly supported the view that this particular company had treated London very badly, and was in a somewhat different position from that of the South Metropolitan Company. Therefore, though his judgment was entirely in favour of accepting the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade, he left himself in the hands of the House with regard to the Amendment. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Given, he assured the hon. Gentleman that nothing was further from his intention than to make any reflection on what he had done; the words were intended to be most complimentary.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: asked whether he would be in order in moving that the

  363
  Report, of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Gas Companies, with the minutes of evidence, be referred to the Committee by whom this Bill would be considered.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It would be necessary to give notice, but it is really a question for the Chairman of the Committee.
  MR. LOUGH: Is it in order now to move that this Bill be referred to the same Committee as the South Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No.

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATION BILLS.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding nine members, to whom shall be committed all private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities, by which it is proposed to create powers relating to police, and sanitary regulations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or are repugnant to, the general law; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be the quorum of the Committee."—(The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: reminded the House that the object of the appointment of this Committee was to prevent different decisions emanating from Private Bill Committees upon matters within the category referred to. That object had not been very well served. The quorum was so small that a very limited number of members appeared to guide the decisions of the Committee, and those decisions were frequently not in the direction contemplated when the Committee was appointed. The Committee of Selection should exercise great care in appointing members of this Committee, in order that the House and the public interest might be protected against such results as often occurred. He hoped the Instruction meant what it said—
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order to refer to that part of the motion; I have not yet put the Instruction.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Very well; I will simply ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be well to defer making this appointment until he has conferred with the Committee of Selection as to the best means of achieving the object he has in view.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): replied that the question was really one for the Committee of Selection. It rested with that Committee to select men who would attend, and the Committee appeared to have done their work, onerous though it was, in a very satisfactory manner.
  *SIR F. S. POWELL:, as a member of the Police and Sanitary Committee for six years, testified to the usefulness of the work done by the Committee. Uniformity of decisions was secured so far as the nature of the case permitted. Errors had no doubt been committed, but all Committees made mistakes from time to time. The general result had been highly beneficial to the public service, and as the Committee gained experience those beneficial results would doubtless increase.
  MR. STRACHEY: asked whether it was the case that this Committee differed from other Private Bill Committees in that a declaration of having no interest was not required of members, nor had they to declare that they had been present and heard the evidence before they voted. If that was the case, it was a very serious question, and the House ought to consider whether the Committee should not be brought into line with other Private Bill Committees.
  MR. HALSEY (Hertfordshire,), as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, stated that that Committee endeavoured to exercise the greatest care in the choice of members for all Committees. With regard to this particular Committee, there was very great difficulty in getting members to serve, inasmuch as the work was so exceedingly arduous. The House, sooner or later, would have to consider whether some system could not be adopted by which the work of the Police and Sanitary Committee would be lightened.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That three be the quorum of the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to insert in any Bill referred to them any provision which is already in force in the district to which the Bill applies under any public Act, or which might be put in force by adopting the provisions of any adoptive Act."—(The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  MR. STRACHEY: asked whether it was the case that the members of this Committee, which differed very little from a Private Bill Committee, were required to make a declaration of having no interests, and whether it was also necessary for them to make a declaration that they had been present and heard the evidence before giving their vote?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The answer is, No.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee in their Report, under Standing Orders 150 and 173A, to state their reasons for granting any powers in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the general law."—(The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  *SIR F. S. POWELLsaid that although there was no law prohibiting a Member having private interests sitting on such a Committee, there was a public feeling against such action. It so happened that he had been chairman of the Committee when dealing with a Sanitary Bill promoted by a borough in which he had private interests, and resigned the chair because he had large interests in a borough the Bill for which would necessarily occupy a great part of the session. The principle could be earned too far. For instance, in regard to Railway Bills, it would entirely weaken Committees on Railway Bills if no one could serve on such a Committee except those who had no interest in the railway.
  366
  He granted that this was a most valuable Instruction. It had sometimes appeared in the Orders of the House and sometimes not; but he hoped it would always appear henceforth, and that when it did appear it would be effectually carried out, and that the reasons would be given at greater length than hitherto, and in an intelligible form. He also hoped that the Reports of the Committee would be available to Members at the earliest possible moment. He had only to express his hope that reasons would be given intelligibly, so that the House might exercise supervision over the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That in the case of Bills reported from the Committee, three clear days shall intervene between the date when the Report of the Committee is circulated with the Votes and the consideration of the Bill."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That in the case of Bills reported from the Committee, three clear days shall intervene between the date when the Report of the Committee is circulated with the Votes and the consideration of the Bill.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

PETITIONS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Leslie, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from West Leigh; Bettisfield; and Smithy Wood; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Great Yarmouth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Patricroft; Accrington; Briercliff-with-Extwistle; and Levenshulme; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Birmingham; North Walsham; Shildon; Great Yarmouth; Hull; Leytonstone; and Kelvedon; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dunfermline, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (STATEMENT OF EXCESSES, 1898–9).
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the grants, for the year ended 31st March, 1899 [by Command]. Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 90.]
  CANADA-WEST INDIES.
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the Canadian Government and Messrs. Pickford and Black to establish a steamship service between Canada and the West Indies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Soane's Museum.—Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1900 [by Act].

  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Address for "Return showing—

  (A.) The number and names, with addresses, of State reformatories instituted, or about to be instituted under Section 3 of this Act, with the number of males or females to be accommodated in each;

  (B.) The number and names, with addresses, of inebriate reformatories certified and in course of construction, respectively, with the number of males or females to be accommodated in each;

  (A. and B.) (1) The number of habitual drunkards (males and females, respectively) convicted as such under Sections 1 and 2, respectively, of the Inebriates Act, 1898, in the year 1899;

  368

  (2) The number of habitual drunkards who, after conviction, were in 1899 under detention in prison until a suitable reformatory willing to receive them was found, male and female, respectively;

  (C.) The number and names, with addresses, of retreats certified and in course of construction, respectively, with the number of males or females to be accommodated in each;

  (B. and C.) the names of the local authorities contributing, or willing to contribute, under Section 9 and Section 14, respectively, with particulars of such contribution, in support of certified reformatories and retreats, respectively."—(Mr. Wharton.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TREATMENT OF BOER PRISONERS—BRITISH PRISONERS AT PRETORIA.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Boer prisoners confined on board ship at Cape Town and other places have suffered severely and for long periods from sea sickness; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will arrange to relieve those prisoners of this punishment by removing them to a place of safe keeping on shore.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Before my hon. friend answers that question, may I ask whether there is any foundation for the statement that prisoners belonging to the Cape and Natal forces are subject to special indignities at Pretoria, and are confined in the common gaol?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper. The hon. Member must give notice of his question.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. Powell-Williams,) (for Mr. Wyndham): There is no information at the War Office to this effect. The disposal of the prisoners is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  ARTILLERY OF THE EIGHTH DIVISION.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the artillery of the Eighth Division are now fully mobilised at Aldershot, and have received their uniform and equipment; and whether they are to accompany the Division to South Africa; and, if not, what is the cause of this decision.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The answer to the first paragraph is, Yes. The batteries will not, under present arrangements, proceed to South Africa, as the military authorities both at home and in South Africa agree that they are not required.

  DUTCH DISLOYALTY AT SIMONSTOWN.
  MR. COURTNEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities on the northern frontier of the Cape Colony have referred home on the subject of the writ of habeas corpus, of which they have accepted service, returnable to the High Court at Cape Town on the 12th March; and whether in any case instructions will be given to obey the writ by bringing up the three persons named therein for judgment to the High Court at Cape Town.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The military authorities having accepted service of the writ, the Secretary of State has no doubt that they will duly appear at the proper time.
  MR. COURTNEY: Has any inquiry been made?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I am not aware whether any inquiry has been made. Service having been accepted, things will take their natural course.
  MR. COURTNEY: May I ask my hon. friend whether he is not aware that there has been a delay in answering this question, and, if it has not been for the purpose of making inquiry, why has it occurred?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The only delay I know of is that I asked my right hon. friend for my own convenience to postpone this question from Tuesday until to-day.

  BASUTO PONIES.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement, published some time since and verified by the signature of the writer, to the effect that about last September a gentleman offered to secure for the Government the refusal of 15,000 Basuto ponies at a low price; and, if so, was his offer declined.
  *MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The statement to which the hon. Member refers is, I presume, the letter which appeared in The Times of the 9th January, over the signature of Lieutenant-Colonel Allsopp. The writer stated that he had been offered 15,000 Basuto ponies at £15 apiece, and inquired what the War Office had done in the matter. The Secretary of State's attention was called to this letter, and he at once wrote to Lieutenant-Colonel Allsopp, asking to be referred to the person by whom the offer was made. Colonel Allsopp referred Lord Lansdowne to a gentleman of the name of Pardy as the person who made the offer. Mr. Pardy was thereupon asked whether he could supply 15,000 Basuto ponies, or a smaller number, and at what rate. He replied that he was prepared to proceed at once to Pondoland and Basutoland, and, "if sufficiently backed by the Government, to procure all the available horses." Funds were to be placed at his disposal, and he was to receive the honorary rank of major and pay at the rate of £60 a month. But he was unable to produce any evidence to show that horses of the right stamp were actually available. Mr. Pardy has since addressed a communication to the War Office explaining that Colonel Allsopp's letter conveyed an erroneous impression, as his only offer was to go to South Africa as the agent of Her Majesty's Government, trusting that his knowledge of the country would enable him to pick up a considerable number of ponies at reasonable rates. Mr. Pardy's offer was not accepted. I may explain that long before the appearance of Colonel Allsopp's letter inquiries had been made in South Africa as to the possibility of buying Basuto ponies. Reports, however, from the General Officer Commanding at the Cape and from the Resident Commissioner in Basutoland were to the effect that ponies of the proper class were unobtainable.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: May I ask whether it is not the duty of the Intelligence Department of the War Office to make themselves acquainted with what horses are available in the different parts of the Empire?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: That is exactly what the Intelligence Department did.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is Mr. Pardy a Birmingham man?
  [No answer was given.]

  PRESS CENSORSHIP.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the censor of news in South Africa is a military or civil officer, under what authority military or civil and under whose instructions he acts, what correspondence telegraphic and postal is submitted to his examination, and whether all such examination takes place in South Africa.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): The censorship in South Africa is exorcised by military officers acting under the authority of the Field Marshal commanding the forces. It is not desirable to give information as to the manner in which it is exercised.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War with what person lies the primary responsibility for the system of censorship and suppression now exercised in the South African colonies over telegrams from abroad, under what authority it is exercised, at what date commenced, and by whom the actual duty of inspecting such telegrams is performed; and whether there is or has been any similar system with respect to letters or other documents passing through the Post Office to the Cape Colony or Natal, and in that case under what authority it is exercised.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): The responsibility for the censorship rests with Her Majesty's Government, several Departments of which are concerned. It is exercised under Articles VII. and VIII. of the International Telegraph Convention. It com-
  372
  menced in October and it is carried out by specially appointed military officers. It is not desirable to make known particulars with regard to the manner in which the censorship is exercised.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Does the hon. Gentleman give us to understand that the responsibility for the censorship lies with the Field Marshal commanding the forces, or that it lies with Her Majesty's Government? Is it a military or a civil responsibility?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to understand precisely what I expressed by the answer which I have just given and by the answer which I gave to him.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the reason—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in order in giving his reasons for asking the question.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: The hon. Member rebuked me.
  An Hon. Member: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the name of the censor?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have just stated that it is not desirable to make known the manner in which the censorship is exercised.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is one of the censors Lord Stanley, a Government Whip?
  [No answer was given.]

  COLONIAL REGIMENTAL TITLES.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish the designations of the various colonial regiments now serving in South Africa, and say under whose command each regiment is.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): The information is not at the disposal of the War Office, but an effort will be made to obtain it.

  NEW AUSTRALIAN FORCE FOR SOUTH AFRICA—RATE OF PAY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of

  373
  State for War what pay the men of the new Australian force now being raised at the request of Her Majesty's Government are to receive.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): These men will receive pay at ordinary British rates, with special local allowances according to the conditions under which they may be called upon to serve.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND:May I ask the hon. Gentleman if there is any truth in the statement which has been made that some of these Australian troops are to receive 5s. a day.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The truth is in the answer given to the hon. Member.

  TRANSPORT—IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—HORSE TRANSPORT ON THE "KENT."
  SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state who was responsible for the appointment of the man Headly as veterinary surgeon on board the steamship "Kent," which is conveying the Bedfordshire contingent of Imperial Yeomanry to South Africa; and whether he is aware; that Headly proved to have no diploma as a qualified veterinary surgeon, no drugs, and no instruments, and that four horses died on the voyage, between England and Madeira, of stoppage of water, because he was unable to perform the ordinary operation for their relief.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): The responsibility for the appointment lies with the Yeomanry Committee. The selection of this person, who was certainly not qualified for the position, appears to have been due to an unfortunate confusion of identity. There was a full supply of veterinary drugs and instruments on board, placed there by the Army Veterinary Department.

  MILITIA ARTILLERY—MOBILISATION AND PAY.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when does the Government intend to mobilise the Militia Artillery, and for what length of time; and are the Militia Artillery to be paid
  374
  on the same scale as when they are called out for their usual annual training.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I am not yet able to give precise information in answer to the first question. The Militia Artillery will on embodiment be paid like regular Artillery.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have done so.

  SUPPRESSED CABLES TO THE CAPE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War by whose authority, and under what law or regulation, a cablegram, sent on 14th February to a newspaper at Cape Town, recording the proceedings of a conference held at the Westminster Palace Hotel on that day, and including a resolution of sympathy with the Cape and Natal Ministries, has been stopped by the censor at Cape Town.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM):No information has reached this office that such a telegram was stopped at Cape Town or elsewhere.
  MR. CHANNING: I shall put a further question on the subject.

  THE COLONIES AND THE COST OF THE WAR.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to ask Australia, Canada, or any of the colonies to bear any portion of the cost of the present war, or whether all the expenses of military operations are to be paid solely by the taxpayers of Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. COGHILL: Is it proposed to give to Australia, Canada, or any of the colonies 103 representatives in the House of Commons?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): If the hon. Member will refer to Command Paper 18, presented in November last, he will find, at page 6, the information he desires with regard

  375
  to the charges falling on Canada and the Australasian colonies.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we to understand that the colonies will bear no portion of the £60,000,000?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: They are contributing towards their own forces.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say that some arrangement should be considered whereby each portion of the Empire should pay towards the cost, and not leave it all to fall on the unfortunate taxpayers of this country?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: If Australia does not pay I don't see why Ireland should.

  INDIAN AND COLONIAL FORCES—PROPOSED IMPERIAL GUARDS.
  MR. MALCOLM:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the services rendered to the Empire by the Indian and Colonial troops now serving in South Africa, he will recommend that Her Most Gracious Majesty should create a body of Imperial Guards, who should technically form the bodyguards of Her Majesty's representatives in India and the Colonies.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM):The Secretary of State is not prepared to make such a recommendation at present.

  PROPOSED ROYAL IRISH GUARDS.
  SIR J. W. MACLURE:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in consideration of the conduct of the Irish soldiers in the present war, he will advise Her Most Gracious Majesty to allow a regiment to bear the title of the Royal Irish Guards; and whether, under these circumstances, Her Most Gracious Majesty would be pleased to confer the first colonelcy on Lord Roberts.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that a proposal dealing with the subject referred to in his question has been under the consideration of the War
  376
  Office, and it will be laid before Her Majesty, and will, I have no doubt, receive favourable consideration.

  RETURN ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Return as to Government contracts will be presented which was ordered by the House on 16th February last.
  *MR J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Return will be presented immediately. The Return was ordered on the 27th ultimo.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the direct commissions being offered to young men from the universities, public shools, and colonies will confer seniority over cadets at present receiving military instruction in the Royal Military Academy and Royal Military College; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the propriety of ante-dating the commissions of such cadets when they receive them, so that they may not be superseded by officers who have entered the Army without having received any preliminary instruction.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM):The direct commissions offered to universities and colonies will not be given to candidates under the age of twenty, who will thus be in most cases senior in age to the cadets leaving the Royal Military Academy and Royal Military College. Any special measures adopted to meet the abnormal requirements of the present moment must necessarily produce to a certain extent results of the kind to which the hon. Member's question points. To antedate the commissions would do more harm than good, as it would lead to the super-session of those actually serving.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Has it not been often done by cadets who have passed the higher examinations going out to higher positions and superseding those already serving in the Army?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I must ask for notice of that.

  BRITISH TROOPS IN EGYPT AND THE COLONIES.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state, with regard to the sixteen battalions shown at page three of his Memorandum on the Army Estimates to have been in June last in Egypt and the colonies, how many were in Egypt, how many in the self-governing colonies, and how many in Crown colonies and other dependencies.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): There were in June last three battalions in Egypt, two in self-governing colonies and eleven and a half in Crown colonies and other dependencies.

  REMOUNTS—IRISH HORSES.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of horses purchased for the Army in Ireland during the last year; and whether, in view of the number of Irish horses suitable for Army purposes, he will see that at least a fair proportion of the War Office orders for horses are placed in Ireland.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The number of horses purchased in Ireland during the last twelve months is 4,746. Every effort is made—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No, no! No effort at all.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Every effort is made to obtain horses for the Army in Ireland, but trained horses of suitable ages are very difficult to obtain there.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not the fact that no agents whatever are appointed to purchase horses in the south of Ireland?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It is not necessary. The Remount Department is sufficiently strong for all purposes of purchase.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the horses purchased in Austria were got out of sires sent out of Ireland for that purpose?
  [No answer was given.]
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the total of horses he mentioned was purchased in Munster?
  [No answer was given.]

  3RD DRAGOON GUARDS—ABSENCE OF OFFICERS ON REMOUNT DUTY.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether both the commanding officer and the second in command of the 3rd Dragoon Guards have at the same time been away From their regiment on remount duty, and, if so, for how long they have been away and in what countries, and whether they are still absent from their regiment; whether it is usual for the military authorities to deprive a cavalry regiment of the services of its two senior commanding officers at the same time, and if not, why they have done so in the present instance; and whether such a course is detrimental to the efficiency of the regiment.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM):Both the officers referred to have been absent for nearly five months from their regiment on special employment, but only the second in command abroad. It is unusual thus to deprive a regiment of its two senior officers; but the circumstances are unusual and it has been necessary to make the best arrangements possible for obtaining horses and mules, of which between 60,000 and 70,000 have been landed in South Africa.

  ALDERSHOT GOVERNMENT RAILWAY STATION.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Government railway siding near the Ordnance Store at Aldershot has no roof or covering of any description; and that many thousands of soldiers entrained at this siding during the last few months on their way to embark at Southampton for South Africa; whether, on many occasions, the soldiers were exposed to the rain on this siding, and had to embark in wet clothes, to the injury of their health; and whether he will make provision for the erection of a roof or covering to this siding.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): It is true that the siding

  379
  has no roof or covering. An estimate of the cost of erecting a roof has been called for, and I hope it will be possible to remedy this deficiency without delay.

  VOLUNTEER COMMISSIONS.
  MR. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether all retired officers who have volunteered their services to fill vacancies in the Auxiliary forces must first be nominated and recommended by some commanding officer having such vacancies; whether the commanding officers have at their disposal any list of the names of officers who have thus volunteered, and whether the officers who have volunteered have any means of knowing which commanding officers have vacancies; and whether a list of regiments in the Auxiliary forces having vacancies could be sent to the depôts of all regimental districts.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. In regard to the second paragraph, commanding officer's keep lists of candidates. Candidates can ascertain by easy reference to the Monthly Army List what vacancies exist. In regard to the third paragraph, as the officers commanding regimental districts are already well aware of the vacancies existing in their command, the list suggested is unnecessary.

  GLOUCESTERSHIRE VOLUNTEERS—RIFLE PRACTICE.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that for some years past, ever since the introduction of the Lee-Metford rifle, three battalions of Volunteers, one battalion of Militia, and a regiment of Yeomanry in Gloucestershire have been unable to practise rifle shooting in such a manner as would enable them to become efficient or useful marksmen on service; whether he is aware that the War Office have hitherto refused to give any assistance towards the establishment of a proper range; and whether, in view of recent events in South Africa, there is any prospect of the Government now seeing their way to reconsider their decision.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I am aware that some
  380
  of the Volunteer corps in Gloucestershire have had considerable difficulties in regard to their rifle practice. It is hoped that with the additional funds now at his disposal for this purpose the Secretary of State for War will be able to give Volunteer corps greater assistance in obtaining range accommodation. The distribution of the sum is now under consideration.

  VOLUNTEERS—INSTRUCTION GRANTS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there is any prospect of the Government holding out additional inducements to Volunteers, in shape of personal allowance, so as to enable them to attend a camp or school of instruction for such periods as are really calculated to increase their efficiency.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The points referred to will, as foreshadowed in the Secretary of State's Memorandum on the Army Estimates, not be lost sight of.

  VOLUNTEERS—CAMP REGULATIONS.
  SIR J. KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the new regulations in regard to attendance at camps will be issued for Volunteers; and if he can hold out hopes of giving assistance towards the building of drill halls for companies not headquarter companies.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The whole question of assistance to Volunteer corps for camps and other purposes is under consideration, and it is not possible to reply at present to the right hon. Member's question.

  VOLUNTEERS—POSITION ARTILLERY.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for war whether it is intended to re-arm the Volunteer position artillery, armed at present with old-fashioned 20 and 40-pounders, with the 4·7 guns; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of giving a special boot grant to Volunteer corps, in order that the men may appear provided with the regulation boot when called up on mobilisation.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): A certain number of Volun-

  381
  teer position batteries will be armed with 4·7 guns. The answer to the right hon. Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire covers the second paragraph of this question.

  VOLUNTEERS—DRILL HALLS AND ARMOURIES—OFFICERS' DECORATION.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government intend aiding Volunteer corps to provide suitable armouries and drill halls for drilling at night in the winter and spring months, thereby increasing the efficiency of the force; and whether the Government could see their way to allowing Volunteer officers with previous service in the Militia and Yeomanry to count such service towards earning the Volunteer officers' decoration.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I will have the suggestion contained in the second paragraph considered, but it has been suggested to me that it would impair the value of the Volunteer decoration if service in any other part of Her Majesty's forces was allowed to count towards earning it.

  MILITIA—DISCHARGE REGULATIONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the regulations permit a Militiaman to purchase his discharge for the sum of £1, and then, presuming he is otherwise eligible, to join a Royal Reserve battalion, which renders him liable for one year's home service only, and obtain for that year's service the sum of £22 in addition to his daily pay.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): All discharges by purchase from Militia units, whether embodied or not, have been suspended until further orders.

  NAVY—ENGINEERING CONTRACTS—SCALE OF WAGES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the rate of wages now being paid for unskilled labour by engineering firms within the area of the county of London engaged upon contract work for the Government.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMI- RALTY (Mr. W. E. Macartney,): I cannot state the rate of wages.

  INDIA—THE FAMINE AND THE LAND REVENUE.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any general instructions have been issued by the Government of India to be lenient in collecting the land revenue from cultivators in the districts affected by famine; and whether he is aware that in the Alibagh district of Bombay special promptitude in payment is being enforced, and that an unusually large number of notices have been issued to defaulters at a cost to them of four annas for each notice.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,):The famine codes lay down that the collector, in the early stages of a famine, is to consider the question of suspending the land revenue in distressed tracts, and empower him to grant such suspensions of his own authority. I have received no information to the effect suggested in the hon. Member's second question.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Will the noble Lord make inquiry?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I hardly think it is necessary.

  INDIA—EDUCATIONAL TEXT BOOKS.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a recent circular of the Government of India in the Educational Department, under which unaided schools are required to make use of text books approved by the Director of Public Instruction under penalty of the exclusion of their pupils from public examinations; whether he has sanctioned this new departure; and whether he will state what advantage is obtained from limiting the free choice of text books by schools receiving no grant from Government.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The resolution of the Government of India, to which the hon. Member refers, has not yet come before me officially for sanction, though I am officially cognisant of its contents. It is there stated that in the opinion of the Government of India the State, while it does not undertake to prescribe text

  383
  books for unaided schools, is justified in excluding from the examinations for certificates and for Government scholarships the pupils of schools which use test books disapproved by Government, and that this is done on the ground that the State has a direct interest in the course of instruction given in all schools, whether aided financially by the State or not.

  NATIVE INDIAN REGIMENTS.
  MR. BUCHANAN:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the two Native Indian regiments to be borne on the Estimates are existing regiments at present forming part of the Native Army in India, or are they to be raised in India by the British Government.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): The regiments form part of the existing Indian Army.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the Home Government pay the capitation grant to the Government of India?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I must ask for notice of that.

  INDIAN FAMINE—PROPOSED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether upon the recommendation of the Premier of Western Australia, the Australian colonies are considering the payment of a grant of £20,000 from the public revenues towards the relief of sufferers from the famine in India; and whether any decision has been arrived at in reference to this suggestion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have received no information on the subject.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIAN GOLDFIELDS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received representations as to the grievances under which the inhabitants of the Goldfields districts of Western Australia allege they are labouring; whether he is aware that they complain in particular of the unfair distribution of political power, 5,674 electors in the mining constituency of East Coolgardie returning only one member,
  384
  while 5,650 electors in the pastoral districts return twenty-one members; and whether he contemplates any action with a view to removing such grievances and putting an end to the discontent that now prevails on the Western Australian Goldfields.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Rev. Mr. O'Gorman, who has been delegated by the inhabitants of the Goldfields districts, has personally made a representation to my Department on the subject of the grievances of the Goldfields districts of Western Australia. He has been requested to put his representations in writing, in order that they may be communicated to the Government of the colony for consideration.

  JAMAICA RAILWAY.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the arrangement made by the Colonial Government of Jamaica concerning the Jamaica Railway will be completed and the debentures exchanged for Colonial stock, as undertaken by the Colonial Government of that colony.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The arrangements are so far completed that as soon as the decision of the Court in Jamaica has been given, which is now being awaited, the debentures will be exchanged for Colonial stock.

  WINDWARD ISLANDS.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies execute orders for the government of the Windward Islands; and whether any commission is paid to such office on such orders; and, if so, from what source is this commission paid.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir: the Crown Agents for the Colonies execute order's for the three Colonial Governments which constitute the Windward Islands; those Governments, like those of all other Crown colonies, pay to their office a commission of 1 per cent. on all stores supplied through them under arrangements which have been in force since 1886.

  CHINA—EQUAL TRADE RIGHTS FOR ALL NATIONS.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the

  385
  Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will actively co-operate with the United States Government in the endeavour to arrive at an agreement between the Powers interested in China which will secure equal opportunities for the trade of all nations throughout the Chinese Empire, irrespective of any territorial changes that may take place.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Papers on this subject will shortly be laid before the House.

  CHINA—NANNING FU—TREATY PORTS.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the opening of Nanning Fu as a treaty port, as announced by Her Majesty's Government early last year, has been carried out; and, if not, what steps are being taken to enforce this; and whether Her Majesty's Government will insist on the opening of the inland waterways of China in accordance with the agreement under which British ships were to be able to take British goods to every riverside town and station.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Minister at Peking has repeatedly pressed the Chinese Government to carry out the opening of Nanning. They still await the report of the Governor of the province on the arrangements that will be necessary, but have promised Sir C. MacDonald to direct him to send it in without delay. The navigation of the inland waters by British vessels has been successfully initiated in various parts of China. The papers shortly to be laid before the House will show that considerable progress has been made. Her Majesty's Minister at Peking will continue to give careful attention to the matter.

  UGANDA RAILWAY.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies is receiving any commission or percentage on the value of material of any kind shipped for construction of the Uganda Railway; and whether any commission or percentage is paid on freight of said material; if so,
  386
  what is the rate per cent., and what is the total amount paid to date.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies receives a commission of 1 per cent. on the cost of all materials and stores shipped by them for the Uganda Railway. Freight, being a part of the cost, is charged with this commission. The total amount paid as commission since 1896 up to date is £15,090 18s. 7d.

  CAPE TO CAIRO TELEGRAPH.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what line of steamers the material for construction of Cape to Cairo telegraph has been conveyed to Chinde.
  *MR. BRODRICK:This is not a Government undertaking, and we have no knowledge of the methods employed for sending out the material in question.

  COUNTY COURT FEES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the increase in the estimated amount receivable from fees by suitors in county courts in the next financial year implies that there are to be no considerable reductions made in the rate of fees receivable in county courts.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): No, Sir.

  TELEPHONING CABLEGRAMS.
  MR CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is yet in a position to announce if the postal regulations will be so modified that the cable companies may telephone to their clients cablegrams received after business hours, and that the addressees may telephone replies for transmission by submarine cable, without being subjected to the delay involved in sending such messages through the Post Office.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General hopes to secure the co-operation of the American cable companies in an experimental arrangement made to expedite the delivery of cable messages at Liverpool. Between the hours of 8 and

  387
  9 or 9.30 p.m. such messages will be telephoned direct from the Exchange Post Office, which immediately adjoins the offices of the four American cable companies, to those addressees who are subscribers to the system of the National Telephone Company, and the subscribers will also be able to telephone their replies direct to the Exchange Post Office. This arrangement will save the time hitherto occupied in conveying messages by hand between the offices of the cable companies at the Exchange and the head post office, and it will be made permanent should the use made of it prove sufficient to justify such a course.

  PROMOTION IN THE TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial has been received calling attention to the stagnation of promotion in the telegraph department; and whether a revision of the staff is in contemplation; and, if so, whether it is the intention to make additional superior appointments to relieve the pressure at a maximum.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has not received any general memorial to this effect from the telegraph staff of the Department. If the hon. Member refers to the staff of some particular office, perhaps he will mention the name of the office.

  MONAGHAN POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, has the Monaghan post office been condemned as insanitary; have the postmaster and his family been obliged owing to considerations of health to leave the post office and take up their residence in another portion of the town; is he aware that the excessive prevalence of sickness at present in Monaghan is generally attributed to the distribution of infection from this centre of disease; has the Department invited offers of sites for the erection of a new post office, and have any offers been received; and when may the public of Monaghan hope to be relieved from the growing danger which menaces them in the existence of the present post office.
  MR. HANBURY: The post office premises have not been condemned as insanitary. The postmaster, to whom they belong, has been allowed to give up living in them because they are small and more room is required for the duties. The post office is not a centre of infection. On the contrary, the official records show that the health of the staff is distinctly above the average. Offers of sites for a new office have been invited, but as yet none have been received. It is impossible, therefore, to state when the present office can be abandoned.

  IRISH RAILWAY AMALGAMATION—LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Limerick Harbour Commissioners have paid all instalments of interest and principal due to the Irish Board of Works up to date; whether the amount of the loan from the Board of Works has been reduced by £35,480, and the expenditure of the Commissioners is kept well under their revenue; if so, whether he can say on what special grounds the Board of Works warned the Harbour Commissioners not to incur expense in opposing the Great Southern and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill; and whether he will see that the Board of Works do not further interfere to prevent the Harbour Commissioners taking any action they deem proper in the exercise of their constitutional rights to influence Parliament concerning the Railways Amalgamation Bill now awaiting its decision.
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The amount of the loans due to the Board of Works has been reduced by £26,517 10s. (not £35,480). The expenditure of the Harbour Commissioners has in recent times been kept under the revenue. But I may remind the hon. Member that in 1868 loans to the Commissioners were remitted to the extent of £58,863 principal and £46,803 interest. The Board of Works cannot prevent the Harbour Commissioners from incurring this expenditure if it is legal. If it is illegal they are, of course, bound to protect their own interest. Their action has no other motive.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the light hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the Commissioners?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Works are offering no opposition and no encouragement to the Bill; they are standing neutral.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has not the Board of Works sent a letter warning these people not to incur further expense in opposing the Bill in this House unless they get permission to do so?
  [No answer was given.]

  ROSSLARE AND FERMOY RAILWAYS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Irish Board of Works have taken any steps recently, and, if so, when, and what action to compel the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to make the new railways from Rosslare to Waterford and from Fermoy to Cork, authorised by the Fish guard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Act, 1897, and which railways the company undertook in 1897 to construct without postponement; and whether the Treasury, on the advice of the Board of Works, agreed to cancel a large debt on the understanding such railways would be forthwith made.
  MR. HANBURY: As this question did not appear upon the Paper till this morning I can only say that I am not aware of any such steps. Moreover, while Parliament fixed a limit of time for the construction of the railways in question, it did not, so far as I know, impose upon the Treasury and the Board of Works the duty of hastening their construction. As the hon. Member will see from the schedule to the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Act, 1898, the debt owed by the Fishguard Company is not to be cancelled. It will be discharged by a payment of a sum of £93,000. An equivalent grant of the same amount has been promised to be paid in two instalments as the works proceed.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Have the works in Wexford been commenced at all?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that they have.
  SEVERAL NATIONALIST MEMBERS: No.

  SCOTTISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATISTICS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, since the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, many parishes have ceased to publish to their ratepayers a list of paupers and details of intromissions; and whether, in ceasing to publish these particulars, these parishes are complying with the wish of the Local Government Board.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The Board, I am informed, have frequently urged upon parochial boards and parish councils the advisability of printing lists of the paupers on their rolls, but they have no power to enforce compliance.

  SCOTTISH PARISH TRUST ACCOUNTS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate is it the purpose of the Local Government Board to require publicity to be given to the accounts of parish trusts, as contemplated under Section 30 (7) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The circumstances of the various trusts are so diverse that great difficulty arises inframing such an order as is contemplated in the section referred to, but the matter has not been lost sight of.

  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND ACTS—EXPENDITURE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what have been the amounts of expenditure charged upon estates under the several Improvement of Land Acts and Limited Owners' Residences Acts for (a) farm buildings; (b) labourers' cottages; (c) mansion houses, etc., in the years 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899, respectively.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): The amounts of the expenditure which have been charged under the Improvement of Land Acts and Limited Owners' Residences Acts during each of the last five years for the purposes to which the hon. Member refers

  391
  have been as follows:—Farm buildings, £49,326, £66,875, £58,382, £48,119, and £43,241; labourers' cottages, £9,535, £10,126, £8,861, £11,691, and £18,306; mansion houses, etc., £28,736, £58,533, £34,208, £9,629, and £22,906.

  MUZZLING ORDER IN CARMARTHEN.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state when he hopes to be able to withdraw the muzzling order now in force in the county of Carmarthen.
  *MR. LONG: I am not yet in a position to name a date for the withdrawal of the muzzling order now in force in certain portions of Carmarthenshire, Breconshire, and Glamorganshire, but the position is much improved, no case of rabies having been discovered in the scheduled district since the 10th November last. I hope, therefore, that it may not be necessary to keep the order in force for any very prolonged period.

  THE POLICE AND PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that in different parts of the country public meetings have been broken up and assaults committed on many of Her Majesty's subjects in consequence of their political opinions; and whether, if it should appear to him that the police force of any county or borough have been remiss in the performance of their duty of protecting the parsons and property of the people, he will regard such conduct as justifying him in withholding his certificate of the efficiency of such police force.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. White Ridley,): I have received no complaints of such occurrences as are referred to in the first paragraph. It is impossible to answer categorically the hypothetical question in the second paragraph. Of course if habitual remissness on the part of the police in protecting persons and property were proved to have existed, it would be an element in considering whether or not the force could be certified as efficient.

  RIOTS AT STRATFORD-ON-AVON.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the recent riots in Stratford-on-Avon, and to the statement of Mr. H. H. Bullar that his house was invaded by a mob, who broke the windows and damaged or completely destroyed his whole stock of old china and antique furniture; and what steps are being taken by the Government to protect peaceable citizens from such proceedings.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The question only appeared on the Paper this morning. I will make inquiry into the matter.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT—SYSONS v. KNOWLES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Sysons v. Knowles and Sons, Limited, by which it is decided that in order to come within the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the applicant must have been at the time of the accident in the master's employment for at least two weeks; and whether, having regard to the effects of this decision, he will introduce, or will support, a Bill to amend the Act in this respect.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The decision appears to me to be of such importance that I should like time to consider the matter and put it before my colleagues before I answer the question.

  THE BUDGET—CUSTOM HOUSE CLEARANCES.
  *MR J. LENG:I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state approximately the amounts paid at the custom houses in the United Kingdom on Saturday and Monday in anticipation of the extra duties to be imposed by the Budget, and whether it would be praticable in future years to prevent or diminish such anticipatory payments by making it a condition that the new or additional duties should be surcharged on all payments made between the announcement of the date of the Budget and the passing of the Budget resolutions.
  *Sir M. HICKS BEACH: It is not possible to give an exact figure, but the payments in the two days will, I expect, amount to about two and a quarter millions, whereas under ordinary conditions they would average about £180,000. I quite agree with the suggestion that some steps should be taken to diminish or prevent the loss of revenue caused by these large anticipatory payments, but I am afraid the actual plan suggested by the Hon. Member would not quite meet the case. It is not always possible, when a man has once cleared goods at the lower rate, to recover a surcharge. But I am carefully considering the subject, and hope to be able before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to make some definite proposal for dealing with the matter.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know the names, so that we may know whether we are getting their goods cheaper in consequence?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: These goods are often—in fact, I may say generally—cleared, not by the persons who retail them, but by wholesale dealers.

  NEW STAMP DUTIES.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed that the new stamp duty on produce contracts shall apply to all descriptions of produce, including sugar, cotton, corn, provisions, and iron; whether it will be levied on both spot and future transactions; whether it will apply to all sales through the medium of a broker, either off or on a produce exchange; and whether sales between principals without the intervention of a broker will be free from the said duty.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The answer to all four paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative.
  *MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the terms of the Budget resolution passed on Tuesday last, it is contemplated that all trade contracts negotiated between principals by an intermediate broker or agent shall become liable to the new stamp duty, and, if not so contemplated, whether he will insert words expressly to exclude such contracts.
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH: The intention is that the new stamp duty should be attracted by the advice note sent to his principal by "any person carrying on the business of a broker" advising him of the sale or purchase of any goods. The contracts resulting from the brokers' negotiations will not attract the duty.
  *MR. HOLLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly consent to see in his private room one or two gentlemen who will explain the serious effect this will have on the cotton trade of Manchester?
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH: I am about to receive a deputation on the subject.

  SUGAR CULTIVATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the promise he has made to consider any restrictions preventing the growth of tobacco in Ireland, and to endeavour to remove them, he will also endeavour to remove the restrictive conditions preventing the growth of sugar in England, Scotland, and Ireland generally, should the experiments now in progress prove that without the restrictive conditions referred to sugar beet would be a large and profitable crop for the farmers of this country.
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH: I am not aware of any restrictive conditions on the growth of sugar in the United Kingdom.

  EDUCATION GRANTS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the effect of the arrangements made by the Departmental Committee appointed under the minute of 4th July, 1899, and named in the Education Department's Return of 12th February, 1900, will be to leave in the hands of the Science and Art Department the regulation of the conditions under which grants for science, art, and technology may be earned by secondary schools; and whether any further steps have been taken to give effect to the undertaking of the Government to establish a third branch of the Education Department to deal with the special interests of secondary schools.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The conditions under which science and art grants are paid to secondary schools are regulated by the Committee of Council, and will after April 1st be regulated by the Board of Education. Grants for technical instruction were suspended in Great Britain, but not in Ireland, in 1891. The conditions in Ireland are at present regulated by the Committee of Council. The arrangements for establishing a third branch of the Board of Education are still under consideration.

  BELFAST BOROUGH FUNDS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if the Belfast Borough Act, 8 and 9 Vic. c. 142, Section 21, requiring the council to cause an annual account in abstract to be prepared, showing the total receipts and expenditure of all funds levied by virtue of this Act ending 31st December, has been complied with by transmitting a copy of same to the town clerk of the borough on or before 31st January following in each year, under a forfeit of £20, and is he aware that a levy of rates has been made for the quarter ending 31st March, 1900, and again for the year ending 31st March, 1901, without the said abstract of accounts for the year ending 31st December, 1899, having been made out and will he take steps to enforce compliance with this statute in respect of the abstract of accounts referred to being transmitted to the town clerk before the council confirm the rates proposed to be levied for the year commencing 31st March, 1900.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Section 21 of the Act of 1845 provides for the preparation of an annual account in abstract showing the total receipts and expenditure of all funds levied by virtue of that Act. The only rate created by the Act of 1845 was the police rate, and there was, in addition, at that time only one other rate levied in the borough—namely, the borough rate. Since 1845, however, the corporation has obtained over twenty Acts of Parliament, and concurrently with the great increase in the extent of the city and the number
  396
  of its population, there has taken place a correspondingly large increase in the volume of the accounts to be dealt with, so that, however feasible it might formerly have been to comply with the statutory requirement in regard to the period within which the abstract of the accounts shall be prepared, it is not possible at the present day to comply literally with the provisions of the Act of 1845 in this respect. The town clerk submits, reasonably, so I think, that it would be absurd to deal with the accounts of the corporation in sections, and that the present system of publishing the abstracts of all the funds after the audit of the accounts is the natural and correct method and most adapted to the circumstances of the present time. Any ratepayer can sue the corporation for the penalty of £20 prescribed by the statute. It is not a matter calling for the intervention of the Executive.

  IRISH COUNTY SURVEYORS' EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if a candidate for the office of county surveyor, who has acted as locum tenens of that officer and who had passed the qualifying examination and had efficiently discharged his duties, is required to pass a fresh examination before his appointment to the office of county surveyor will be sanctioned.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR):A second examination has been held to be required by the terms of the County Surveyors Act, 1862. It is, I think, an inconvenient and unreasonable condition to be applied universally, and the propriety of modifying or dispensing with it is now under consideration of the Government.

  MONAGHAN LUNATIC ASYLUM CHAPEL.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that though, as shown by the minutes of the Asylums Board of 11th February, 1897, the chapel in the Monaghan Lunatic Asylum was built for the use of all denominations, and even an order placed on the books that no religious emblems were to be placed on or in the building, the present committee of management have

  397
  allowed various emblems to be introduced into the chapel and prohibited the Protestant chaplain entirely from holding service in the chancel; and whether he is aware that in consequence a new chapel costing over £2,000 is to be built and the rates burdened to that extent, while the Protestant inmates are in the meantime deprived of their usual religious ministrations.
  MR. MACALEESE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I beg to ask the following, of which I have given him private notice: Whether it was a fact that from the beginning it was well understood that the church was to be devoted to the accommodation of the Catholic patients only; was the church not built by the Board of Governors with the approval and sanction of the Board of Control to meet the requirements of Catholic worship; were the Catholic emblems, to which exception had now been taken for the first time, not visible dining the construction of the church; had not the Lord Bishop of Clogher and the Catholic members of the Asylum Committee made reasonable concessions to meet the interests of Protestant patients during the erection of the new Protestant church; and is the present movement anything more than an outburst of local bigotry to deprive the Catholic patients of the great spiritual advantage which the new church has conferred on them.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question cannot be allowed in that form.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The chapel in the Monaghan Lunatic Asylum was originally intended, I am informed, for the use of all denominations, but it was subsequently decided to reserve it exclusively for Roman Catholics and to build another place of worship for Protestants. Steps have been taken to proceed with the latter work, and in the meantime the arrangements for divine service for the Protestant inmates must necessarily be of a temporary nature. The medical superintendent of the asylum states that with the view of rendering the building appropriate for the Protestant service, the Roman Catholic altar is screened off during the celebration of the Protestant service, but that the Episcopalian chaplain complains that this screen is placed outside instead of inside the chancel rails. The responsibility in the matter is vested
  398
  exclusively in the committee of management, and the Executive have no power to interfere. As to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, he will see that I have answered the three first paragraphs; as to the fourth, I have no information; while I must respectfully decline to answer the fifth.

  RIOTING AT COALISLAND.
  *MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an Orange party fired upon a Roman Catholic band near Coalisland on the night of the 1st March; whether the police, who were present on the occasion of the firing, took a loaded gun from one man and an iron poker from another; and whether steps will be taken to maintain the peace of the neighbourhood and to prevent a recurrence of such proceedings.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): It appears that late on the night of the 1st inst. some shots were fired in the direction of a Nationalist drumming party near Coalisland. No person, I am happy to say, was injured. The police who accompanied the party at once went in pursuit of the persons by whom it was believed the shots were fired, but failed to capture them. One man, however, was found with a piece of iron about a foot in length in his possession, which was taken from him. A rifle, which was unloaded and which did not appear to have been used on the occasion, was subsequently found lying beside a ditch. The following morning a pistol was found on the road which had been traversed by the drumming party. The weapon had evidently been dropped by one of this party. With reference to the last paragraph, it is the paramount duty of the police to preserve the peace in this as in every other district. But there are occasions when it is very difficult to succeed in that object. In the present instance, a drumming party went out suddenly in the darkness of night for the ostensible purpose of making a counter demonstration to the celebration by loyalists in the locality of the relief of Ladysmith. It is obvious that the police, though they may do their utmost to preserve the peace, cannot altogether prevent a collision between the opposing parties.
  *MR. DOOGAN: Arising out of that answer, I would ask the right hon. Gen-

  399
  tleman, is he aware that the Nationalist parade was held, in pursuance of a local custom, to celebrate annually the 1st of March?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no knowledge of that fact. If such a custom exist, it apparently only occurred to them for the first time on this occasion.

  IRISH PRISON EXERCISE YARDS.
  DR. TANNER:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in how many prisons in Ireland are there open air exercise yards with shelter's in case of rain, and how do the ordinary prisons compare with convict prisons in Ireland. Is he aware that owing to the humidity of climate, prisoners are frequently given their two hours daily exercise in the rain, and often no exercise in consequence of no sheltered yard being provided; and whether any steps will be taken to remedy this state of things.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. Balfour):Covered shelters are provided in the exercise yards attached to the prisons at Kilmainham, Maryborough, and Dundalk. In connection with all the large male prisons similar sheds are provided for prisoners employed at stone-breaking and other work. In the case of rain these sheds are availed of to a certain extent for shelter. There is no distinction between ordinary and convict prisons in this respect. There is no foundation for the statement in the second paragraph. In the opinion of the Prisons Board the present practice, which works satisfactorily, does not require alteration. There are, moreover, obvious objections to the erection of buildings in exercise yards where such would interfere with sunshine and the free circulation of air.
  Dr. TANNER: Am I to understand that prisoners are not occasionally exercised in the rain, and that on very wet days they get no exercise whatsoever?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have answered that according to my belief there is no foundation for the statement.
  DR. TANNER: I shall raise this question on the Estimates.

  TRINITY COLLEGE STUDENTS, DUBLIN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland
  400
  whether he is aware that within the past week a number of students of Trinity College, Dublin, were convicted of assaulting Constable M'Sharry, 89 B, and attempting to rescue a prisoner, and that penalties of £1 each were inflicted; whether he is aware that two labourers, convicted of assault on a constable and rescue of a prisoner on Monday last, were committed to prison for six months, and ordered to find bail for their future good behaviour; and whether he will ask the magistrates who tried these cases to explain the circumstances which influenced them in giving such different sentences for the same offence. In putting the question, may I supplement it with the words which were omitted at the Table—namely, did the assault consist of kicking the policeman and smashing his helmet?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If anything was omitted at the Table the hon. Member should appeal to me on the subject, and not put it in the form of a supplementary question.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not a proper question to ask as to the nature of the assault?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It would depend on the language in which it was couched.
  MR. ATKINSON:I have called for, but have not yet received, a report in reference to the first and second paragraphs of this question, which I may observe only appeared on the Paper this morning. As regards the last paragraph, I cannot, as suggested, on behalf of the Executive call upon magistrates to give the reasons for their decisions. If the hon. Member will repeat his question on Monday I shall endeavour to reply.

  TOBACCO CULTIVATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he is now prepared to make a representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to removing any restrictions which exist to growing tobacco in Ireland.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): When a desire is manifested on the part of Irish farmers to grow

  401
  tobacco, it will be time to make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to the removal of any restrictions which may interfere with its profitable cultivation. Irish farmers will probably await the result of further experiments, which are in contemplation fur the present year.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department bear in mind the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would view with favour the removal of these restrictions?
  MR. PLUNKETT: Certainly.

  METROPOLITAN PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the present session to alter the boundaries of the Parliamentary divisions of the metropolis, so that they may correspond with the municipal areas as settled by the Commissioners under the powers of the London Government Act, 1899.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to the question is in the negative.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed, as usual, to leave over one or two of the Naval Estimates so that the discussion on naval affairs may be resumed later in the session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Yes, I propose to postpone Vote 8 (Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.), and not to take the Report on Vote 12 (Admiralty Office), so that there will be an opportunity for discussion later in the session.
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the Leader of the House say what will be the business for Monday next?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is well within his rights in asking, and I regret that I am unable to give an absolutely conclusive answer. I have little doubt that the Government will be able to take the Army Estimates first on Monday, but that arrangement to
  402
  a certain extent depends upon my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War, whose health, I am sorry to say, is not yet fully restored; but I believe that my hon. friend will be in a position to make his statement on Monday upon the motion that the Speaker leave the chair. I also understand that on a very early day the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce his Loan Bill, arising out of the Budget, and that Bill will probably be the first order on Tuesday. If so, the discussion on the Army Estimates will be interrupted for that purpose.
  MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): When is it proposed to take the Second Reading of the Factories and Workshops Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not to-night.
  Sir CHARLES CAMERON: Will the Ecclesiastical Assessments Bill be taken to-night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  Sir CHARLES CAMERON: What will be the order of business, should the Navy Estimates be got through early to-night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not expect there will be much time for any Bills except the first on the Paper. We propose to take the Bills in their order.

THE QUEEN AND THE IRISH PEOPLE.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the indulgence of the House for a moment in order to enable me to say that the Irish people will receive with gratification the announcement that Her Majesty has directed that for the future the shamrock shall be worn by all Irish regiments on Ireland's national festival. The Irish people will welcome this graceful recognition of the valour of their race—whatever the field upon which that valour has latest been exhibited—and our people will, moreover, treat with respect the visit which the venerable Sovereign proposes to make to their shores, well knowing that on this occasion no attempt will be made to give that visit a party significance, and that their chivalrous hospitality will be taken in no quarter to mean any abatement of their demand for their national lights, which they will

403
continue to press until they are conceded.

BOILERS REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION (No. 3) BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday, 21st March, read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): This is a Bill to preserve the voting qualification of those who by residence have acquired the franchise, and who for a time would be deprived, and unjustly deprived, of the advantage of that franchise, through having gone abroad in the service of the country. The attention of the Government has naturally been called to the possible disqualification which would attach to those who have in this national emergency gone out of the country to serve the Queen, and who by that means would be deprived of the franchise they have acquired. It seems very unfair that a similar protection should not be accorded to them as was accorded under the Act of 1891 to others. The Bill applies to all classes, whether in the Militia, Yeomanry, or Volunteers, who have gone abroad to serve the country, and who by being abroad might lose the franchise which they have acquired by residence, I observe that an hon. and gallant friend of mine (General Laurie) has given notice of a motion by which he seeks to include similar facilities for relief to the members of the Navy and Army. That is a very different question. I venture to remind the House that the Bill has been introduced not for those who have undertaken regular service under the Crown, whether in the Army or Navy, and who are under obligation to go abroad when their services are required. That is a very different case altogether, and cannot, I think, be properly brought within the provisions of the Bill. This is a Bill intended to apply to those who are practically civilians, and who have by residence acquired the franchise, and who would be deprived of it by the fact that they have gone out in the service of the
  404
  country. It seems to the Government that that disability should be removed, and that is the simple object of this Bill of which I now move the Second Reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have some sympathy with the motion made, and also with the motion which appears on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke. I rather regret that the Government did not widen the Bill in the sense in which he proposes. I think that is a reasonable and a proper thing, but I would like to call the attention of the Government to a curious condition of the law in regard to the question of disciplinary imprisonment inflicted during actual service. We had, the other day, the case of a man of the name of Daniel O'Connor, who while he was on military duty as a Volunteer—as a yeoman—was for some minor offence ordered to be, not imprisoned, but placed on some sort of parole by which he was confined in the camping ground, and the revising barrister struck him off the roll under the law that a man undergoing imprisonment cannot be retained on the register. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision of the revising barrister.
  *MR. SPEAKER: pointed out that the Bill before the House dealt with the franchise of those who had gone out of the country in the service of the country.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am coming to that. I think that those who have been under military discipline involving punishment would be similarly liable during that time to lose their votes. I think it would be desirable to see that during the entire time those men are absent on service no disqualification from any cause should arise.
  COLONEL MILWARD: observed that he was extremely grateful to the Government for introducing the Bill.
  *GENERAL LAURIE (Pembroke and Haverford west): I felt bound, believing that this Bill did not go far enough, to place on the Paper the notice which appears there. I quite realise that this is not an enfranchising Bill, but we do not ask that the soldier should, be enfran-

  405
  chised. What we ask is that he should not suffer from a disability when the Volunteers, Yeomanry, Militia, or Reserve men are relieved from the process of disqualification. A Reserve man is liable to be sent abroad, and a member of the Militia is liable to be sent to another part of the country for service, and what we ask is that after this war is over all those who have gone abroad should on their return be able to exercise the franchise. Under these proposals a soldier alone would be disqualified because he had been away doing his country's work. It seems to me an invidious distinction to draw, and, that being so, I have felt bound—it is the only thing we could do—to move that the Bill be not read a second time in order to enable me to express that view.
  *MR. JEFFREYS, in seconding the Amendment, said: I do hope some consideration will be given to the Regular soldiers. In 1891 a Bill was passed through this House allowing soldiers and sailors to go away on active service for a period not exceeding four months without becoming disqualified. Before that time, if a soldier went away for a period of three months manœuvring or on service, he was struck off the register at the next revision of Parliamentary voters. Some years ago I introduced a Bill to enable soldiers to go away for a period of not exceeding four months without losing their votes. A similar Bill was passed by the Attorney General in 1891. Now that so many soldiers are sent out in the present war, I think some consideration might be made for them. I should not say that they should retain their votes for the whole period of the war, but I think some such period as eight or nine months might be inserted. It is rather hard that men on the staff or in the medical service should lose their votes while they see other men in similar employment go out and still retain their votes. I think it would be only a gracious act to do for soldiers what you propose to do for those in the service who will get the benefit of the Bill. It is not often that the soldiers have the opportunity of recording their votes, but of course, like other people, they highly value the privilege of being able to vote for a Member of Parliament.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the question, in order to add the words
  406
  'no Bill granting facilities for relief of electoral disabilities to Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers who have proceeded on active service will be satisfactory to this House which does not extend similar facilities for relief to the members of the Royal Navy and Regular Army who are now employed on active service in South Africa,' instead thereof."—(General Laurie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES:This is a very large Bill in its essence, because it affects not only those who may be serving out of the country, and who by their absence from their habitual occupations would be disqualified, but it gives very special advantages to the classes who are affected by it. Moreover, the same amount of absence from the place of habitation is not a disability so long as the person affected is absent on actual military service. That is an enormous revolution so far as it goes in the existing law of this country—to say that during the whole of this time he shall have the franchise preserved to him although not an inhabitant or occupier. But the thing, large in itself, is made very small by the limitation to the class to which it extends. It extends only to the Reserve men, the Militia, and the Yeomanry. That sets up a very invidious distinction between the voluntary service men and the other service men. It suggests that the one is a volunteer and the other a mercenary, but the fact is that all our forces are voluntary. The fact that men are engaged in the Regular service is not a reason for refusing to them, whether in the Army or Navy, the reservation of this right. You only reserve a right which has been created by the operation of the ordinary law. Is it a reason, because the man is a Volunteer for a longer period, that he should be deprived of his vote? Marines have almost all electoral qualifications, and a great many sailors have homes in the ports where their ships go. Why should they be deprived of the privilege of voting? I think it is very reasonable and generous, at any rate, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should make a small revolution so far as it goes in the electoral law of this country. The men who are employed in the transport service ought to be included. The ordinary fisherman taken on in the trans-

  407
  ports engaged in the military service on behalf of the Grown is a Volunteer, and ought to get the advantage of this proposal; although he is an ordinary citizen, he is really employed in the military service in an auxiliary capacity. Without pledging myself as to the exact way in which it should be done, whatever arguments apply to the Yeomanry and Volunteer forces apply equally to the soldiers and the sailors, and I hope my light hon. friend will consider how he can meet the point.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: It occurs to me that under this Bill there lurks a very considerable change in our representative system. For my part I quite agree that the Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteer forces sent out should not be placed at a disadvantage, but I think that end would be gained without disturbing the electoral system by making this a temporary Act, and the proper course would be to say that this Bill shall only continue in force to the end of April next year, and by that time the war will be over and the necessity for such a structural change will have ceased to exist. I am altogether against the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, because undoubtedly it would change the whole system if we were to extend to all military men the privilege of being qualified as long as they were absent on service. The Act of 1891 was a very considerate Act, and met the case so far as was necessary for the general purposes of justice. It was not confined to soldiers or military men, sailors, or marines, for whom the hon. Member opposite always speaks so eloquently. It contained a general clause which provided that absence on service should not be a disqualification. I do not think at this particular emergency this House is going to alter and undo what was resolved upon when that Act was passed, The sole object of the Government is to remedy an injustice to those now serving in South Africa, and that is an emergency not likely to occur again for another quarter or half a century. I trust that if this Bill does pass it will be limited in the way I suggest, and will only be a temporary measure which will cease to exist at the close of next year. For these reasons I feel inclined to vote for the
  408
  Second Reading of the Bill in its present form, and probably the right hon. Gentleman may give an assurance that the suggestion I have ventured to make will be met.
  MR. ARTHUR J. MOORE:As the representative of a constituency a very large number of men from which are now actually fighting in South Africa, I think it is a great grievance that they should be deprived of their votes. We are not asking you to enfranchise them, but we are simply asking you not to allow their votes to be taken away because of their absence in South Africa. It is all very well to sit comfortably before a majority of 4,000 or 5,000 votes, but if you sit upon the narrow ledge of a majority of forty-three you have to account for every single vote, and every vote is a matter of vital consequence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster,): I need scarcely say that it seems to us that it would be departing from the one motive which prompted us in bringing forward this measure if we give the extension which hon. Members are asking for. The principle of this Bill is that we should not disqualify persons who are now upon the register by reason of their voluntary absence when they volunteer for service for the purposes of this war. I may say that we had originally considered the question of making it a temporary measure, and we should have no objection to considering that matter in Committee if it is thought desirable to limit the Bill to some period which is certain of covering the present war. I will give a few reasons to the House why we cannot extend the Bill. If we were to do that it would be opening a very large question. We have had an appeal for the Army. The same sort of appeal might be made for those in our merchant ships, and for the seamen who happen to be engaged on our transports. I would point out that all these persons are engaged under circumstances which will, in the ordinary course of their duty, take them away from the United Kingdom for a period longer than the qualifying period. It does not seem to us that we ought to establish for the purposes of this Bill the principle that when you become a member of a profession requiring your absence over

  409
  the qualifying period you should still be enabled to keep your vote. This Bill is brought in to meet a state of facts which exists to-day—namely, that a number of persons have volunteered to go out to South Africa, and to those we desire to limit this Bill. Much as we sympathise with the others, it is not possible for us to extend the Bill; I doubt whether it could be extended, but if it could we do not see our way to do it. A mere extension of eight months or four months would not at all meet the case. The matter we are dealing with is the Volunteers for this war. [An Hon. Member: Are the Reserves Volunteers?] They are considered to be Volunteers, for under ordinary circumstances those Reserves would not have been away from their homes at all. I will deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. We do not intend this Bill to be a qualifying Bill, putting persons upon the register who are not already there. We are dealing with persons who are already on the register, and who would be liable to be struck off for being away more than four months. They already possess the residential qualification, and we provide that their absence on service shall be no disqualification.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On whom is the burden of proof?
  Sir RICHARD WEBSTER:My hon. and learned friend is aware that we constantly have objections raised to a particular voter on the ground that he has been away more than four months. The man whose vote is challenged has to appear before the revising barrister and prove his claim, and if the man is away in South Africa, that fact will be easily proved before the revising barrister. I hope we have made our meaning clear, and I will consider the suggestions which have been made in the Committee stage.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the great principle laid down by the Attorney General was not carried out by the Bill—that a man qualified one year would not necessarily be qualified the next. If he had been away the whole year, to retain his qualification he would have to have retained his lodging. He was of opinion that the Bill would be of scarcely any advantage to Volunteers. As it now stood, the Bill was a rich man's Bill pure and simple.
  MR. ASQUITH: agreed that the Bill was of a very limited scope. It was intended to apply only to those who were already on the register at the beginning of the qualifying year, and only to such of those persons who continued in occupation of the premises which formed the subject matter of the vote. The Bill simply removed in the case of persons who had that continued occupancy what would otherwise be a disqualification by reason of their personal absence from the place of occupation.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The families continue in occupation.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that might be so, but inasmuch as there must be continued occupancy of the voter under the existing law, that would be ineffective without this Bill. He hoped the Government would adhere to the other principle of the Bill—namely, that it should be confined to those persons now serving in South Africa whose service was not one of the normal conditions of their employment. Unless the Bill were limited in this way, it would, he thought, be a most revolutionary departure in their electoral law.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he quite saw the great force of what the Attorney General had said with regard to the Regular forces; but could not a compromise be made whereby, when soldiers were sent beyond the seas, their franchise should be preserved? That was a reasonable compromise, and afforded a great safeguard to what he hoped would be a temporary measure.
  *Sir M. WHITE RIDLEYsaid that this would be a temporary measure. The suggestion put forward, however, was one which was deserving of consideration in the future if such a measure was made permanent; but the Government having determined to make this a temporary measure, the suggestion of the hon. Member hardly arose at present.
  *GENERAL LAURIE, after expressing the hope that the Government might see their way to make some modification in the Bill which would prevent any bitter feeling arising among different portions of their forces, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. PARKER SMITH, speaking on the general question, said he did not think the Bill was of such a narrow scope as had been suggested by several hon. Members. In Glasgow alone there were over 2,000 families of soldiers who were being cared for by the Soldiers and Sailors Families Association, and of whom a large proportion, at a guess a half, would come within the scope of the Bill.
  Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the chair.]

SUPPLY.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,715,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  *COMMANDER BETHELL (Yorkshire' E.R.,)said that, although the quality of the provisions supplied to the men in the Navy had improved enormously during recent years, the quantity served out remained exactly the same as it was, he believed, thirty-five years ago. He knew from experience that the meals of the bluejackets were really scarcely sufficient to support them when they had extra hard work to undertake. He was thinking principally of breakfast. It was a very common thing in the service for the men to have breakfast as early as half past five. This meal consisted of a basin of cocoa and some biscuits or bread. Then they—not regularly, but sometimes—went through excessively hard work, which only terminated at dinner time at noon. He did not think there was much fault to be found with the dinner, but after that meal, although they had to go through another long spell of very hard labour, they had nothing
  412
  beyond a basin of tea and again bread, which was their tea or supper. There were no serious complaints, he believed, about this course of victualling, but he was also aware how very insufficient both the breakfast and the supper were for the necessities of the case. He thought the time had come when they might have some inquiry into the matter, especially by asking the men themselves, and see if better provision might be made in both these meals. There had been no inquiry into the subject for something like twenty-five years, and even then the witnesses examined were not the men who really suffered, but men serving in harbour ships, who had many opportunities of obtaining for themselves provisions not supplied by the Government. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would see his way to the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into the subject, with instructions not only to examine the matter thoroughly, but to find out the opinions of the bluejackets themselves, the food given being obviously a very limited allowance.
  *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: supported the appeal of his hon. and gallant friend, and said he was certain that if a Departmental Committee were appointed and evidence taken, not only from the bluejackets and marines serving in the Fleet, but also from specialists in the preparation of articles of diet, it would result in greatly improving the condition of our bluejackets and marines without any greatly increased cost to the nation.
  MR. ARTHUR MORTONsaid that he desired to reduce the Vote by £100 under Subhead B.
  MR. KEARLEY: on a point of order asked whether it would not be more convenient to finish the question of victualling the ships before proceeding further.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps it would be more convenient.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid there was no doubt a great deal of discontent, which could not easily make itself heard owing to the service regulations, with the food served out to the marines and bluejackets. That was not to be wondered at considering the fact that there had been no alteration in the last twenty-five

  413
  years, and that during that time the improvement in the food of the people had been marvellous, and directly anyone joined the Navy he found himself debarred from the food to which he was used. For breakfast, at 6.30 a.m., the man got a pint of tea or cocoa and dry bread or biscuit, with nothing to help it down in the shape of butter or jam. Dinner was at 12 o'clock noon, and supper at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, after which there was nothing in the shape of a meal—unless an optional issue of half a pint of cocoa at the will of the captain—until 6.30 next morning. The hours were as much out of joint as the food arrangements were antiquated. The result of insufficient food was that the men were constantly going to the canteen. Thousands of pounds were spent every year in the canteens. He asked the First Lord of the Treasury if he would grant a Return of the money spent in the canteens of the various ships. He was informed that there was underhand dealing in the management of the canteens, and that the sailor was being exploited and fleeced so that profits might be made for the canteen. And even if that was not so, the canteens could not buy to advantage, in the first place owing to want of knowledge, and, in the next, to having to buy in small quantities. He suggested that the Admiralty itself ought to be as far as possible the wholesale distributors to the canteens.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am bound to say that notwithstanding the points put forward the physique of the Navy does not show that the food is insufficient. The system of canteens, however, is a matter which has given me much anxiety. The system is connected with that of savings, which is a cherished system with the bluejackets. The bluejackets cling to their system, and if the Admiralty were to touch it they would create the greatest discontent. A Return is asked for as to the amount spent in the canteens. The Return would give quite an insufficient idea unless accompanied by information showing how much of the money spent in the canteens really came from the savings of the men. The savings of the men in lieu of provisions amount to as much as £450,000 a year. There are objections to that system because the men supply themselves with provisions not necessarily the most nutri-
  414
  tious, but which are more tasty than other provisions with which they might supply themselves. The hon. Member says that committees are not to be trusted, but I should doubt very much whether it would be wise, as at present advised, to touch the system under which the men themselves manage their canteens. But I can assure the Committee that the canteens have improved in quality very much. Some of the larger contractors have been taking the matter up, and they are now supplying provisions of a better quality and at a better price than was the case before. Of course, any abuses that are discovered ought to be most severely punished, but it is evident that the blame, if any, rests with the men or with the system, and not with the Admiralty, who allow the men in this respect very full liberty. All who know the character of the bluejacket are aware that there is one point which it is very delicate to touch, and that is the question of food and savings. The Committee will see that my attention has been called to this matter, and I need not say that I will give it my best consideration. The hon. Member for Torquay drew attention to the fact that the proportion of bread and meat was unsatisfactory. I am aware of it, and it is a matter for consideration whether the rations should not be considered from the point of view of their relative quantities. It is, however, a matter extremely delicate to touch. The hon. Member asked for a Parliamentary Committee, but I should certainly advise against a Parliamentary Committee to consider the question of food in the Navy. It would be a most dangerous tribunal to deal with the question. I would remind the Committee that at the Admiralty there are a number of captains fresh from sea who help to deal with these questions, and who are familiar with the whole system, and take a great interest in it. Hon. Members must not, therefore, think that these questions are not dealt with until attention is called to them in Parliament. We have them constantly under consideration, but the subject is a very difficult one. I do not wish to promise a Departmental Committee, but I will be very glad to promise that the matter shall be considered by my naval colleagues and myself. As regards the question of hours, it is very difficult to change them from the point of view of altering the working of the ship

  415
  There is, I believe, a "stand by" about nine o'clock, when the men provide themselves with a certain amount of food, not out of their own pockets. There is a great deal of latitude given to bluejackets in this matter. I will undertake to discuss it with my more experienced advisers, and I will not hesitate to place any further proposals before, the House of Commons if they are found necessary for the health and comfort of the bluejackets.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I will not, of course, oppose my right hon. friend in carrying out any of his kind intentions. He said a great deal about savings, and no naval man questions the statement that savings ought not to be interfered with at all. But we are not in agreement with my right hon. friend that the scale of rations does not require revision. Would it surprise my right hon. friend to know that the Boers get 1½lb. of meat per day, and that is the reason why they fight so well? Of course, savings are a great privilege and advantage to the men, but what we should look to is the main supply of bread and meat. To place our men in good fighting condition 1½lb. of meat per day ought to be the minimum allowed to every bluejacket and marine. I think more might be done to improve the system of rations. Why should not porridge be allowed on the lower deck? It is very easy to carry and very easy to cook, and is very popular with a great many men. The hon. Member for Devonport urged that butter should be carried, but that is not possible except on home stations. There is one ration which we do not supply. We do not supply milk, not even to our boys training ships. That is very wrong. The boys, by some wonderful economy, get milk at their own cost, but a boy's pay is very small, and there ought not to be any deductions from it. I ask any father if he would like his children to be deprived of milk. I have been asked by a clergyman's lady who takes a great interest in this question to bring it before the Committee. I think also that ships in harbour should be supplied with milk. As to the hours of meals, that is a matter that must be left to the captain of the ship.
  MR. KEARLEY: I want one meal given later in the evening.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I quite agree that there should be an extra meal in the
  416
  evening. Then as to canteens, they have been a great success. There may be a little scandal here and there, but they are very well managed on the whole by committees of the lower deck, which are supervised by the officers or a committee of officers. The canteens are a great accommodation to the men, and I would urge that some of the necessary articles sold in them should be provided by the Admiralty at cost price. My main points are that milk should be supplied to our boys' training ships, and to all ships in harbour, and porridge should be provided for breakfast, and 1½lbs. of meat per man should be allowed daily.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I am obliged to my right hon. friend for having promised that very close attention will be given to the general question of rations. The men no doubt get enough to eat, partly from the system of savings, although that has to be supplemented by their own money. I think everyone who takes an interest in the Navy ought to be able to take up the official record of what a ship's crew are allowed, and feel that we—the people—are giving them sufficient to eat without having to supplement their food out of their own money. I take this opportunity of asking my right hon. friend whether he will give further consideration to the suggestion that all provisions not issued because of imprisonment or other reasons should be handed over to a benevolent fund connected with the Navy. That would be an advantage.
  Sir JOHN BAKER: I am sure the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty will be received with great satisfaction on the lower deck. I do not think, however, the Committee is aware of the large amount the men pay to supplement their food. It is said that a bluejacket has to pay from 2s. 6d. to 4s. a week to get fresh food. The First Lord has promised to inquire into the matter, and I am sure that aspect of the question will not be overlooked.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to refer to the question of sailors' kits. The kit costs about £12 all told, and I believe it will be found that it contains a number of entirely unnecessary articles, such as cloth trousers, which never look well. A great many of these articles are compulsory; I am speaking

  417
  on professional advice; on the other hand, a number of articles, such as oilskins, are not compulsory. I should think that of all things which a sailor needs on deck oilskins are the most important; nevertheless they are not compulsory. With regard to the question of the constant worry to which both officers and men are subjected by the absurd regulations regarding exact dimensions, which force officers to walk about with tape measures in their pockets, I would remind the Committee that every man is not subject to the same set of conditions, which makes it impossible to comply with the regulations. The other day a training ship was supplied with thousands of caps furnished by contractors to the Admiralty, which on measurement were found to be one-eighth of an inch too small across the top. The result was that the men had to buy new caps. I hope my right hon. friend does not question the facts, or that if he does he will give me an opportunity of privately informing him of the name of the ship. I can assure him that the men are constantly remedying small differences in their clothing. The Admiralty standard itself is not uniform; there are two or three different patterns. On Whale Island a man is expected to wear his badge near the top of his shoulder; when he goes aboard ship it must be worn lower. Only one standard should be kept, or else all standards should coincide with each other, and no departure from the standard should be allowed on the part of officers, or if allowed we must be much less severe with the men. That is the remedy. I would discourage all these tape measurements, which do not add to the smartness of the men, and which worry the officers. I hope the question of the kit will be considered, and also whether such articles as oilskins should not be made compulsory.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There is one matter connected with the Vote which I should like to submit to the First Lord of the Admiralty. In the list of appropriations-in-aid, there is an item, "Proportion of contribution made by Australian colonies for appointing and maintaining an additional force in Australian waters, £9,600." This is part of an annuity of £130,000 which the Australian colonies make to the Admiralty for the protection of commerce in Australian waters. It was embodied in the Naval Defence Act of 1888, and
  418
  the arrangement was to last for ten years, unless terminated by two years notice. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the arrangement has terminated, or if notice to terminate has been given. If the right hon. Gentlemen would prefer to make a statement on some other Vote I will postpone the question.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I would prefer that it should be postponed.
  MR. MENDL: My experience is that the average bluejacket does not complain of being underfed, but there is a great deal of complaint about the want of variety in the rations. It is a case of dry bread or dry biscuits and salt junk, and there is no reason why some variety should not be introduced, such as cheese or jam, which would make it rather less of a regulation diet. That would really be more acceptable than an increase in the amount of meat.
  COMMANDER YOUNG:I am very glad indeed that this question of rations is to be thoroughly gone into. My right hon. friend mentioned that the physique of the Navy was all that could be desired. With that I quite agree, but I believe that a great deal of that physique is kept up out of the men's pockets. I hope that some inquiry will take place, and that the Admiralty will come to the conclusion to give our bluejackets and marines sufficient food, and so avoid taxing the men's pay.
  *MR. ARTHUR MORTON: I beg to move the reduction by £100 of the Vote in respect of the payment given to hired labourers in the Royal Victoria Victualling Yard, Deptford. I have had the honour of bringing this question forward on two previous occasions, but without success, though I hope for better fortune now. The matter is really one of simple justice. There are three great Government establishments in the Metropolitan District—the clothing factory at Pimlico, the Woolwich Arsenal, and the Deptford Victualling Yard—at which labourers are employed. These labourers all perform, the same duties, and live under the same conditions as regards house-rent and other expenses. In 1897 an increase of 1s. a week was given by the War Office to the labourers in the Pimlico Clothing Factory and at Woolwich Arsenal. In 1898 a similar grant was made by the Admiralty

  419
  to the labourers employed by it in the Arsenal at Woolwich, and I trust that on the present occasion the demand for a similar act of justice for the labourers in its employ at the Deptford Victualling Yard may be listened to by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I am not going into the question of whether the wages are sufficient, but I simply ask, as a mere matter of justice, that the labourers in the victualling yard should be paid at the same rate of wages as the labourers in the other two establishments I have mentioned. The First Lord of the Admiralty alluded the other day, in sympathetic terms, to the manner in which these labourers performed the increased duties which fell upon them during the pressure caused by the war, and I feel quite sure that their modest demand for equality with their brethren at Woolwich will be favourably considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (Wages of Artificers) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Arthur Morton.)
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that year after year hon. Members brought this case before the Committee. They invariably pointed out that the House many years ago passed a fair wages clause, and since then Governments, no matter what party was in power, invariably pressed their contractors to pay their men the current rate of wages in the locality. But they themselves now fell short of doing that simple act of justice to their own men. One argument with which they had been mot was that the men were not in every instance able-bodied workmen or that their labour was of the lowest class. But in this particular case of Deptford there could be no doubt whatever that the men did precisely the same work as stevedores and dockers, for which the latter were paid at the rate of sixpence an hour, or 24s. a week. Some time ago the War Office advanced the wages of the men in their employment at Woolwich, and after a time the Admiralty were driven to give their men at Woolwich the same rate of wages, because the men employed by the two Departments were working side by side. He pleaded with the First Lord of the Admiralty to give the Deptford labourers the same rate of wages as was given to the labourers at Woolwich for doing exactly the same class of work. The
  420
  First Lord last year said that the reason why he did not concede the addition was that the extra shilling would go into the pockets of the sweating landlords of Deptford. That was a strange reason why the right hon. Gentleman should fail to do what was common justice.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid he did not give it as a reason but stated it as a fact.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he would be glad to know what was the reason then. He failed to see why men working at Woolwich should be paid a higher rate of wages than the men doing exactly the same work at Deptford. On the question of rents he contended that it would be a simple matter to draw up a scale of wages in keeping with the rents of workmen's houses in different dockyards. The demand for labour at Deptford was always fully met, but he would point out that the men who joined at Deptford made a convenience of the yard until they could pass on to private employment where they got a better rate of wages. The country ought to have the élite of unskilled, as well as the élite of skilled labour. The First Lord of the Admiralty had spoken of the privileges which these men obtained, but it had been pointed out that these privileges could be got for 6d. a week from any benefit society. He would be perfectly satisfied if the First Lord would give the men 24s. a week wages, and retain 6d. a week for the privileges the Government desired to confer on them. These men were said to be unskilled labourers, but he held that they were practically skilled labourers; they were frequently employed, for instance, in cooperage work. He admitted that when they did cooperage work they were paid 2s. 6d. per week extra; but that was only for a few weeks in the year, and it did not brings the men's average wages up to anything like the current rate in the locality. The question of the insufficient food of the sailors had been brought up. The sailors were, nevertheless, fairly well fed; but how could these Deptford labourers, with 19s. a week, out of which they had to pay 9s. or 10s. for rent, and feed their wives and children, also feed themselves well? Yet but for these men the Navy would starve, for they handled all the stores, and did all the packing and embarkation of the stores for the Navy. They had been recently

  421
  working might and main and long overtime, and they had not been adequately paid for that overtime, although he believed the right hon. Gentleman was going to make some concessions in regard to the overtime. However, overtime had no bearing on the question of the current rate of wages to which the men were entitled. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would go to a division.
  Sir JOHN BAKERsaid there were sufficient reasons this year why there should be some concessions in the rate of pay to labourers in the dockyards, because at the present moment labourers were being subjected to at least from 6d. to 1s. per week increased expenditure in consequence of the scheme of taxation put before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought the Government ought to show an example to other employers as to the rate of wages they paid. The Admiralty, he maintained, was not justified in employing labourers at less than 20s. per week. Could the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty give any reason for the Admiralty employing men at 19s. per week? There was no answer to that. There was another fact. In very large towns as the population increased so did the rents increase. In his own constituency there were from 30,000 to 40,000 houses, and the rents of these during the last year or two had been advanced 25 per cent. Surely the Admiralty should give consideration to the necessities of the localities in which these workmen were employed on that account. For many years he had been agitating for a fair rate of wages for those labourers, and he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could justify a refusal of their just due. If the right hon. Gentleman would concede this, he would give satisfaction to the men and do his duty to the country.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid that the speech of the hon. Member showed the width of the question now before the Committee. The hon. Members spoke for Portsmouth and Deptford. The hon. Member for Deptford said that, as a mere act of justice, the labourers there should be paid the same wage as the labourers at Woolwich. But that same act of justice did not apply when they came to Portsmouth, for the hon. Gentleman asked that the labourers at Portsmouth, who were paid 1s. per week more than the
  422
  labourers at Deptford, should get more. Hon. Gentlemen brought this question up year after year, and would no doubt continue to do so until they found a First Lord of the Admiralty who would consent to their demands. There were only 150 labourers at Deptford, but there were thousands of dockyard labourers elsewhere, and he regretted that he could not consider the case of the men at Deptford except as part of a general scheme. It was quite clear that if he gave way and increased the wages at Deptford they would have to be raised all over the country. The question was, therefore, not a local one. The hon. Member for Newington spoke of the men at Deptford who were doing cooperage and working overtime. For four months in the year the men who did cooperage work received 2s. 6d. a week extra.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Only a very limited number of them.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid there were only 150 men altogether' at Deptford, and therefore the cost of conceding the extra wages would be a small consideration, and he should have been only too anxious to give way if there were not a principle involved. He could not discriminate further in regard to dockyard labourers than had already been done. As to the question of overtime, the men had worked excellently, and had not listened to the suggestion that they should put pressure on the Admiralty by refusing to work. It was proposed to give them an increase of 25 per cent. for the first four hours of overtime, and an increase of 50 per cent. when the overtime extended to eight hours, as a recognition of the excellent way in which they had done their work. He was sorry he could not go further and give way on this question.
  Sir JOHN BAKER: asked if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to give some promise that the minimum rate of wages of labourers should be 20s. a week.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid he could not give a promise of that kind at this time. The labourers in all the dockyards, and not in one only, would have to be dealt with.
  *Sir CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman gave them his annual lecture on taking up the time of the House on this small question. All of them were

  423
  sincerely sorry, for they thought that the First Lord of the Admiralty took a wholly false view of his duties in respect of this matter when he believed that he could not raise the wages of the Deptford labourers without undertaking to raise them throughout the country. If the raising of the wages of labour in one place involved the raising of wages throughout the country, the matter might be a very serious one. But surely that was not the case. The War Office had never dealt with the question in that way.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid the War Office had not so large a number of labourers as the Admiralty had.
  *Sir CHARLES DILKEsaid that the War Office had not such a large number, but still they had considerable numbers scattered over the country, and neither that Department nor the Post Office dealt with the matter in the way which the First Lord of the Admiralty did. In fact, the Post Office had a certain minimum wage which they were ashamed to go below. The case of the men at Devonport and Deptford was the hardest in the whole field of Government employment. The right hon. Gentleman said that a rise in wages always went to a rising rent, but that argument struck at the root of all rises in wages in any part of the country, and therefore ought not to be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman ought to consider the general cost of living in different places as an element in fixing the rate of wages. Some hon. Members objected to anything like uniformity of wages throughout the country, but that principle was not accepted by the Government itself in other Departments. Each case should be considered on its own merits, and the Government sot a very ill example in regard to the remuneration, of their labours to their own contractors. Although they greatly regretted to appear in any way to hold up to public odium the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to this question, hon. Members not connected with the dockyard constituencies were in duty bound to show by their votes that on the merits an overwhelming case had been made out for conceding the rise in labourers' wages at Devonport and Deptford.
  MR. STEADMANsaid that in discussing this matter it was not a question of attacking
  424
  the First Lord of the Admiralty personally, far from it; it was a matter of principle. He did not blame the hon. Member for Portsmouth for getting up and speaking in favour of the labourer's at Portsmouth Dockyard. In his opinion there was room for improvement in the wages, not only at Portsmouth and Deptford, but in every other part of the United Kingdom. He was one of those who recognised that the competition going on in the present day was detrimental to the interest of the workers of the country. He believed not only in municipalising, but in nationalising all labour, in order that workmen should not suffer from men competing against them, and that the State, which was a non-competitive body, should be the only employer. He had no sympathy with agitation to induce men in Government employ to take advantage of present difficulties, but he strongly urged that 20s. a week was not a wage which in London would enable a workman to bring up a family decently, though, driven by dire necessity and keen competition in the labour market, men might be found to accept it. If the right hon. Gentleman thought it was, let him try it himself. In the East-end of London they were poor enough, yet they paid their road-sweepers 25s. He felt quite sure that but for the restraint of party allegiance many Members opposite would support the Amendment as a conscientious protest against what was little better than a starvation rate of payment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid no Member would desire the Government to pay an exorbitant rate of wages, but when the House of Commons declared by resolution that Government contractors should pay the local current rate, certainly it was implied that the Government itself was equally bound by that resolution, and successive Administrations had accepted that principle. When contractors near Deptford were carrying out a Government contract they would not say before such an arbitrator as the head of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade that 20s. a week was the current rate for unskilled labour. At the time of the great dock strike it was settled that the minimum rate should be 6d. an hour, and that indicated an answer to the question of the First Lord, What is the current rate? It was sometimes urged that certain privi-

  425
  leges attached to Government employment, but the highest estimate of their value did not exceed 1s. 6d. weekly. When the Government paid 20s. a week at Deptford they were not paying the current rate. If the Government raised the rate in London, that by no means committed them to payment of the same rate elsewhere, because local circumstances must determine the question locally.
  MR. TRITTON: appealed to the First Lord of the Admiralty to reconsider this matter. When the matter was brought forward in the previous year he voted for the motion, and he believed that if the First Lord could show a little generosity in this matter he would never have cause to regret it. It would give great satisfaction to many supporters of the Government, if they would give generous treatment to men who were considered to be underpaid.
  MR. GOSCHEN: regretted the speeches he had listened to had not encouraged him to make the concession asked for. They had rather influenced him in the opposite direction. They had shown him the danger of embarking on the course which the Admiralty was invited to take. This was a test case, and every speech which had been made showed how the same arguments would be used in countless other cases. The question could not be limited to the wages of labourers at Deptford. It must go beyond that. It was not a question of the rate of the wages at Deptford, but the wages of labourers in naval dockyards throughout the kingdom. The Treasury had not interfered and had nothing to do with the matter. The principle on which he had acted was his own. It was a principle for which he, personally, was responsible, and he felt strongly (he hoped the phrase would not be offensive) being coerced by the House of Commons into granting higher wages than, according to the principles he entertained, he thought should be granted. He could not make this concession consistently with the principles he held. He confessed that it was a misfortune. Perhaps he was old-fashioned in these matters, and could not adjust himself to the doctrines which had permeated so many of the speeches he had just listened to. On a question of such magnitude in his eyes he could not give way much as he regretted it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the area of discussion had been unfortunately enlarged by what the First Lord of the Admiralty had just said. The question was merely one of dockyard labourers' wages at Deptford. Nearly ten years had elapsed since the present rate of wages was fixed by the Board of Admiralty. Since then many things had happened. In fixing the rate of wages they adopted the principle of local discrimination. A shilling extra was allowed at Deptford, because rents were higher there than in other dockyard towns. If it was true that in consequence of the allowance rents had been raised in Deptford and the landlords had benefited, that was a serious matter, but such a contention would have to be proved, and the right hon. Gentleman could not have committed himself to that statement without inquiry. It was never intended that they should reap the benefit, and it was only fair that the inquiry made nearly ton years ago into the conditions of labour should be renewed.
  *MR. ARTHUR MORTONsaid it was a matter of very great regret to him to find himself in opposition to the First Lord of the Admiralty, but this was a claim founded on justice, and he felt bound to press it. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the labourers of the Deptford Victualling Yard for the reference he made to the work they had performed during the late crisis. The demand was a very small one. He was deeply convinced that it was a simple act of justice to give these men the same rate of wages as was given to labourers of that class performing the same kind of work in other Government establishments. He trusted that, even at the eleventh hour, the First Lord of the Admiralty would see his way to consider the matter favourably. As the labourers in two other establishments receive 1s. a week more for performing precisely the same duties, he could not see why the same wages should not be given at Deptford.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON:observed that the question, though small, and affecting only a single dockyard, involved a principle to which, as one of the Members for Devonport, he would certainly object—namely, that there should be a varying rate of wages to the same class of workmen in different places. He held that there should be a minimum

  427
  rate of wage for the labourers throughout the Government employment. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in a speech the logic of which he could not understand, seemed to think otherwise. There had been two debates in the present Parliament on this question. One was two and a half years ago, when the question of the minimum wage paid to the labourers for the War Office was discussed. In the course of the debate on that occasion, he pointed out that they most cordially accepted and insisted upon the principle that they should pay certain labourers in certain dockyards higher wages than in another. He understood then that they got from the Government a promise that they would institute an inquiry into all the circumstances of dockyard labour, and that they should once for all settle what was the equivalent wage representing the same amount of work in all those different places where labourers were employed by the Government. As a matter of fact, nothing had been done, and no change had taken place. In the debate to which he referred, the hon. Member the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that he had inquired into the conditions of the Government employment at Pimlico, particularly, and had come to the conclusion that 19s. 6d. was not a sufficient minimum wage to give to Government employees in London, and he undertook that he would raise the rate with, as he thought, advantage to the Government employment. The hon. Member had said that night that he would raise the minimum wage to 21s. per week, and considering the other-advantages of the Government employment, that might be regarded as equivalent to 22s. per week. The War Office two and a half years ago raised the wages of the employees 2s. 6d., but the Admiralty had done nothing. He did not see why the Admiralty should treat their labourers worse than the War Office treated theirs. He could not understand why it was that the Government should not consent to make a general inquiry once for all, and ascertain the difference as between the purchasing power of wages in one constituency as compared with another. He wished to see the Admiralty follow the example of the War Office with regard to the other principle, and say that no man in Government employment should receive less than £1 per week in wages.
  MR. GRAY: observed that he understood the First Lord of the Admiralty to say that he could not consent to go into this question because he felt he could not be coerced by the House of Commons. Well, that being the case, what on earth was the good of bringing this before the House at all? Mr. Gray had not formed his opinion in this case from anything he had heard outside—in fact, no representation whatever had been made to him outside the House. He had listened to the debates on this question year after year, and having regard to the cost of living in London he thought those men ought to be dealt with in the manner suggested.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken up the position that he could not give way because there must be uniformity of wages. The question was whether the wage paid at Deptford was inadequate. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman take exception to the interference of Parliament in this matter. He had been long enough in the House to hear Ministers representing not this Government alone, but the Government that preceded it, standing up and declaring that 15s. a week was an ample wage to a labourer. Although it was distasteful to have to discuss questions of this kind in that House there was no other method open to them, and he was perfectly certain whatever concession was ever made to any of those employees it was initiated and brought about by the pressure brought to bear by Members of Parliament. He hoped that so far as Deptford was concerned the right hon. Gentleman would take up a different attitude and concede what was asked.
  MR. GOSCHEN: replied that an hon. Member had stated that such questions need not be brought before Parliament if he refused to be coerced. He thought the object of bringing Votes before the House was that the House might have an opportunity of checking expenditure. He should always bow to the decision of the House in the direction of a reduction of expenditure, but personally he should not always bow to the behests of the House in the matter of raising expenditure. The moment the Government conceded that point the expenditure would rise by leaps and bounds. He would make one his-

  429
  torical remark. When he was First Lord of the Admiralty before, he raised the wages of certain trades at an expense of £70,000, and that was done looking to the whole attitude of labour in general. That would show at all events that when he was convinced that it was right to raise the rate of wages he was ready to do so. He could not give way on the present occasion, but he would take the whole question of labour into consideration and he would look at the wages of labourers in the dockyards. He would examine the question afresh with such assistance as he could get, but knowing the great interest many Members took in this matter he regretted all the more that this particular demand of Deptford should have been raised.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to hold the view that cheap labour meant cheap production, but that was an economic fallacy, as could be proved upon investigation. Until the Government broke through their present rule, and paid the current rate of wages which could be obtained from other employers on similar work, they would always have these discussions on the Navy Estimates. He urged the Government to conform to the practice of nearly every other authority in the country. He sincerely trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not try to balance himself on the question whether house rent at Deptford, Pimlico, or Devonport took the larger portion of the wages. They had nothing to do with pettifogging questions of that kind. They had got to pay the current rate of wages and let the labourer get his house as cheaply as he could. The right hon. Gentleman said the object of the Estimates should be to check the expenditure of the country. The hon. Member was perfectly convinced of this, that if they paid the men at Deptford 19s. or 20s. a week they were only getting as compared with other employers 16s. or 17s. worth of labour. He believed that low wages meant dear labour in the long run. The skilled labour which the Admiralty employed was organised, and the skilled workers extracted from the Government the trades union rate of wages, but in the case of unskilled labour the men were too poor to join a trades union. He ventured to say that in Deptford a labourer earning 19s. or 20s. a week could
  430
  not afford 3d. or 4d. a week to a trades union, besides 7d. or 8d. to a friendly society. The right hon. Gentleman adhered to the view that the House of Commons ought not to interfere with the wages of Departments. He disputed that doctrine in toto, although the minimum of interference was only possible when Government paid the current rate and secured the highest quality of labour. The men employed in the dockyards could not take that effective combination which men outside the Government service could take. He held that the Government should not exploit the helplessness of these men by denying to them the current rate of wages which other employers paid. There was only one way out of the difficulty, and that was to follow the example of the School Board, the County Council, and the Science and Art Department, and pay the current rate of wages. He believed if they paid 3s. or 4s. a week more at Deptford and Pimlico, inefficient and redundant workpeople would be sent about their business and only efficient men would be employed, capable of turning out a proper amount of work. So long as they had charity wages they were sure to have charity work.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I find myself in a somewhat difficult position, because this happens to be one of the few questions in regard to which I gave a specific promise to my constituents at the time of my election. I refused to give the assurance they requested—to ask that the wages should be raised to a particular figure—but I promised always to urge the Government to act in the manner of a good employer; in other words, that they would not sweat their labour. I have the greatest sympathy with the remarks of the First Lord of the Admiralty about the impropriety of constituents threatening Members, and Members threatening the Government. If such a chain of coercion was set up the public service might easily suffer. At the same time it is essential that we should act up to our election pledges—not because we might suffer if we did otherwise, but because the credit of public life would suffer. The question really is—are the Government acting as model employers? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that he personally is convinced that a good employer would

  431
  not act in a way different from that of the Government towards their labourers. It is quite impossible for us to go into all the details of the rates of wages, comparing the circumstances of one class of labour with those of another, and so on. That might be done by a small Committee of inquiry, or by the Government itself, but it is quite impossible that we should regulate our votes in this House by what is said in debate upon these topics. Therefore, I should be prepared to support the Government and to maintain to my constituents that I have redeemed my pledge, if the First Lord will assure me that the Government, as benevolent and
  honest men, are acting in the same spirit as a considerate employer would act towards his labourers.
  MR. GOSCHN: I do not think a good employer with, say 500 men, would give special privileges to twenty or thirty of them. He would look at the whole number, and that is what I am doing. I am acting as I think I should act in a private capacity. I do not acknowledge the justice of a claim put forward on behalf of this particular small body.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 139. (Division List No. 61.)

  AYES.

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Baker, Sir John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon Charles H.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Billson, Alfred

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nsh're

  Steadman, William Charles

  Burns, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir W. Cumberland)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lowles, John

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wallace, Robert

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Crae, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Weir, James Galloway

  Colville, John

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Maddison, Fred

  Williams, John Carvell(Notts.

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

  Dewar, Arthur

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonp't

  Woods, Samuel

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Doogan, P. C.

  Pilkington, Sir G. A.(Lancs S. W

  Mr. Arthur Morton and Captain Norton.

  Duckworth, James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth).

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gorst, Rt Hon Sir John Eldon

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Curzon, Viscount

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

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Denny, Colonel

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Gretton, John

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Doughty, George

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

  Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Bethell, Commander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fison, Frederick William.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Garfit, William

  Kenyon, James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Kimber, Henry

  Knowles, Lees

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Lafone, Alfred

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

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Ox.Univ.)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Plunkett, Rt Hn HoraceCurzon

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Purvis, Robert

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Pym, C. Guy

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Lowe, Francis William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  M'Killop, James

  Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

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

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Monk, Charles James

  Rutherford, John

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stlybr.)

  Resolution agreed to.

  2. £208,800, Medical Establishments and Services.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: In the course of the last year or two there has been a very strong suspicion that the naval hospital is not all that could be desired. While I have no concrete cases to bring before the Committee, I should be very grateful if the Civil Lord could tell me whether the system of nursing at the naval hospital has been thoroughly gone into, and whether the more modern system which is established in civil hospitals has been adopted.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Austen Chamberlain,): I can give the hon. and gallant Member a reply which I think will be satisfactory to him. I do think the system of nursing in the naval hospital left very much to be desired. The class of men whom we have recruited for the sick berth staff has not been up to the proper standard. Lately a Committee of the Admiralty has investigated the condition of the sick berth staff and the conditions for the employment of nursing sisters, and has made certain recommendations which are now being carried out. I hope one result will be that we shall have a better class of men and better trained men than we have hitherto had. It is a matter to which the Board of Admiralty and the medical directors have given a great deal of attention recently, and we shall watch the result of changes with very great interest.
  Dr. TANNER:After the many recommendations which have been made by various Committees upstairs on the Naval Estimates, we find ourselves at the opening of another century with the work, then promised to be carried out, still undone. The number of duly qualified medical men going up as candidates for positions in connection with the naval medical service is incomparable with the number of vacancies which occur. At the last Committee on Naval Estimates I had the support not only of the noble Lord who was recently Member for York, but also of the then head of the Naval Medical Department, in the view, which was given as a recommendation of the Committee, that the same facilities should be offered in this country as are offered in other countries, in order that medical men who have been afloat for a period of years may on their return be able to study their profession for a month or six weeks, so that they may make up any points upon which they have fallen short of the advancement in the science they practise. The granting of such facilities would be to the advantage not only of the men themselves, but also of the patients of whom they have charge.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member allow me to interrupt for one moment? I do not know whether he has read the Report of a Committee of the Admiralty on this matter which has been circulated as a Parliamentary Paper. That Committee recommended that increased facilities should be

  435
  given to officers returning from abroad to take a post-graduate course of study here on full pay. That recommendation has been approved by the Board of Admiralty and sanctioned by the Treasury.
  Dr. TANNER: Had I read that Report I would not have troubled the Committee with these remarks. I sincerely hope, for the benefit of all concerned, that the recommendation will be carried into effect as speedily as possible.
  3. £13,300, Martial Law, etc.
  4. £92,300, Educational Services.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire to move a reduction of £100 in respect of Subhead "D" (Allowances to chaplains as naval instructors).
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The question of Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy—I do not know whether that is the point to which the hon. Member desires to allude—could not be raised upon this Vote, which refers only to the educational services rendered.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It may be that this matter cannot be raised until we reach Vote 12; but I have only a few words to say, and it may facilitate matters if I am allowed to proceed. It is with respect to the allowance to chaplains as naval instructors that I raise my objection. Am I not in order in referring on this Vote to the fact that of the consider able sum of money set down under this head none goes to chaplains of the Catholic religion? This Vote illustrates the fact that the Navy is practically without Catholic chaplains.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise here. If the hon. Member wishes to contend that a certain number of Roman Catholics ought to be employed as naval instructors he will be in order. If he wishes to contend that a certain number of Roman Catholics should be appointed as chaplains in the navy—that does not arise under this Vote.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I quite understand that technically I am out of order, but I raise the objection and I think it meets the case—that not one penny of this money goes to a Catholic
  436
  chaplain, for the simple reason that there are no Catholic chaplains in the Fleet. I object to this Vote because it goes exclusively to chaplains of the Church of England. At any rate a portion of the money ought to go to chaplains of our church. In certain cases Catholic chaplains accompany the Fleet, and in those cases should they not be entitled to a share of this money? I should like to read an Admiralty minute dealing with this question, and to ask the First Lord whether it cannot be carried out. If so, I should be, to a great extent, satisfied on this point. The minute, which is dated June 7th, 1878, says—
  "My Lords direct that when a large number of ships forming a squadron are sent on any service that would keep them for a considerable time away from a port where the services of a Roman Catholic priest would be available, arrangements are to be made for one to accompany the squadron."
  *THE CHAIRMAN:That really does not arise on this Vote, which is purely educational. If the hon. Member will turn to Vote 11 I think he will there find a point upon which he can raise this question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have no particular desire to pursue the matter now. If I do not get a reply I will raise the matter later on, but I think it would be more convenient if the First Lord would say now that the spirit of that minute will be carried out.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can assure the hon. Member that we have endeavoured to carry out the spirit of that minute. When our ships went to Crete special arrangements were made under that particular clause, and the Commander-in-Chief was directed to carry out, as far as possible, the spirit of that resolution. We are anxious, without putting any of these gentlemen on the ships, that the spiritual necessities of Roman Catholics should not be neglected, and those services were performed in the case of the squadron which went to Crete.
  MR. ARTHUR J. MOORE: It must not be imagined for one moment that we are satisfied with the present educational facilities. We have thousands of Roman Catholic soldiers and sailors, and their susceptibilities in matters of religion and education have to be considered. I have frequently conversed upon this subject,

  437
  and it is not a mere question of what Catholics in Ireland think, but Catholics in this country are dissatisfied with the position of this question. The hon. Member for East Clare is to be commended for the firm and uncompromising manner in which he has brought this question forward, and pressed it upon the attention of the Admiralty.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: There is a question which was raised last year with regard to the teaching of modern languages. The First Lord promised to do what he could to improve it. At the time of the Crete affair it was found we were very short of naval officers who could speak modern languages. The amount taken for the purpose under this Vote is very small, but I doubt whether even that amount is entirely spent.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): made a reply which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  DR. TANNER: Under Sub-head G—expenses connected with candidates for the naval medical services—the examination of candidates appears to cost the same amount year after year no matter what the number of candidates may be. There is a note here that the probable number of candidates to be examined during the year 1901 is 100. The Admiralty have been out in their numbers so very frequently that I should like to know upon what foundation they base this estimate.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Those figures are based upon past experience. Sometimes they may be absolutely correct, sometimes they are not.
  Dr. TANNER: In what year has the number been accurate or nearly accurate?
  MR. MACARTNEY:If the hon. Gentleman will give me time to look up the records I will tell him. There may be a difference of one or two, but they have been practically accurate. I have no reason to suppose that the figures for the present year ought to be altered. If more money is spent it has to be made up in some other way—either out of the Vote or out of Naval Votes generally, but I believe sufficient money is provided.
  *MR. WEIR: On various pages of these Estimates I find
  438
  sums set down as allowances to chaplains as naval instructors. I want to know whether any of the gentlemen receiving these allowances are ministers of the Church of Scotland, or whether they are clergy of the Church of England exclusively. The Church of Scotland is not a dissenting body, and her ministers are as much entitled to participate in these benefits as the clergy of the Church of England.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, the gentlemen who are chaplains and receiving these allowances for naval instruction as such are clergymen of the Church of England. As to the naval instructors who are not chaplains, we have no knowledge whatever of their religious views. No inquiry is made, and, whatever their religious views, they would not be a bar to their appointment.
  *MR. WEIR: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there are any Presbyterian ministers appointed as naval instructors?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, there are not.
  *MR. WEIR: May I ask the Admiralty to consider whether Presbyterian ministers and ministers of the Church of Scotland are not entitled to share in these advantages?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot hold out any expectation or make any promise such as is asked by the hon. Member.
  *MR. WEIR: I find a sum in this Vote allowed to chaplains for acting as naval instructors. These chaplains are all Church of England clergymen, and I think that Presbyterian ministers might also be engaged for some of this work. All wisdom is not centred in the Church of England, and many ministers in the Presbyterian Church are men of great ability, who would be quite competent to act as naval instructors. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to give the Committee some information on the subject, and also that something will be done in the way of appointing Presbyterian ministers to these positions.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A certain number of chaplains in the Navy are appointed as naval instructors, and

  439
  they do that work as well as their ordinary duties as chaplains, and receive an extra allowance. Of course, these chaplains are necessarily clergymen of the Established Church. There are also a number of laymen who act as naval instructors, and there is no test for them except an educational test. As regards the needs of Presbyterians in the Navy, these are met under another Vote by the payment of allowances to Presbyterian ministers, but as regards naval instructorships I do not think we should introduce a religious test as regards the majority of these appointments.
  *MR. WEIR: What is the nature of the instruction imparted by these chaplains?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is entirely lay instruction, such as higher mathematics.
  MR. CALDWELL: In connection with this Vote, it seems to me peculiar that we should have schools in connection with the Navy alone. Why should we have these schools apart from other schools in the different towns, and why are not these children allowed to mix with other children instead of being kept apart? I also observe that the salaries paid to the teachers in these schools are exceedingly small. I am asking for information in the interests of the education of the children. I submit they would be better educated in the ordinary schools, where they would mix with the children of the general community. But if they are to have separate schools there ought to be efficient teachers. These children are entitled to the same amount of education as other children.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As regards these schools, the subject was very carefully considered a few years ago, and the result of that careful inquiry was to show that there was good reason for continuing these schools. The schools are now under the inspection of the Education Department, which is a sufficient guarantee for their educational standard, and I fancy that even the localities themselves would very strongly object to these children being educated at the board schools at the expense of the ratepayers.
  *Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am not at all surprised at this question being brought forward, because this question and various other questions connected with these schools arose during the time that Lord Spencer, my hon. friend the Member for Dundee, and myself were at the Admiralty. Two Departmental Committees which had the advantage of the services of a very experienced man—Sir Joshua Fitch—inquired into this question of dockyard schools and schools for the children of marines. I confess when I first approached the subject I had some doubt, although a perfectly open mind, whether it was desirable to maintain these schools apart from the ordinary technical or elementary schools, and that a separate education should be given to the children of the dockyard artisans and to the children of marines, but the result of the inquiry was extremely encouraging, and we were convinced that it was desirable to maintain these separate schools. The Departmental Committee recommended that it was desirable to put the Marine Barrack Schools under the Education Department, and now they earn grants from that Department in the same way as ordinary schools. The whole result of that inquiry was to the effect that the educational work done in the dockyard and marine schools was admirable. There were no doubt some suggestions for improvement which were adopted, and I think the Committee may have every confidence that that part of the work of the Admiralty is most efficiently and usefully done. I think that the reason why it was so extremely well done in the past was owing to the careful attention which had been given to the schools by the then Chaplain of the Fleet, the Rev. Cox Edwards. I hope similar attention to it will be shown by his successor. I am very glad my hon. friend has raised the question, and every security should be taken to ensure that these schools are kept up to a high level.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The schools continue to earn very high grants and to receive very favourable reports from the Education Department.
  MR. CALDWELL: The statements we have just heard are very satisfactory, but

  441
  it does seem to me that the salaries are very low. For instance, the head mistress of a school commences at £54, and after three years is entitled to £60. It seems to me that the money we pay the teachers in salaries is very inadequate.
  *Sir JOHN COLOMB: There is one point connected with this Vote to which I would wish to direct the attention of the Admiralty. At present candidates for the Navy are taken up to fifteen and a half years, and for the Marine Artillery and Infantry the minimum age was sixteen years. The naval candidates go through a certain course up to the time they are about twenty-one. At that age, they are sorted out; some are taken for gunnery, some for torpedo work, and others for navigating. I would put it to my right hon. friend whether it is not worth consideration that all officers, whether for marines or for the Navy, should be taken at the same age, and up to the age of twenty-one should go through the same course of training, and then be sorted out, not only for torpedo work, gunnery, and navigation, but also that any officers who showed qualifications for such positions should be attached to the military or marine branch of the Navy. At present we are keeping up an artificial and expensive system, which produces two distinct branches of officers. I cannot see why all officers should not go through the same course of training up to about twenty-one years of age. The whole tendency of the time is for naval officers to become more and more employed on shore, and I think if the matter were considered it would lead to greater economy, heartier co-operation and greater efficiency.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right as regards age, but as regards training, there are, for instance, watches to be kept.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: My proposition is that all officers entered for the naval and marine services should work on the same lines up to about twenty years of age.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that after all a naval officer had to handle a ship, and a marine officer had not. But he rose to discuss two points. It seemed to him that the whole scheme of naval education demanded attention. One
  442
  thing in which naval officers were extraordinarily deficient was modern languages. The right hon. Gentleman had exaggerated the importance of the ancient languages, and too much time was devoted to Latin. That was a public school view; but the result was that modern languages were neglected in favour of Latin and cuneiform inscriptions or Assyrian. How many naval officers held interpreterships? He questioned whether there were half a dozen in the whole Navy. Only two men went up for the last examination for an interpretership, and only one had passed. Scarcely any naval officer knew any modern language, except Swahili; very few spoke French or German or Spanish. [Mr. GOSCHEN dissented.] The First Lord of the Admiralty might speak all of them; but few naval officers could speak any one of them. When a British naval officer had to read a German manifest or a German bill-of-lading he was entirely at sea; and extraordinary deceits were practised upon him. He was imformed on very good testimony that the only remedy for this state of affairs in a ship off the coast of South Africa was to send out a special officer from England who knew German. The reason for the short supply of interpreters in the Navy was that they were short of the officers of that particular age who would equip themselves for the post. He saw there were three examiners in various modern languages put down in the Estimates for the Naval College; one French, one German, and another Spanish or Italian. Would the light hon. Gentleman undertake to find him half a dozen officers who could speak accurately any of these languages?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that if he did find them these officers had probably been stationed off the coast of Spain or Italy, and had taught themselves. It would scarcely be believed that the Admiralty undertook to teach French in fourteen lessons.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was fourteen when he made his last inquiry; perhaps it had got up to fifteen by this time.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It was fourteen when you made your last mistake about it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his information was from the Chief Instructor on board the "Britannia," and when he last heard from that gentleman it was only fourteen. He hoped there might be more now, for that number was certainly not enough. His contention was that too much time and too many marks were given to Latin, and not enough time or marks to modern languages. Then, he did not see in the list of professors in the college any mention of a professor of the law of nations. Now, it was essential that naval officers should have a general idea of the law of nations. He believed there had been lectures on the law of nations, but he saw no provision made for them in the present Estimates, and he thought that such lectures should be given, especially at Greenwich.
  *ADMIRAL FIELDsaid his hon. friend was a very clever man, but a most incorrigible offender in putting forward arguments which had been answered over and over again. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would not listen to the evil counsel of his hon. friend in discountenancing the teaching of Latin. Nobody could pretend to study French, Italian, or Spanish without having some knowledge of Latin. His hon. friend said that the Admiralty had no lecturer at Greenwich on international law. If that were so, it was a gross sin against custom and rule. He himself had listened to, and profited by the lectures on international law from the late learned Professor Bernard. He did not think his hon. friend sincerely held the views he put forth, but did it more to plague the First Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth almost captured him as a supporter of the idea that those who had to live together should be educated together in their youth. But naval cadets entered the "Britannia" at fifteen and a half years, and marine cadets up to the age of eighteen, and he did not think the scheme would work well. Besides, there were other objections and difficulties; for instance, as regards pay. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had said that half-a-dozen naval officers could not be
  444
  found who spoke French or German. It would not be Parliamentary to make bets; but he would wager that he could go on board any of Her Majesty's ships and find many officers who spoke French with facility, and many also who spoke German. Why, a marine officer, who had a faculty for languages, went to Russia to study Russian, and afterwards through his personal intervention got the £150 allowance for passing in that language, and he was now in the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty. And yet his hon. friend had the charming audacity to say that the Admiralty did nothing to encourage the study of modern languages.
  *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTSsaid there was considerable facility for educating officers in modern languages, and when they got on shore they could make their wants known, and, what was more, they could get what they wanted. He held that it was by no means necessary for naval officers to understand Latin, and that they could pick up modern languages without a knowledge of that dead language. But he held still more firmly that for anyone who was going to follow the sea as a profession it was absolutely necessary that he should be thoroughly conversant with mathematics. He would go further and say that it would be all the better if a boy who was going to enter the Navy should begin his study of mathematics as soon as he was weaned. He would then be able to reduce everything to a mathematical basis. After three and a half years trial very few boys from the generally accepted public schools had passed into the "Britannia." This matter required further consideration on the part of the Admiralty, and he hoped that his right hon. friend the First Lord would see whether something could not be done to attract the class of boys most desirable for the public service.
  Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid he had had great apprehension as to what the result would be of the changes made in recent years, and whether in the end we could obtain a better class of candidates for the "Britannia" by raising the age. He tried to keep an open mind on the subject, as the right hon. the First Lord had also pledged himself to keep an open mind, so that, if it were proved that the

  445
  results of raising the age were not such as had been hoped, a change would he made. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some information as to how the last change had worked, and what proportion of the candidates for the "Britannia" came from the public schools, and whether a decreased or an increased proportion of candidates for naval cadetships passed through the hands of crammers. He was quite sure that the desire of the House was that they should adopt as far as possible a wide source of supply for naval officers, and that they should obtain the best from the various public schools, and so save little boys from that process of exceptional preparation by cram, which they knew had not been productive of good results. He would also ask when it was expected that the new system of a college on shore would be in working order. He himself viewed that reform with very great hopes. He gathered, from something which fell from the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Navy Estimates, that he looked forward to the time when the present term of education in the "Britannia" would be replaced by a longer term. He knew the right hon. Gentleman was as much in earnest as anyone in the endeavour to combat the system of cram; but he was afraid the tendency had been rather to increase cramming during the time the cadets spent on board the "Britannia."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid he hoped that the Naval College on shore would be in working order in about two years. In reference to the disputed question of Latin, he himself did not object to the boys being taught Latin. He quite disagreed with his hon. friend the Member for Torquay that the boys who had been reared on mathematics from their very earliest infancy were very likely to turn out the best naval officers. The knowledge of mathematics was most important, but it could be acquired by boys at a rather later age. He did insist, and had always insisted, that boys coming into the "Britannia" ought to have a general education. They ought to agree upon that. They might not agree as to the precise proportions, but they should agree that it was necessary to have boys of average cultivation and general knowledge. How best to get them was a difficult question. The Commissioners had tried
  446
  over and over again to decide what was the right examination paper for them; but notwithstanding all changes in the marking of papers, the crammers somehow "got round" the Commissioners, and with the connivance of the parents, who were the great sinners, succeeded in passing in more boys than he should wish. He would rather that parents took their chance and did not send their boys to crammers. It was a very difficult matter with which to deal. He wished to impress upon parents that only one boy out of three got in, and if there were two failures, and if these failures had been with crammers, they had lost a certain amount of their time in specialisation at the crammer's. His whole anxiety was to have such papers set as would enable the average boy to get in. As to Latin, Latin was, after all, the foundation of modern languages. By knowing Latin he himself had found it easier to learn Spanish. It would be the same with Italian and French. A knowledge of Latin was the best foundation, too, for grammar and style, and it was most important that naval officers should be able to write despatches and have a general cultivation. Therefore he could not hold out any hope of abolishing the Latin paper.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I did not in the least suggest that the Latin paper should be suppressed, but I think it has too much importance attached to it as compared with the other languages.
  MR. GOSCHEN: You would give more attention to the daughter languages than to the mother. We give more attention to the mother of languages than to the daughters.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I prefer the daughters.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid that the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that so few officers had a colloquial knowledge of French. There were comparatively few, perhaps, who had a perfect knowledge of the language, but there were many who could read the French newspapers, in which excellent professional papers appeared; and he was anxious for every naval officer to read of everything that went on in France. As to other languages progress was being made, but was there

  447
  ever a boy who learnt French thoroughly at any school in the United Kingdom? As to the shorter term on the "Britannia," boys were now better prepared before they entered, and had already learned what used to be part of the course. As to whether candidates presented themselves in sufficient numbers, the number during the last year had been double that of two years ago, and while there were 180 vacancies each year, the number of candidates for them was 540. With reference to what his hon. and gallant friend (Sir J. Colomb) had said as to the training of boys for the Navy and for the Marines, he was afraid it could not be brought about without a revolution of the entire system. It would be extremely awkward if at the end of the term all the lads wanted to be naval officers, or vice versâ.
  *Sir JOHN COLOMBsaid that would present no more difficulty than was found now when they wanted to be gunnery torpedo or navigating officers.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid he suspected his hon. and gallant friend had some deep Scheme in favour of the Marines. He could hold out no hope that such a scheme as his hon. and gallant friend's could be adopted. There were lectures on international law given at Greenwich, a special course paid for by fees. The subject was worthy of consideration with a view to further facilities being given for these lectures.
  *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTSsaid he believed a certain amount of Latin was a very good thing, but he did not think it should be made an important part of the examination for the Navy. That so many successful candidates came from the crammers, and other than the great public schools, was owing to the vicious system of competition for which his right hon. friend was not responsible. He wished it were possible to go back to the old system of nomination and a high standard of qualification. He could only hope that the system that had been inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman would be a success.
  Dr. TANNERsaid it was seldom he was able to give the right hon. Gentle man his blessing, but on the present occasion he thought what had been said
  448
  by the First Lord of the Admiralty had been absolutely practical. With reference to what the hon. Member who had just spoken said about the public schools, he would ask whether, if they took their minds back to the days when they were attending the public schools, they remembered how little of foreign languages they learned. As to the instruction of naval officers afloat in modern times, he took that to be a very important point, and he would put it to the more practical gentlemen who happened to be Members of the House, and who had served with the Fleet in foreign waters, that there an opportunity came in for the study of languages in the places where they were spoken. The instruction of naval officers afloat in modern languages was one portion of the scheme, and the instruction on shore was another, and he agreed entirely with the First Lord of the Admiralty. In addition to that they had heard a great deal about the marines in modern days. He wanted to know how it came to pass that there had been a reduction in the money paid for instruction in riding.
  MR. MACARTNEY: There was a smaller number of officers in attendance.
  5. £66,900, Scientific Services.
  *ADMIRAL FIELD: regretted that the Committee had to vote over £14,000 for the Hydrographer without having his Report before them. Had the Navy received any application from the Astronomer Royal or any other astronomers for the loan of a ship to enable them to observe the coming eclipse of the sun on May 28, wherever totality was visible? He understood that an application had been made, but that the astronomers had been "choked off." He expressed his very great regret that the application had not been granted. The hon. Member also asked whether the Admiralty had been approached about assisting an Antarctic expedition. He hoped they would do anything that lay in their power in that direction.
  *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: asked why there had been a reduction in the Vote for surveys on the coast of England, as they required considerable correction and revision.
  MR. BUCHANAN: asked whether the Admiralty intended to give any assistance to the committee of the Royal Society who were now endeavouring to organise a further expedition to the Antarctic Sea. A former Member of the House (Sir George Newnes) had organised an expedition of his own, and they had landed on one of the islands in the Antarctic Sea. The hon. Member also asked whether anything was being done with respect to the hydrographical surveys of the fresh water lakes of Great Britain and Ireland, partially undertaken some years ago. It had been agreed by the Royal Society in England, the Royal Society in Scotland, and the corresponding body in Ireland from time to time that the Admiralty should proceed with the hydrographical surveys and have them completed.
  MR. GOSGHENsaid the point raised by his hon. friend had not before been under his attention. The work to be done elsewhere by the Hydrographical Department was so great and so pressing that until they had made greater progress with the survey of Australian waters and of other places really important to commerce they could not undertake an inland survey. With reference to the Antarctic expedition, the Admiralty did not see their way to undertake an expedition themselves, because it would take away a ship and a number of officers for a considerable time. They had not a plethora of officers, and they could not spare a number of able officers, because some of the best would have to go on an expedition of that kind. They had, however, offered to give any information that had been gathered in other expeditions, and to help in the selection of instruments. He did not remember that any suggestion had been brought before the Admiralty relative to the eclipse, but he would make inquiries.
  6. £271,100, Royal Naval Reserves.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: observed that recently the First Lord of the Admiralty had undertaken to introduce certain reforms, and personally, in the circumstances, he did not very much care to enter upon a discussion of the Vote. It seemed only reasonable that time should
  450
  be allowed for what the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to do.
  7. £3,004,700, Naval Armaments.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid a doubt had been expressed as to whether we had a sufficient reserve of big guns for the Navy. The Government could not, he thought, be pressed to give full information to the House in regard to the question of reserve guns, and he should like also to add that he did not believe that in regard to this matter we were in an unfavourable position as compared with other Powers. He was not complaining that we were worse off than other Powers, but he wished to suggest that it might be of great advantage to ourselves in the event of war if we kept a larger reserve of big guns than any of the Powers keep at present. There was likely to be more and more target practice, and the repair of guns worn in target practice and also in war was a comparatively slow matter. He once more asked the Admiralty Board to bear in mind the essential necessity of having a very large stock of guns. There had been a very full debate in the French Chamber on the question of guns, and a gentleman, an ironmaster, who was an authority on the subject, had in that debate drawn a close comparison between the equipment of the British and French fleets as regards guns. The right hon. Gentleman attached the greatest importance to the statements made by that ironmaster, and these statements were somewhat alarming to ourselves in regard to the French and their guns. We had learned in the past that the French were remarkable for their large guns. It was one of the points on which we had been obliged to admit that they were superior to ourselves. Although in past years our own progress in gun making had been very great, still the statements made in the debate in the French Chamber in regard to ourselves were of a kind which certainly caused some anxiety. It was stated distinctly that they had examined into the armaments for the "Resolute," the "Hannibal," the "Jupiter," and the "Mars," and the French authorities prided themselves that our guns had failed at their full charges, and therefore all the reports

  451
  we had as to the usefulness of these new guns were of a most alarming nature. Of course they could not in that House solve such questions as these. They were highly technical, and all they could do was to ask the Admiralty whether they felt as confident in the performances of the guns as they had told the House on former occasions.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid that his own impression as to these statements was that they were not correct. The question of superiority in guns depended on whether more importance was attached to the initial velocity or to the velocity at the end of the trajectory. There was no doubt that the French were very ingenious in all questions of guns. As regarded the reserve of guns, there had always been a regular standard, and that standard was being fully maintained. The attention of the Admiralty had been called to the experience gained by the Naval Brigade in South Africa as to the wear of guns, and he was engaged in going through the standard of reserves in order to see whether, by the light of that experience, it was up to the mark, or whether a higher standard ought to be introduced. So far as the existing standards were concerned, and they were considered ample, they were not one gun behind.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEsaid the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was very satisfactory indeed in regard to the reserves. In the recent debate in the French Chamber the figures brought out the superiority of the French guns over ours. They demonstrated it at every period of the shot.
  MR. GOSCHEN: thought that was doubtful. The figures with regard to the French guns to which the right hon. Baronet had referred were, he believed, put forward rather for Parliamentary purposes than to square with the facts.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: pointed out that the naval guns used in South Africa were taken from ships. He would like to know whether there was a reserve of guns in that station to replace them.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid there was a reserve of guns at all stations, and when ships with a particular kind of gun left a
  452
  station a change was made in the reserve. He was now considering whether there should not be a central reserve as well as the station reserves.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid they were told that a new 7½in. gun was to be ordered on trial. If the trial was satisfactory they would have to get money for fifty guns of that kind. In regard to an explosion of gun-cotton some time ago, the Ordnance Committee must have reported their opinion long ago as to the cause of that explosion. It was a matter affecting the whole of our magazines and every ship in the service, and it should not be lightly passed over. The Committee had had this matter before them long enough, and it was time they had the Committee's report. Was anything to be gained by secrecy in the matter? It was a matter known to the whole world, and surely the public should be reassured upon it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: replied that the Ordnance Committee were making an examination into the matter. It would be unwise to form impressions before they had the whole information before them from the scientific body who were inquiring into this.
  8. £271,200, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  Motion made, and Question proposed," That a sum, not exceeding £267,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid this was the only Vote on which the administration of the Department could be discussed, and he did not think that could conveniently be done that night. He suggested that the discussion should be postponed. Considering the importance of the works, and that many of them were new, and that many developments must have taken place within the past twelve months, the Admiralty would lose nothing if they allowed the Vote to be withdrawn and to be discussed after Whitsuntide.
  MR. GOSCHEN: accepted the suggestion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  9. £786,700, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: asked whether any efforts had been made to check applications for the commutation of retired pay. Many officers had been ruined by putting their money into speculative ventures, and some of them had ended their days in the workhouse. He wanted the First Lord of the Admiralty to discourage the practice as much as possible.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid that this had been done.
  10. £1,123,600, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.
  *MR. KEARLEY: The point I wish to raise is whether certain naval pensioners, under contract as we allege, are entitled to certain augmentations on reaching the age of fifty-five years. I propose briefly to trace the origin of the arrangements which led up to this understanding being arrived at. In 1865 it was found advisable to close Greenwich Hospital for in-pensioners. A contract or arrangement was come to with those who were inhabiting Greenwich Hospital at that time that in lieu of enjoying the benefits of Greenwich as in-pensioners they should receive, on attaining the age of fifty-five an augmentation of 5d. per day of their pension, and that at sixty-five there should be another augmentation of 4d. That was confirmed by a circular issued by the Admiralty in 1868. There was no question of limitation of numbers until 1878, when a circular was issued limiting the number to 7,500. In justification of this course it was urged that the funds were only sufficient to provide augmentation pensions for that number. These pensioners were entitled to go into Greenwich Hospital and live there as in-pensioners, and the basis of the arrangement was that they should become out-pensioners and receive these augmentations. There is ample reason for the funds being insufficient, but the cause was not any action on
  454
  the part of the pensioners, but on the part of the Government in deliberately misapplying the funds and taking away from the hospital funds to which it was justly entitled. As to the breach of contract, on the last occasion upon which this matter was brought forward,*we alleged that the men had been confirmed in their belief that they were entitled to these pensions, to which the reply of the Civil Lord was a denial, and we were asked why we did not produce a recruiting bill on which it was stated that these augmentation pensions would be paid without limitation of numbers. That was rather a poser. But some notice was taken of the debate, and the hon. Member for Portsmouth a few weeks after received a communication from an old recruiting officer living in retirement at Bristol, stating that this officer had himself recruited a, large number for the marines, to whom he had promised, on the authority of the Government, that they should have this augmentation at fifty-five years of age. He also found the bill, a copy of which I have here, in which it is deliberately stated that after completing his time and attaining the ago of fifty-five years the recruit should receive in addition to his pension five pence per day. This bill has been brought to the attention of the Admiralty. It is perfectly possible for them to repudiate all responsibility, but that will not dispose of the question. This recruiting bill may not be a legal contract, but it certainly forms a moral contract, and there is no getting away from the fact that throughout the Navy there is a strenuous belief that every man who joined the Navy prior to 1878 is entitled to this augmentation. There was a Committee appointed in 1886 to inquire into the practicability of a scheme that had been suggested by the sailors themselves to provide for their widows a pension. Incidentally this question of Greenwich Hospital cropped up, and some of the Members expressed in very definite terms their opinion as to this belief of the men to which I have referred. One gentleman observes—
  "Although you cannot look upon these recruiting placards as legal contracts enforcible in a court of law, they are moral contracts."
  I leave the matter at that. A far greater
  *See discussion on this Vote on the 24th June, 1898 (The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lx., commencing at p. 99.)

  455
  claim for consideration arises in the fact that the funds of Greenwich Hospital have been diverted and misapplied. Those funds are really the property of seamen. By several Acts of Parliament a compulsory levy was made upon all seamen of Her Majesty's Fleet of 6d. per month in support of Greenwich Hospital. That levy commenced as far back as the reign of William III., when it applied to England only. The Act was extended in the reign of Anne and made to apply to Great Britain and Ireland. It was still further extended in the reign of George II. and made to apply not only to Great Britain and Ireland, but also to the Channel Islands and the American Colonies. Every sailor, therefore, in the service of the Crown at that time, whether he liked it or not, had to contribute 6d. per month towards the funds of Greenwich Hospital. In 1834 those various Acts were repealed, and in lieu of that compulsory contribution it was enacted that there should be an annual payment of £20,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund. That was the bargain. It was also clearly laid down in the Act of Parliament that that £20,000 was to be as it were a debenture to be paid in perpetuity. I take it to mean that it was to be permanent payment to Greenwich Hospital. It is mentioned here in the Act of 1834, in words and terms—
  "It is highly becoming to the honour and character of the British nation that these seamen at Greenwich should be supported according to the original design."
  From 1834 to 1869 this contribution was regularly paid, but in the latter year the Chancellor of the Exchequer without any legal right clipped this £20,000 down to £4,000, ceasing to pay Greenwich £16,000 per annum. This continued until 1893. Therefore I maintain that the Greenwich funds were plundered out of the amount of £400,000. In 1878 a Seamen Pensioners' Reserve was formed, and as an inducement for the men to join they were promised an augmentation at fifty instead of fifty-five. The Seamen Pensioners' Reserve Fund was established for the benefit of the Navy, and it was maintained at the time that the earlier payment of the augmentation should be a charge upon Naval funds. That did not happen. It was made a charge upon Greenwich, and continued so from 1878 to 1892, with the result that there was diverted from the Greenwich fund a sum of £50,000, which
  456
  ought really to have been charged on the Naval Votes from year to year. Even that is not all. The buildings at Greenwich, or a large portion of them, since 1865 have been utilised as a naval college. During the whole of that period they had been assessed at no less a sum than £8,500 a year, but from 1865 to 1893 the Admiralty paid to Greenwich the insignificant rent of £100 per year. The matter was protested against again and again, but it was not until 1893 that the Greenwich fund succeeded in getting a just rent for the buildings which were practically taken away from them, the rent in that year being raised to £6,000. This £100 instead of £6,000 was paid for 28 years, so that £165,200 has to be added to the other figures I have given the Committee. It is not a question to-night of asking that these financial matters should be put right. They have already been put right. But no restitution has been made. What I argue is that although the hon. Gentleman in his reply may say that there was no contract with these men, and that the Admiralty do pay as liberally as the funds at their disposal permit, that will not cover my point that over £600,000 has been unjustly taken away from Greenwich. When it is a question of paying these pensions to 2,000 men, and the Government have deprived Greenwich of over £600,000, I think we are justified in asking that restitution should be made to these men. These men are not supplicants for the charity of the Government; this restitution is their right; they ask it in return for services rendered. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to undertake that the remainder of these splendid men, who have served their country well, shall not be longer deprived of this augmentation money.
  *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I do not wish to dispute the statements of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I must say that the handbill which he produces does not in my opinion count for much. If he had seen the handbills that I have seen he would know that in the old days promises were made which never could be fulfilled; in fact, the handbills for the manning of the ships could only be compared with the handbills which used to be issued by candidates for Parliamentary honours. There is one point in this Vote to which

  457
  I wish to call attention, and that is the pensions to petty officers, seamen, and marines. There is a widespread feeling in the navy that chief petty officers do not get their full due. They count for pensions only at the same rate as first-class petty officers, while the chief petty officer has very much greater responsibility, and I think they are worthy of better consideration.
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. and gallant friend who has just spoken will permit me, I will not at present reply to the point he has raised, but will address myself to the matter referred to by the hon. Member opposite, which I think merits an answer to itself. The hon. Member did not tell the Committee exactly on whose behalf he made this claim for an increased age pension as a matter of right on reaching the ages referred to. I understood his argument to be that every seaman and marine was so entitled on account of the recruiting bills which had been issued.
  MR. KEARLEY: I cannot charge my memory at the moment as to whether marines are equally entitled. I will satisfy myself by giving that explanation. I really cannot say at the moment. It is good enough for me to claim it on behalf of the seamen pensioners.
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I want to know, whether it is claimed on behalf of the seamen pensioners as well as on behalf of marine pensioners on account of the recruiting bills. That is one basis of the claim, and the other basis is on account of certain sums not having been paid to Greenwich Hospital to which the hon. Gentleman thinks that charity was entitled. As regards these sums there is no cause of complaint at the present time. The complaint was that the rent paid for the buildings occupied by the Royal Naval College was merely nominal, and did not represent the full value. At present and for some little time past the rent has represented the full value. I am sometimes inclined to wonder whether the Admiralty, if they had foreseen when the college was first established that they would have had to pay so large a rent for the buildings, would not have acted more wisely and prudently in securing buildings elsewhere. As regards the
  458
  other sum which the hon. Member alleges was diverted, I think the Committee will see there is a good deal to be said for the deduction if the Report of the Select Committee on this particular question is read. The Committee reported in 1892 that naval pensioners when inmates were not permitted to draw their naval life pensions; the pensions were suspended. There was thus a considerable saving to the Exchequer. On the closing of the hospital the men previously maintained there resumed their naval pensions, a corresponding charge being thereby laid upon the Exchequer. In order to make good to the Exchequer this additional charge it was decided to abate to an equivalent extent the grant of £20,000 to the hospital. The Committee went on to say that for this course there may have been sufficient excuse at the time when the funds of the hospital were equal to the claims upon them, but now that the funds, owing to the increasing demands, are insufficient, the Committee recommended that the grant should be restored. That grant was restored and has been paid to the hospital since then.
  MR. KEARLEY: But not the arrears.
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When Parliament year after year has approved of certain payments being stopped or other payments being made, I do not think that many years afterwards we should be called upon to revise those decisions simply because certain Members to-day are not satisfied with the decisions of the House of Commons of thirty or forty years ago. If the hon. Member desires me to be perfectly frank, I do not think the payment of these age pensions indiscriminately to every man who reaches the age of fifty-five or sixty five, whether he be in need or not, and no matter what the extent of the pension to which he is entitled, is the best use to which the funds of this great charity can be put. But I do admit, in view of the past history of this question, that it is undesirable to lessen the amount we are now paying; indeed, I would be glad if larger funds were available. I do not however, consider the case is so strong as to require that we should provide fresh funds when the funds of the charity are sufficient. Then comes the question of the recruiting Bill. It was contended two years ago that the seamen and

  459
  marines of the Fleet had been given to understand that the age pension would be paid as a light to every man who reached the age of 55, with an augmentation at 65, and that, as a matter of fact, no limitation of numbers had been made by the Admiralty as trustees for Greenwich Hospital up to the date of the Fleet circular issued in 1878, which did distinctly limit the pensions to the number of 7,500. That is not so. What are these pensions? They are the compensation given to the seamen and marines of the Fleet for the closing of Greenwich Hospital. What was Greenwich Hospital? The hon. Member said we were bound to satisfy all these men who, he alleged, were formerly entitled to go into Greenwich Hospital and live there. The Charter of 1694, which established Greenwich Hospital, expressly declared that it was "for the relief and support of seamen serving on board ships or vessels belonging to the Royal Navy, who by reason of age, wounds, or other disabilities, should be incapable of further service at sea and be unable to maintain themselves." I call the attention of the Committee to that. It was a charity intended for those who by reason of these various causes were unable to maintain themselves. To contend that because men who were unable to maintain themselves were received into Greenwich Hospital, therefore, on the closing of Greenwich Hospital, all men, whether able to maintain themselves or not, became entitled to an augmented pension, is a contention which cannot be supported by any logical argument. It is admitted that as regards any seaman or marine who entered service after 1878 the case is clear, because in that year the pensions were limited to 7,500. But when they were first established they were limited. The Committee which recommended the closing of Greenwich Hospital stated in their Report that—
  "it will be equally necessary to limit the number of extra pensions to be granted. Allowing a fair margin, we think that provision should be made for 5,000 extra pensions, and we are of opinion that that number should be the maximum granted."
  That was published as a Parliamentary Paper in 1865, and as a matter of fact from 1865 to 1869 the Board did actually limit the number of pensions to 5,000, and the number was only extended by a minute of the Board which was never
  460
  published. Therefore the only published information was that the number should be limited to 5,000. The hon. Member has produced a bill on which he bases his claim that all men who entered the service prior to 1878 are entitled to this pension. What is the bill? It is a bill issued by a marine recruiting officer at Bristol—his own composition, I presume, not submitted to the Admiralty, and, I regret to say, incorrect in many of its details. I do not know whether the hon. Member would say that in addition to being morally bound by the statement in this bill that these pensions would be given, we are equally bound by other statements in the bill, equally incorrect, equally unauthorised, and equally in contradiction of everything the Admiralty ever themselves published. What is this bill? This bill excludes the seamen, and deals only with marines. It is a very significant fact that whilst these age pensions were offered by the Admiralty on exactly similar terms to both seamen and marines, the Bristol bill contains no such promise, the promise being confined to the particular bill of the marines.
  MR. KEARLEY: From where did you obtain your bill?
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: From the door of the Bristol recruiting office. When the hon. Member for Portsmouth was good enough to inform me he had received this bill, it was my first duty to endeavour to ascertain exactly how the bill came to be published, who published it, and so on. The person who issued the bill is an officer since dead, so that I am absolutely unable to explain how he came to make these inaccurate statements. We found that one marine officer thought he could recollect some such bill being used. But in any case it is admitted that no one who came into the service after 1878 has any title to an age pension, because in 1878 a Fleet circular was issued distinctly stating that the pensions would be limited to 7,500. What is the date of this bill? I do not know exactly how long it was in use, but it certainly was not in use until 1879.
  MR. KEARLEY: How do you fix the date?
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I obtained the date from the hon. Member for Portsmouth.
  MR. KEARLEY: It is not dated.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Portsmouth told me that his informant stated it was used between the years 1879 and 1883.
  MR KEARLEY: That does not quite accord with my information.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot decide when doctors differ. But, in any case, the, bill was only printed in the autumn of 1877, so that if it was put into use the moment it was printed it could only have been in use for a few weeks.
  MR. KEARLEY: How do you know it was printed in 1877?
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Because I inquired of the printers.
  MR. KEARLEY:Was it printed by the Admiralty?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No. It was printed at the order of the marine recruiting officer at Bristol, without any instructions from the Admiralty and without the Admiralty having seen it. It was a regrettable practice in those days that the recruiting officers were allowed to publish their own literature without submitting it to the Admiralty. The name of the printers is at the bottom of the bill, and they were good enough to let us search their books, and we found that the order was given in, I think, October, 1877. So that, to put it as high as possible, the bill can only apply to the marines in the Bristol district who entered between October or November, 1877, and the issue of the Fleet circular in 1878. On that ground how many marines do the Committee suppose are entitled to claim this pension at present? Not a single marine who entered at that time has yet reached the age of fifty-five; not one therefore would, under any circumstances whatever, be eligible for the age pension. I therefore think the Committee will see that this misconception is not and cannot be taken as a ground for an argument that successive Boards of Admiralty have been guilty of breach of faith with the men who have served the country, but that we in distributing an even larger sum than we promised have fully discharged our obligations.
  MR. MENDL: A more extraordinary story than that just told with regard to this bill has seldom been heard. Two years ago, when this question was raised, the Admiralty denied that there was a contract, and challenged us to produce a bill issued by them or by their servants which would have encouraged the belief in the minds of anyone eligible for these pensions that they had a right to them. Thereupon the hon. Member for Portsmouth found this bill, of which the Civil Lord has made so light to-night on the ground that it was issued by a recruiting officer for whom the Admiralty were not responsible. We are told that the Admiralty allowed this recruiting officer to have his own bills printed, and I think that does leave a very strong moral obligation on the Admiralty to stand by the statements in that bill. It may be quite true that the bill does not give the seamen this right by contract. All that has been contended is that this bill is evidence that the Admiralty or their officers had held out to the men who joined the Navy the anticipation of their being entitled to this augmentation of pension at the age of fifty-five. We must not lose sight of the very small number of men to whom this applies. There are only about two thousand who are now deprived of the pension to which they think they have a right. There is a very strong ground for asking the Government to look into this matter from the broad standpoint of whether it would not be in the interests of the country and of the Navy that the question should be put right, as it could be by the expenditure of a very small sum of money.
  11. £343,500, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £60,300, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expense necessary to be provided for under the arrangement made between the Imperial and Australasian Governments for the protection of floating trade in Australasian waters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I would like to ask for some statement as to the position of the Navy with regard to the

  463
  Australian colonies. It does not appear to be quite clear from this Vote how much the Australian colonies pay for the protection of floating trade in Australasian waters. I hold the opinion that the sum paid by the various colonies is altogether inadequate to meet the justice of the case. The total Naval Estimates for this year will not be far short of £30,000,000. Are we to be told that the Australasian Governments, representing a population much greater than that of Ireland, will only pay £126,000 towards that tremendous sum? I should like to compare that miserable amount with the enormous contribution the Irish people will have to pay. But notwithstanding the great difference between the amounts, when I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty a few days ago if he would send a gunboat or a torpedo boat to protect the fishermen of Wexford against foreign steam trawlers I was told it could not be done. I think the time has arrived when there ought to be some readjustment of these colonial contributions towards the maintenance of the Imperial Army and Navy.
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee also report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

COAL MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL.
*Sir CHARLES DILKE: asked what course the Government proposed to take with regard to this measure. The hon. Members from whom some objection had been expected had intimated their intention of not opposing the Second Reading, and therefore it rested with the Government to say what course should be taken.
The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Jesse Collings, Birmingham, Bordesley): was understood to say that he would make inquiries in regard to the matter.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion for the adjournment of the House,
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In moving the adjournment of the House perhaps I
464
ought to make a very brief statement about business. The Navy Estimates have practically gone through to-night, and, as the House knows, to-morrow is allocated in the ordinary course to Supply. In order to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentlemen I have promised not to take Civil Service Estimates without giving a week's notice. Owing to the indisposition of my hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War I am unable to take Army Estimates, and therefore it is absolutely impossible that Estimates should occupy our time to-morrow. There are some small Estimates we might deal with, such as have been left over from to-night, and the Ordnance Vote, but if I put those down first it would make to-morrow count as a day of Supply, which it certainly ought not to do, as those Estimates could not occupy the whole of the evening. I therefore propose to take Government Bills, and the Bills I shall put down will be in the following order: First, the next stage of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Bill; second, Census (Great Britain) Bill; third, Factories and Workshops Bill, Second Reading; and fourth, Lunacy Board (Scotland) (Salaries, etc.) Bill. After that I shall put down the Ordnance Vote and the remaining Votes of the Navy Estimates.
MR. BUCHANAN: pointed out that the Factories and Workshops Bill was only issued that morning, and he had quite incidentally discovered that it affected the whole fishing industry of Scotland. Surely it was only reasonable that the community at large should have some opportunity of mastering the contents of the Bill before the Second Reading.
MR. GALLOWAY, Sir WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston), and Sir F. S. POWELL (Wigan) also asked that longer notice should be given.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: replied that while he entirely appreciated the remarks of hon. Members, it had to be borne in mind that at the Second Reading stage only the broad principles of the Bill would be dealt with. He would put the Bill down for Friday, and he hoped hon. Members would endeavour to come prepared to discuss those broad principles.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock

EARL OF DESART.
Ordered and Directed, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Desart to Vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland; and it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
THE LORD SANDHURST—Took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Cork Electric Tramways [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 23rd of February and on Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
  BREWERY AND COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST, LIMITED, BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order).

  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order), and dispensed with,
  334
  with respect to a petition of Tipton Urban District Council: Leave given to present the said petition.

  DUBLIN ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
    BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
    The Order of Tuesday last referring the Examiner's certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged.
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.]
    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    The Order made on Tuesday last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bills, discharged.
  LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection that the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Aston Manor Tramways Bill [H.L.] and other Bills, do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the London Hydraulic Power Company Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to; all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
  ASTON MANOR TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    HIGHAM FERRERS WATER BILL [H.L.]

      IPSWICH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
      LINCOLN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.].
      MENSTONE WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.].
      NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE) GAS BILL [H.L.].
      LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER COMPANY BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Manners of Haddon be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Dartrey; read, and agreed to.

  CHURCH'S PATENT BILL [H.L.]
    EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]

      FALKIRK AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
      FALKIRK CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      MOTHERWELL WATER BILL [H.L.].
      EAST SHROPSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
      HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [H.L.].
      GREAT BERKHAMPSTEAD WATER BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Dartrey be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Manners of Haddon; read and agreed to.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [H.L.] (No. 21.)
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [H.L.] (No. 22.)
    Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [H.L.]
    EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

      ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
      LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.].
      SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.]
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely—

      V. Falkland,

      L. Colchester,

      L. Blythswood,

      L. Muncaster,

      L. Avebury (chairman);

      agreed to; and the said Lords appointed
      336
      accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 20th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CANADA—WEST INDIES.
  Agreement between the Canadian Government and Messrs. Pickford and Black to establish a steamship service between Canada and the West Indies.

  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
  Forty-ninth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners, for the year preceding 1st March, 1900.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION(CAPITAL AND INCOME ACCOUNTS, 1898–99).
  Accounts of the receipt and expenditure of the capital and of the income derived from the lands and other property held for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital and the foundation of Samuel Travers, Esquire, for the year ended 31st March, 1899; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 22nd February, 1900, declaring that Mr. Roger Faning Sleigh, sub-postmaster, Morley, Leeds, under the General Post Office Department, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (SECTION 21).
  Ordinance No. 1 of the University Court of the University of Edinburgh providing for the separation of the teaching of medical jurisprudence of forensic medicine and public health in the University of Edinburgh; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 20.)
  SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM.
  Statement of the funds, 5th January, 1900; Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITION.
  CENSUS.
  Petition that a statement may be made in the next census of the religious denominations to which those enumerated belong; of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; read, and ordered to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC AND ORANGE FREE STATE—STATE AND PRIVATE RAILWAYS.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I beg to move for a Return with reference to each of the railways in the Orange Free State and in the South African Republic respectively, showing whether such railways belong to the State or to private companies; and also giving the cost or capital value of the same. The object and purpose of this motion will, I think, be sufficently transparent and clear to your Lordships. In a certain set of circumstances which, I hope, may not be very far distant, it will be necessary to consider very carefully and closely the value of the railways in the two republics, and it seems to me essential that we should possess, so far as it is possible, the requisite knowledge in order to enable an intelligent opinion to be formed. It is not possible for an individual to secure this information with accuracy, but so far as I have been able to do so, I have looked into certain figures and facts which I have been able to obtain with regard to these railways, and if your Lordships will pardon me for a minute or two I will make a short statement with regard to them. I will take first the Orange Free State. The railway communication of the Orange Free State consists chiefly of the railway which runs throughout that State, and
  338
  which originally was made by the Cape Colony. It was also originally worked by the Cape Colony, but there was a clause in the agreement by which the Orange Free State was enabled, if at any time it should see fit, to purchase the same. Some few years ago, for reasons which I dare say we can now imagine, the Orange Free State saw fit to exercise this right of purchase, and they acquired the railway from the Cape Colony for £2,450,000, of which loan they have repaid £650,000. At the present time they owe to the Cape Colony £1,800,000. I wish to point out in passing that on this showing alone there is a clear sum of £650,000 by which the capital cost of this railway has been diminished, and which could be otherwise used in any future arrangement. I think that is all I need say with regard to the Orange Free State, although it is true that there is another short line which starts from the border of Natal, coming from Ladysmith, and which goes down to Harrismith and to Bethlehem. That railway was made by the colony of Natal, and at the present time, I believe, is worked, or was worked until October last, by them. When we come to the Transvaal Republic the question is a very much larger one. The railway system of that Republic, speaking broadly, belongs to one large and powerful company which has its headquarters in Holland, and which has in many very important respects mixed itself up in the business and the affairs of the State. Originally the concession in respect to the Netherlands Railway was given in the year 1884 to certain Hollander and German capitalists. In 1887 that concession was floated by them, and the company appeared in the following form. There were 2,000 shares of 100 guilders each. The nominal capital of the company at that time was £160,000 in round figures, and I would ask your Lordships' attention to the shares and the way in which they were divided. To the German shareholders 819 shares were allotted, carrying with them thirty votes; to the Republic itself 600 shares were allotted, carrying with them six votes; but to the Hollander portion of the shareholders 581 shares were allotted, carrying seventy-six votes. Therefore the Hollander shareholders, with less than one-third of the shares and less than one-third of the capital, had double as much voting power as the Transvaal Republic and the

  339
  German capitalists put together. Your Lordships will not be surprised, when I say that this arrangement was made at the time when Dr. Leyds was the attorney of the Transvaal Government. The system of railway extends now to 717 miles, and the capital, as it now stands, is £1,667,000, besides which obligations have been issued amounting to £7,000,000, so that the whole capital is £8,667,000. At the present moment—and this is a very important point—there are 14,000 shares issued, of which 5,758 shares belong to the Transvaal Republic and 8,242 to other persons. With regard to the pecuniary transactions and the financial position of the company itself, it appears from the accounts of 1898, which are very difficult indeed to understand, and are, I think, not intended to be understood, that there are no less than three different forms of giving dividends, but, as far as I can make out, the shareholders—of whom, of course, the Republic represents nearly three-sevenths—received about 14 per cent. upon their money, besides which there was a surplus which amounted to £608,000, of which 85 per cent., by the concession, went to the State, and 15 per cent. to the shareholders. Under that clause, in the year 1898, the sum of no less than £575,000 was paid to the South African Republic. It will be seen, therefore, what a valuable asset this ought to be. Not merely have you the value of the shares, but if things continue in the same way as up to the end of the year 1898 the State, or those who represent the State, will have at their control the sum of nearly £600,000. Your Lordships can calculate for yourselves on how much capital that sum alone would pay interest. The head office of this company is in Holland, but fortunately the line itself is in the Transvaal, and hereafter it is quite possible, and I hope it is quite certain, that very careful investigation will be made into the transactions of this company and into the manner in which they conduct their business. There is one other line in the South African Republic about which I should like to say a word. It is the Pretoria to Pietersburg line. I find that that line was registered in 1896 under British law. Fifty thousand £10 shares were issued, of which 30,000 belong to the Government and 20,000 to other persons. But, besides that, there
  340
  have been two issues of debentures, one of £250,000 4 per cent. debentures issued by Messrs. Morton, Rose and Co., and another of £700,000 which has been guaranteed by the Government. The history of this line is rather pathetic. It was finished in 1899, and in October of the same year, on the outbreak of the war, was seized by the Republican Government. At the present time the contractor's and others have, I understand, raised law suits. There are further lines in the Transvaal, on which it is hardly necessary to say anything. In respect to one, a Mr. Barend Vorster, a member of the First Raad, by presents and by corruption of every sort and kind openly administered to the members of the First Raad, and subsequently justified by President Kruger, obtained a concession. I do not know what the capital of the company is, but although the line itself is reported to be only 200 miles long, debentures for £500,000 were issued. That was also an arrangement which was made under the administration of Dr. Leyds in the year 1890. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the contractor took the contract at £9,600 per mile, and two days later sublet it at £7,000 per mile, thus putting over £500,000 in his own pocket. There are some other smaller lines in the Republic. There is a line from Pretoria to Koomati Poort, and a line from Koomati Poort to Leydsdorp, with regard to the financial position of which I can obtain no information. I hope I have said enough to show that it is very desirable that we should have the information I ask for as early as possible. I submit to your Lordships that my inquiry for information is not a premature one. It has been said more than once lately that persons who have made similar motions have been endeavouring to divide the skin of the bear before he is dead. I do not propose to divide the skin of the bear, but I want to know whether he has a skin, and, if he has, what the value of that skin is. The mistake we have always made hitherto with regard to South Africa is that we have never done anything, or begun to do anything, until it was too late. The liabilities already entailed by this war amount, I think, to something like £60,000,000. This is to be paid, in the first instance, by the taxpayers of this country. It is quite clear that Parlia-

  341
  ment ought, and the taxpayers will expect them, to conduct the most minute investigation into the property of the two Republics, so as to ascertain what their powers are of paying for the war which they have forced upon us against our will and in so insolent a manner. I daresay there maybe other inquiries of the same sort which will have to be instituted. There should be a proper inquiry into the present position of the National Bank of South Africa, another of the financial concerns which have been largely, if not chiefly, started and held in Holland. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it is desirable that this information should be laid upon the Table. I move accordingly.
  Moved, "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty for a Return with reference to each of the railways in the Orange Free State and in the South African Republic respectively, showing whether such railways belong to the State or to private companies; and also giving the cost or capital value of the same."—(The Earl of Camper down.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE):My Lords, there is no objection to granting the Return which the noble Lord has moved for, though I cannot hold out any hope of being able to furnish it within any very brief interval of time, because much of the information that will be required to render the Return complete has yet to besought for. If the noble Lord will communicate to me the exact form in which he would like the Return to be made out, the Department which I represent will do its best to meet his wishes. The noble Lord has given a slight sketch of the history of the main lines in the Orange Free State and the South African Republic, and although the figures at my disposal do not in every respect entirely tally with those quoted by the noble Lord, yet I think the general sketch he has given to the House is an accurate one. The chief authorities at present available on this question—and there is a great deal of information to be found in them—are, in the first place, the Report of the Industrial Commission of the South African Republic; secondly, the Report on the Finances of that Republic for the year 1898; and last, but by no means least, the Experts'
  342
  Report of the Delagoa Bay Tribunal, which contains a mass of information on South African Railways. The noble Lord will not expect me now to express any opinion on the part of Her Majesty's Government on those points of future policy on which he has touched. But I can assure him that the Government are fully alive to the importance in South African politics of the system of South African railways. It is a commonplace—the influence of railways in this century on the development—social, industrial, and political—of various countries. But I do not know any region in the world in which the railway system is likely to play a more important part in these respects than South Africa.
  On Question, agreed to.

  U.K. AMBASSADOR AT WASHINGTON—RETENTION OF LORD PAUNCEFOTE BEYOND HIS PERIOD OF OFFICE.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the valuable services rendered by Lord Pauncefote as Ambassador at Washington, the advisability of further prolonging his tenure of office will be considered. In putting this question, perhaps it would be as well if I explained that there is an excellent rule in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, instituted, if I am not mistaken, by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister himself, that all persons holding office should retire on attaining the age of seventy. That rule has been rigidly observed, and the only exception I can recall is the case of the late Lord Lyons. Lord Pauncefote has attained the age of seventy, and his tenure of office has already, I believe, been extended for one year. It is the general feeling that under the exceptional circumstances which prevail a further relaxation of the official regulations might in this case be made with advantage. It is quite unnecessary, and it would, indeed, be presumptuous on my part to do so, to dwell on the excessive, I may almost say overwhelming, importance of our relations with the Government of the United States at the present moment, but there is no harm in saying that the task of maintaining those relations upon their present happy footing is not likely to prove less difficult in the immediate future. In addition to questions of great delicacy and great intricacy

  343
  which are now pending, we have looming in the near future a Presidential election, and as your Lordships are aware, a Presidential election in America is productive of political eccentricities which are unknown in older and less enterprising countries. I need scarcely remind your Lordships of the unfortunate occurrences which took place during the tenure of office of former Ambassadors. Under these circumstances it will probably have occurred to almost everybody that the present moment is hardly an opportune one for a change, more especially as this country happens to be represented by a highly distinguished public servant who not only enjoys the confidence of his own countrymen, but is in the happy position of being at once apparently a persona grata to the Government of the United States and also to the American people. I observe that the answer to the question which I have put on the Paper has already been supplied in anticipation by one of the newspapers. I have no means of ascertaining whether this semi-official announcement is well founded or not; but I am convinced of this, that if the noble Marquess is in a position to officially corroborate what has been unofficially stated it will give universal and unmixed satisfaction.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, my noble friend has rather done what the French call breaking in an open door, because this measure, which he properly recommends, was taken some days ago. I entirely agree, and every one must agree, in any eulogy passed on Lord Pauncefote, and I have shown that I concur with the noble Lord by the course I have taken in extending his tenure of office. The only observation I would make is that the noble Lord's question rather implied that this extension is a reward for valuable services. I think that the case stands the other way. It is to Lord Pauncefote we have to express our thanks that he has been kind enough to undertake the work for another period. He does so at considerable inconvenience, as he has sent his family to England, and without wishing to say anything indiscreet about the American climate, I believe the summer is not the most desirable period of the year. Therefore we have
  344
  every cause to express our gratitude to Lord Pauncefote that at a critical time when his remarkable experience and the singular aptitude he has shown in the fulfilment of the peculiar duties of his office render it desirable he should continue in it, he has consented to do so.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think we may in one sense be grateful to the noble Lord opposite for mentioning this matter, although we were aware that the period of service of Lord Pauncefote was to be prolonged. It has given us an opportunity of expressing our great satisfaction with what has been done, and that Lord Pauncefote, at his age and at a time of the year when the American climate is not very agreeable, is willing to place his valuable services at the disposal of the Government for a longer period.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—CLOTHING FOR THE TROOPS.
  THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what warm clothing is being sent out for the troops serving in South Africa during the approaching winter in that country. I venture to ask this question because I think there is at the present moment a feeling of uncertainty and even of anxiety abroad as to the question of the clothing for our troops at the seat of war. I notice in The Times of February 20th, in a private letter, a quotation from a telegram sent home by Major-General Barton, in which he asked for warm strong underclothing for his men, who were beginning to suffer greatly from the chill of the nights. It appears to me a serious matter when a general officer has to telegraph home in terms of that description for clothing which is really absolutely necessary if the men are to continue efficient and healthy at their work. Some time ago I had a letter from a colonel of one of our Line regiments who had had some money sent out to him with the request that he would provide his men with tobacco and other comforts. He replied that the Government had given the men thin linen drawers, which in a climate like that of South Africa, where men perspire, become damp and cold next the skin, and that he had spent £100 in procuring warm clothing. It must be remembered

  345
  that this letter and this telegram were sent at a date when they had practically summer weather, and that they are looking forward to a time when the weather will be much colder. Although at night the thermometer may not reach any low degree, the variation between the heat in the middle of the day and the temperature at night is very great. I know that to provide warm clothing will entail expense, but I am sure the noble Marquess will be one of the last to let the question of expense interfere with the reasonable supply of proper clothing for the regiments in South Africa. But behind the noble Marquess there always stands the Treasury. Even as a matter of economy warm clothing should be sent out. Every man is worth to the country at the lowest estimate £150, and if his health gives way not only are his services lost, but he becomes a burden, for he goes into hospital. Therefore, if you lose one man through the want of proper clothing you lose as much as would supply a regiment with the necessary articles that are required. A question on this subject was asked the other day in another place, and Mr. Powell-Williams is reported to have said in reply* that two flannel or worsted belts were issued to every man going to South Africa, and a reserve supply was being sent out. The Financial Secretary to the War Office also said that considerable reserves of warm clothing had already been sent out, and more would be sent as supplies came in. I do not think anyone would urge that flannel belts are sufficient, and I hope the noble Marquess will be able to remove the impression which certainly exists in many quarters, that if the men are to have the absorbent clothing necessary in that climate it will have to be provided by other means than at the expense of the Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE: My noble friend may rest assured that we are quite alive to the necessity of supplying the troops in South Africa with warm clothing of a kind suitable to enable them to stand the climate, which we all know is likely before long to become somewhat severely cold. I think the best way in which I can answer his question is
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., p. 1226.
  346
  by giving him an idea of what we are doing, or are about to do, in regard to the principal articles of the soldier's wardrobe. In the first place, there is his fighting suit. That, as the House knows, is made of what we commonly call khaki—a word which, of course, describes the colour and not the material. The khaki clothing which, until the present campaign, has been issued to the Army has been cotton khaki, commonly called khaki drill. Of that khaki drill two suits have usually been issued to each soldier, besides the ordinary clothing for campaigning purposes. We are substituting for one of these suits a suit of khaki woollen serge, which is obviously much more suitable to the climate. Of these khaki serge suits, 140,000 have been sent out, either with the men as they embarked, or so as to follow them. That number ought to provide one suit for every man who has already started for South Africa. In addition to that, we hope to send out weekly consignments of from 10,000 to 15,000 suits of khaki serge. I am a little uncertain as to the exact number, because in this matter we are, to a certain extent, in the hands of the contractors; there are very few of them who are able to produce material of the quality which we require. Then, as regards shirts, each man takes out with him two flannel shirts. Besides these we have sent out 96,000, and we hope to go on sending them out at the rate of about 25,000 per week. Each man has a woollen jersey as part of his kit. We have already sent out 42,000 more to meet additional requirements, and we hope to send out jerseys at the rate of 20,000 a week. Then, each man has two flannel belts to start with. We have sent out 40,000 more, and expect to be able to send out others at the rate of 50,000 a week during the next few weeks. We are also sending out weekly a consignment of 50,000 pairs of woollen socks, and 330,000 pairs have already gone out. We have sent out 26,000 great coats, and hope to send out from 3,000 to 8,000 a week to replace those which originally went out with the men, and, no doubt, are beginning to show signs of wear. Then we shall send 10,000 woollen caps weekly to replace the woollen caps which went out with the men. I may also mention that in this campaign we have for the first time made an issue to the unmounted troops of woollen drawers.

  347
  Hitherto, I believe, it has been customary to give cotton drawers only, and these only to the mounted men. Therefore we have made a new departure which, I am sure, will commend itself to my noble friend. Before the cold weather sets in in South Africa we shall issue two pairs of woollen drawers to the whole of the dismounted troops; 200,000 pairs have already gone, and it is hoped to send out 20,000 pairs a week. The only other matter which I need notice is that of blankets. Each man took out two blankets with him. We have sent out 166,000 more, and we are continuing to send them out at the rate of 30,000 a month. Of course I need not tell your Lordships that these articles of clothing are issued quite irrespectively of those which the great generosity of the public has in many cases supplied to the troops. I have only to say before I sit down that I heard with regret that part of my noble friend's speech in which he endeavoured to persuade us that as a mere matter of economy it was desirable that we should supply a soldier liberally with clothing of this kind. He said—"Your soldier is worth £150 to you; therefore do not let him impair his health." I can assure him that that is not the point of view upon which we have gone, and I must also be permitted to add that in matters of this kind I have on no single occasion found the Treasury at all averse to supplying me with the funds which were required.
  THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to thank the noble Marquess for his answer, and to express my satisfaction that these articles are being sent out. I had no intention of suggesting that the noble Marquess would look upon the supply of clothing to the troops from the point of view of economy, but what I said was that behind the noble Marquess there might be someone with whom the question of expense would weigh.

  BOER PRISONERS—PLACE OF CUSTODY.
  *LORD LOCH: I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give any assurance that the Boer prisoners, now amounting to several thousands, will not be interned in places in proximity to the Dutch districts of the Cape Colony, or in any considerable numbers in the Cape
  348
  peninsula. The question of which I have given notice is due to a considerable anxiety which I believe has been felt in this country as well as in South Africa with regard to the places where it is proposed to place the large number of Boer military prisoners who are now in Cape Town. The unrest which unfortunately exists in the Dutch districts in the southern portion of South Africa renders it a matter of very grave importance that these prisoners should not be interned in any near proximity to those provinces, or in those districts themselves. I am quite aware that there is great difficulty in finding proper and suitable places where they can be placed. There are, however, certain places on the east coast, as well as beyond the great naval station at Simons Bay, where there is a promontory on which some 3,000 to 4,000 men could be interned with the greatest ease and kept safely, without any chance of escape, by a very small force. I understand, however, that it has been suggested that some of the prisoners should be sent to St. Helena. I dare say there may be an advantage in sending some of them to that island, but I question very much whether the large number of prisoners, who now amount to between 6,000 and 7,000, could be located with any great advantage in that country. We must bear in mind that the majority of the Boers have never seen the sea, and they would regard being sent to St. Helena as a greater punishment inflicted on their prisoners than is meted out by the Transvaal Government to our prisoners at present in Pretoria. If, however, Her Majesty's Government have consulted Sir Alfred Milner on the question, and if he approves of the place where the prisoners are to be located, then I am quite satisfied that whatever decision may have been arrived at is the best both from political and military considerations. I have referred to the unrest which is at present unhappily on the increase in the Dutch districts in the southern part of the colony as well as in the northern portion, near Barkly West. I do not know whether your Lordships have observed that as success has followed our arms the agitation in these districts has increased. At least such is the information I have received by telegram and by letter. What is the cause of that increase of unrest? No doubt it arose from the fact that in the early part

  349
  of the war the tenacity of the Boers encouraged the Dutch population in the colony to believe that Her Majesty's Government would at last be forced to come to some understanding with the two Republics, based on a guarantee of their independence; but since the successes which have followed Lord Roberts's advance into the Free State, they must feel that all possibility of preventing the ultimate occupation, and I believe the occupation within a comparatively short period of Pretoria is at an end, and they must have observed that the general feeling in this country is such that we shall never allow a state of affairs to arise after the termination of the war such as existed prior to it. Their only course, therefore, is to agitate to the utmost to endeavour to make the Government believe that annexation would create trouble and rising in all parts of Cape Colony. Their agitation has also, I fancy, the object of encouraging that small minority in this country who believe that no interference should take place with the independence of the two Republics. But, my Lords, I am satisfied of one thing, and I am satisfied because I think I have a very fair knowledge of the Dutch character, that when Her Majesty's Government are able to declare positively what the future of the two Republics is to be—and I do not think any noble Lord can doubt what that decision will ultimately be—and if at the same time a statement is made based upon the same principles as those which were embodied in Lord Roberts's Proclamation to the Free Staters, all opposition will cease, as well as the agitation got up amongst the Dutch of the Cape Colony with the view of alarming, if possible, the Government as to what would result from that annexation. When they know for certain what the intentions of the Government are I believe that agitation will cease, and that in a very short time after the conquest of the two Republics is completed the burghers in both Republics will be found accepting the rule of Great Britain, and will prove to be as loyal as any citizens of Her Majesty's colonies, and as loyal as the French Canadians have proved themselves to be. I rejoiced to see the other day that the latter formed a company of the Canadian force which assisted Lord Roberts in his recent expedition. I trust it will not be long before Her Majesty's
  350
  Government will be able to make a clear statement as to what the future of the two Republics is to be. I now beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will acquit me of disrespect if I do not follow him through the very interesting statement he has just made to the House. My business is to answer his question. His question is whether I am able to give him an assurance that the Boer prisoners will not be interned in places in proximity to the Dutch districts of the Cape Colony, or in any considerable numbers in the Cape Peninsula. I am able to give him the assurance for which he asks.

  RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS AND THE MILITIA.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I wish to call the attention of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to the regulations by which retired officers in receipt of retired pay or gratuity which they have earned by previous service in the Army are deprived of the same on the embodiment of the Militia regiment in which they are serving, as well as the gratuity which is granted to the other Militia officers on the disembodiment of the Militia; and to ask whether it would not be advisable to remove these restrictions under the present circumstances. To make it clear, perhaps it would be advisable for me to read the paragraph which appears in the Royal Warrant, It is as follows—
  "If a re-employed officer in receipt in regimental or staff pay, or pay as an officer of embodied Militia, has commuted his retired pay, a deduction equivalent to the amount of the retired pay at the time of commutation shall be made from his effective pay. If he has retired with a gratuity, the deduction from his effective pay shall be equivalent to the annual value of such gratuity, as determined actuarially according to the prospects of his life at the time of his receipt of the gratuity."
  I think it is universally admitted that it is of the utmost importance, as well as being most advantageous to the Militia, that there should be a certain sprinkling of Army officers in its commissioned ranks; but as long as such regulations as these exist it cannot be expected that many will be induced to come. When, a few weeks

  351
  ago,* the noble Marquess gave in this House his very able exposition of the general military policy of the Government, all Militia officers were very pleased to hear his eulogistic remarks about that old constitutional force. The noble Marquess said the position of the Militiaman was to be improved by granting him free groceries the same as had been granted to his comrade of the Line. Having, therefore, improved the position of the private in the Militia, I trust he will now do something for the retired Army officers serving with the Militia, and, even if he does not see his way to grant them the gratuity on disembodiment, that he will find the means of modifying the paragraph which I have read from the regulations.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The regulation to which the noble Lord refers lays down that "retired pay shall not be issued to an officer for any period during which he is in receipt of regimental or staff pay, or pay as an officer of embodied Militia." The State has a lien upon an officer in receipt of retired pay, and if such an officer is required or allowed to emerge from his retirement and to accept military employment it would not be fair to the public that he should receive both his retired pay and the pay to which such employment might entitle him. The only exception to that rule which I can discover is that made in favour of Militia or Yeomanry officers, who are allowed to receive retired pay as well as Militia or Yeomanry pay while they are employed on the preliminary drill and training of their regiments. I am not aware of the circumstances owing to which this exception was made. The training usually lasts about a month, and we have therefore decided that, in the case of officers serving with embodied Militia, they too shall be allowed to receive both full pay and retired pay for a period of one month. It is not the case that the gratuity has been withdrawn. It has been ruled that it shall be given to retired officers in all cases where they do not derive any advantage in the way of pension or gratuity owing to their re-employment. If they do derive such an advantage they
  *February 12th, 1900. See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., p. 1175.
  352
  may elect whether they will retain that advantage or forfeit it and draw the gratuity.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.