Sitting of 11 May 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 Heading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  A Verbal Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.1) BILL.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.

      ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
      ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No, 5) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1.) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
      As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Accrington and Church Outfall Sewerage District, and to Acton, Chester (Rural), Reigate, Weymouth (Rural), and Wigan (Rural), ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Accrington and Church Outfall Sewerage District, and to Acton, Chester (Rural), Reigate, Weymouth (Rural), and Wigan (Rural)," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 5).
  Mr. DE TATTON EGERTON reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills, That the parties promoting the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill had stated that the evidence of Peter Chalmers Cowan, Chief Engineering Inspector for the Local Government Board (Ireland), Custom House, Dublin, was essential to their case: and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Peter Chalmers Cowan do attend the said Committee on Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Peter Chalmers Cowan do attend the said Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills on Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  ABERDEEN POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Redhill Gas Bill, without amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the London Sea Water Supply Company." London Sea Water Supply Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the Great Central Railway Company to make new railways and other works; to acquire additional lands; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands, for the completion

  1359
  of certain railways, and for the sale of superfluous lands; to raise additional capital; to define and regulate the existing capital of the Company; to confer further powers upon the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway Company, the Liverpool, St. Helens, and South Lancashire Railway Company, and the Nottingham Joint Station Committee; and for other purposes," Great Central Railway Bill [Lords].
  Railways (Ireland) Amalgamation Bills —That they do propose that the Joint Committee appointed for the consideration of the Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill, the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill, and the Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill, do meet in Committee Room B on Friday next, at Two o'clock.
  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Dublin Corporation Bill and Clontarf Urban District Council Bill.—That they have appointed a Committee, consisting of Four Lords, to join with the Committee of the Commons (pursuant to Message of this House of the 5th April), to consider the Dublin Corporation Bill and the Clontarf Urban District Council Bill; and they propose that the said Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A, on Thursday next, at Two o'clock.
  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [Lords].
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SELECTION.
  Mr. HASLEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had nominated the following Four Members to serve on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Railways (Ireland) Amalgamation Bills:—Mr. Buchanan, Sir Samuel Montagu, Mr. Pierpoint, and Mr. Usborne.
  Report to He upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  CHEAP TRAINS (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Galloway, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
  Petition from Plumstead, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Llangyfelach, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Roxburgh; and Scottish Poor Law Medical Officers' Association; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY HILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Driffield; and Sculcoats; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from St. George's, Hanover Square, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Ayr; Bannockburn; Anstruther; Troon; Fauldhouses; Bo'ness; Montrose; Sanquhar; Arbroath;

  1361
  New Mains; Wishaw; Newmilns; Glasgow; Thurso: and Greenock (two); to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Brunswick; Heworth Colliery; Exeter; Amble; Dundee; Brigstock; Shrewsbury; Bridlington; High Wycombe; Walsall; Eastbourne; Houghton le Spring: Barry (eight): New Mill; Llantrissant; Llandaff; Penarth; Liske; Lincoln; Sheffield (two); Newcastle; Newhaven; Troedyrhiw; Colne; and Birmingham; to lie upon the Table.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against: to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING(MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from High Wycombe; Dundee; Exeter; London;; Bradford; and Colne; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM THREEFOLD OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from West Kilbride, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against: to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LEAD POISONING.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 10th May, 1900; Mr. Coghill]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 171.]
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (ESTIMATE).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India for 1899–1900, compared with the
  1362
  results of 1898–9 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 172.]

  EAST INDIA (FINANCE AND REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented, of Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for 1898–9 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented, of Home Accounts of the Government of India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 173.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy.—Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics between 1st October, 1899, and 31st March, 1900 [by Act].
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  Ordered, That the parties appearing before the Select Committee on War Office Contracts have leave to print the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee day by day from the Committee Clerk's Copy, if they think fit.— (Mr. Jackson.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir William Wodderburn; and had appointed in substitution: Sir John Kinloch.
  Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Burial Grounds Bill:—Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Robert Cameron, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Gretton, Mr. Jebb, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Perks, Mr. Pym, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. Richards, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. J. W. Sidebotham, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Carvell Williams.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
  The Select Committee on Land Registry (New Buildings) Bill was nominated of:—Mr. Akers-Douglas, Colonel Lock-wood, Mr. Ure, with Two Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.— (Sir William Walrond.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Police Reservists (Allowances) Bill and the Electoral Disabilities (Military Service) Bill without Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the trustees of the British Museum to deposit copies of local newpapers with local authorities, and to dispose of valueless printed matter." British Museum Bill [Lords].
  Municipal Trading.—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of five Lords, to join with the Committee of the Commons (pursuant to Message of this House of the 5th April) to consider and Report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction; and they propose that the said Joint Committee do meet in the Chairman of Committees Committee Room on Thursday next, at Three o'clock.
  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PAARDEBURG CASUALTIES.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office can give any explanation of the list of casualties sustained in the first day's fighting at Paardeburg, when the casualties were in excess of the casualties in any single day's fighting since the war began; and who was the officer who, in the
    1364
    absence of Lord Roberts, was responsible for the military tactics which entailed such loss of life.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Member's first question admits of no answer other than that the casualties were incurred and reported. In reply to the second, I have to say that I am not prepared to admit the assumption that the losses were unnecessary.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Were the losses not heavier than on any other day of the campaign?
    [No answer was given.]

    ROYAL INNISKILLING FUSILIERS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers were 1,135 strong when they left Queenstown on the 5th November for the seat of war, and that on the 24th February, after the final crossing of the Tugela, only twenty-five men and one officer answered to their names; and that the regiment lost twelve officers on the 15th December at Colenso, and fourteen out of fifteen officers at the Tugela on the 24th February, while the one unwounded officer died subsequently of enteric fever at Ladysmith; and whether he can explain why, although Colonel Thackeray sent forward to Sir Redvers Buller the names of several men of the Inniskillings who were in his judgment entitled to special commendation, there has been no mention either of these men or of the conduct of the regiment in any published despatches.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The losses among the officers of this regiment, though heavy, were not so heavy as the hon. Member has been led to believe. At Colenso there were one killed and nine wounded, of whom one has since died. On 23rd and 24th February there were three killed, seven wounded, and one missing. The high honour of a mention in despatches rests with the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa. Beyond that I have nothing to say in reply to the second paragraph.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the hon. Member aware that as a matter of fact

    1365
    Colonel Thackeray did recommend the names of several of these men? It has not been reported. Is it true or not?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to discuss that point, nor any similar point.
    MR. SWIFT MACNKILL: I know.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS—WINTER CLOTHING FOR THE TROOPS.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the winter clothing for the troops in the Transvaal contracted for by the War Office is wholly woollen or only partly woollen and partly cotton; and what the price per yard fixed by the War Office was.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.): The winter clothing is wholly woollen. No price is fixed by the War Office, but the price is arrived at by competition.

    ROYAL RESERVE REGIMENTS.
    MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of men that have joined the Royal Reserves, and of officers to each regiment of Royal Reserves, or to every 1,000 men; how many Royal Reservists have not yet been formed into regiments or other organisation; how many have been supplied with uniforms; and how many have been supplied with belts and accoutrements; and what proportion of the infantry have been supplied with rifles; and what proportion of the cavalry have been supplied with horses.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are objections to giving detailed information on the progress made in embodying, equipping, and officering the Royal Reserves until these processes are complete; but I may say that we have received, so far, upwards of 29,000 applications from men of all arms. Of the infantry, fourteen battalions have been formed. They contain at the present time 128 officers and 15,321 men. It will be seen that we are still short of officers, but we hope to make up this deficiency; the supply or noncommissioned officers, on the other hand, is ample. It is intended to form four regiments of cavalry from the Royal
    1366
    Reservists and the Reserve squadrons of regiments abroad; at the date of the latest Return 1,093 Royal Reservists had joined these squadrons, and three regiments had been formed. The men rejoining the Royal Artillery are posted to existing batteries; 2,327 have been so posted up to date.
    MR. WARNER: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my last paragraph as to rifles and horses?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Those are the very details which cannot be given without imposing a great deal of labour on men fully occupied at the present moment.

    MILITIA—EXAMINATIONS FOR COMMISSIONS.
    COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if there will be an examination for Militia officers who are candidates for Army commissions in September next.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The present intention is that such an examination shall be held in September.

    GUNS—CAPTAIN BLAKELY'S PATENT.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the late Captain Blakely, R.A., in February, 1855, took out a patent for the first built-up gun, and that it has been freely asserted in military quarters that the principle of that patent is embodied in the patent which was taken out by Mr. Armstrong in 1858, and assigned to the Government on the 15th January, 1859, will he state on what ground the War Office declines to allow the representatives of the widow of Captain Blakely to have access to the Armstrong patent, seeing that a period of upwards of forty years has elapsed since the latter patent was taken out, and the necessity for its secrecy may be said to have passed; and, in view of the fact that prior to the date of the Armstrong patent Captain Blakely had given Mr. Armstrong access to his patent, and that the Ordnance Committee of February, 1861, found that both the Blakely and the Armstrong gun were similar in construction, will he consider the expediency of employing a War Office expert to com-

    1367
    pare the two patents, so that Mrs. Blakely's contention that her husband's patent has been infringed may be tested.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This matter has been thoroughly considered, and the Secretary of State for War is not prepared to go into it again.

    HONG KONG—HOSPITAL FOR EUROPEAN SOLDIERS.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I bog to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any, and, if so, what steps are being taken to provide a hospital at Hong Kong in a suitable locality to replace the present undesirably situated building where the European soldiers are now treated.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir; the site for the new hospital has been approved, and the ground has been prepared for building. The plans are complete and are going out this month. Every effort will be made to erect the building as soon as possible.

    INDIA — DEATHS FROM FAMINE IN NATIVE STATES.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the mortality in native States in consequence of the famine, and especially in the districts of Rajputana, Godhra, and Baroda, and what measures, if any, have been taken to prevent it; and whether he will consider the advisability of having British officials appointed to superintend the arrangements for famine relief in native States whenever practicable.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The mortality in the native States is, I am sorry to say, considerably in excess of that occurring in British territory. British officers have in many cases been lent to advise and assist the native Governments of the States, and loans have been, and will continue to be, made by the Indian Government to meet the expense of famine operations in territories outside British rule.

    IRRIGATION AND STORAGE WORKS IN ALIBAGH.
    MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India
    1368
    whether there were certain Government surveys made in the district of Alibagh with the object of laying out certain storage and irrigation works; and whether any works have been or can be usefully undertaken as the result of such surveys.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: No Government surveys have been made in the Alibagh district for storage and irrigation works. The district is unsuitable for irrigation from reservoirs; and the rainfall being heavy, storage is unnecessary.

    MADRAS HIGH COURT.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of Madras has recently departed from the usual practice in the appointment of the successor of Sir S. Subramania Aiger (at present on leave) as judge of the Madras High Court; and whether he will state whether there are any special reasons for not appointing an Indian judge, as usual, under such circumstances.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The appointment of an acting judge of the Madras High Court is vested by Act of Parliament in the Governor of Madras in Council. I have no information as to the reasons which guided that Government in the exercise of their discretion.

    WRECK OF THE AMERICAN SCHOONER "ETHEL B. JACOBS."
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the United States Government has been approached in reference to the shipwrecked American sailors, seventeen in number, who were saved from the wreck of the "Ethel B. Jacobs" schooner, of Gloucester, Mass., on the coast of Kerry in October of last year; and whether the claim of Mr. Darnel Keating, of Derrynane, in respect of their maintenance and of money advanced to them to enable them to reach Queenstown has as yet been met; and if not, how soon will the matter be settled.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The claim of Mr. D. Keating, of Derrynane, was put forward through Mr. D. O'Connell,

    1369
    J.P., at the end of last year; and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington was at once requested to bring it to the notice of the United States Government, with a view to their taking the proper steps to obtain payment. No report has as yet been received from Lord Pauncefote, but his Excellency's attention was again called to the matter on the 30th of March.

    DISTURBANCES IN BRITISH NORTH BORNEO.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the origin of the disturbances in British North Borneo in which Mat Sator, the brother of the late Mat Salleh, is reported to have been killed.
    MR. BRODRICK: Mat Sator, who is generally supposed to be a relative of Mat Salleh, was with him during the hostilities which led to the latter's death. He escaped from Mat Salleh's fort, and was not heard of again until he made an unsuccessful attack on Kudat with a party of Dusuns, in which some peaceful Chinese settlers were killed. Some police were sent to encounter the rebels, and Mat Sator, Mat Dand, and twelve rebels wore killed. The Chinese settlement known as the Happy Valley was the only place damaged. Mat Sator was one of the men implicated in the murder of the two natives, who were carrying a friendly message to Mat Salleh prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

    CHINA INLAND NAVIGATION—RIVER STEAMERS BETWEEN SHANGHAI AND TINGHAI.
    MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Shanghai Customs Taotai has refused to permit a British steamer of the ordinary river steamer type to trade between Shanghai and Tinghai, the chief town in the Chusan Islands, under the inland steam navigation regulations; and whether the British Legation has protested against the action taken by the Taotai; and, if so, what reply has been made by the Tsung li Yamen to the protest.
    MR. BRODRICK: We have received no information as to the incident referred to in the question, but inquiries are being made by telegraph.

    WEI- HAI -WEI — ATTACK ON THE BRITISH DEMARKATION COMMISSION.
    MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any information with regard to the reported attack at Wei-hai-wei upon the Commission engaged in delimiting the leased territory.
    MR. BRODRICK: Two camps of the British Commission engaged in demarcating the frontier were attacked on the 5th and 6th instant by Chinese villagers. Major Penrose and four men were wounded, none seriously, on our side. About twenty Chinese of the attacking party were killed. The Chinese Commissioners are in consequence desirous of postponing further work, but Colonel Dorward, Her Majesty's Commissioner, has been instructed to continue the demarcation with or without Chinese cooperation. Reinforcements have been sent to him, and in a telegram of yesterday's date Colonel Dorward reported that the general outlook was reassuring.

    POTTERY TRADE—LEAD POISONING.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there was a diminution in the cases of lead poisoning in the pottery trade for the twelve months of 1899, as compared with 1898 and 1897; whether there has been a diminution in the cases of plumbism occurring in the pottery industry since the introduction of the new special rules in 1898; whether information in the possession of the Home Secretary shows that the rule requiring the monthly examination, by the certifying surgeon, of women and young persons has had a beneficial influence in diminishing the cases of plumbism; and whether the examination by a qualified medical man of all workers, whether adult male, women, or young persons, working in the processes connected with lead, was urged upon the Home Office by the china and earthenware manufacturers some years previously to May, 1898.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): There is a striking diminution of the number of cases of lead poisoning in the pottery trade in 1899 as compared with 1898 and 1897; and, as will be shown by

    1371
    the Return which at the instance of the hon. Member was ordered yesterday, laid on the Table in dummy to-day, and will be in the hands of Members within a few days, the diminution follows closely on the establishment of the new rules in 1898. There is also, I think, evidence that the rule requiring the monthly medical examination has contributed materially to this result. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I find no official record of the medical examination of all workers having been suggested by the manufacturers before 1898; but I understand that in 1895, when the Factory Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, was before the House, they urged the proposal on their local Members. And I may at all events say that I had the co-operation of the majority of them in establishing the medical examination required by the rules of 1898; and I look forward with confidence to having their co-operation in any extension of it which may be shown to me to be called for.

    IMPORTS OF CHINA AND EARTHEN-WARE.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to control the importation of, or to exclude china and earthenware manufactured abroad in countries whore there is no restriction as to the use of materials, and where there is no legislative protection for the workers in practical operation.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Any steps in the direction indicated by ray hon. friend could not logically stop at china and earthenware; and the question of controlling or prohibiting the importation of articles manufactured in foreign countries where the workers may not enjoy the same statutory protection as those engaged in similar trades in England is a very large one, and I do not see my way to embarking upon it. I may add that it is a matter in which I have no direct powers.

    FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
    MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can now give any further relief to the districts of Norfolk and Suffolk now subject to foot and mouth restrictions.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.) (for Mr. LONG): An order has been made to-day, to come into operation on Monday next, which will permit of the movement of animals, under certain conditions, into the greater part of the scheduled district, and also enable animals to be moved between different parts of a farm in the same occupation except in that part of the district in close proximity to the scone of the recent outbreak.

    WELSH CENSUS.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the complaints made after the last census, care will be taken that for the purposes of the coming census schedules containing the language column will be distributed throughout Wales and Monmouthshire; and whether schedules printed in the Welsh language will be available for those who cannot understand English.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The answer on both points is in the affirmative.

    AUXILIARY POSTMEN—EXTRA ALLOWANCES.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if duties paid under allowances to postmasters may now be given to either appointed or auxiliary postmen; and is he aware that in consequence of an order recently issued a Bewdley auxiliary postman has just been deprived of a duty for which for six years he has received 2s. 6d. a week.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): By the rules of the service, duties for which it is necessary to provide by allowance to postmasters may not be given to either appointed or auxiliary postmen. It is found on inquiry that an auxiliary postman at Bewdley had been temporarily employed for about eighteen months, not six years as stated, upon a duty to provide for which the postmaster of Bewdley received an allowance of 2s. 6d. a week, but this irregular arrangement ceased on the 13th of January last.

    POSTMEN'S STRIPES—MANCHESTER POST OFFICE.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when finally the postmen in the Manchester Post Office entitled to stripes, counting half time for junior service, of which the cases of J. G. Hill and A. Guard are typical, will be awarded: and whether, in several cases, the stripes are about twenty months in arrear; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay.
    MR. HANBURY: The outstanding awards will be made in a few days. The decision given in March last that service as junior postman should count only as half time towards stripes affected a considerable number of postmen. Some delay necessarily occurred in consequence of the opposition to this decision.

    PROMOTIONS—SUB-POSTMASTERS.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in the appointment of postmasters to offices falling vacant, with salaries above £80 per annum, the claims of sub-postmasters and town sub-postmasters, both established and unestablished, have been overlooked; and whether he will in future consider their claims with a view of their obtaining their fair share of promotion to these appointments for winch their special training this them; and would he say why other classes of postal servants should be promoted in their stead.
    MR. HANBURY: The claims of sub-postmasters are not overlooked; as a matter of fact three such appointments have been made during the past year.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS' PERCENTAGE ON STAMP SALES.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the extra amount of labour entailed upon the sub-postmasters through the late reductions in colonial and inland postages, and consequent reduction in their earnings of percentage on the sales of stamps, it being necessary now to do more work to earn the same amount as formerly; and what is proposed to be done to remedy this state of things, either by
    1374
    raising slightly the percentages given on sales of stamps or otherwise.
    MR. HANBURY: The late reductions in colonial and inland rates would in any case affect only a small portion of the income of sub-postmasters. If any extra labour in connection with the sale of stamps is entailed on sub-postmasters there would, on the other hand, be an increase in that part of their remuneration which is based on the number of letters and parcels dealt with. In no case has a sub-postmaster's remuneration been reduced.
    MR. SCHWANN: As the remuneration of these officials is very small, can the right hon. Gentleman not see his way to increasing it?
    MR. HANBURY: That hardly arises out of the question.

    DOUBLE INCREMENT REGULATIONS.
    MR. YOXALL: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, seeing that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that at all offices where officers are divided into two classes (that is, offices in Schedule A) a double increment will be granted to officers at or after the age of twenty-four who have proved themselves qualified and are ready to serve as their services may be required on both the postal and telegraphic sides of the Department, whether he will explain why a number of telegraphists in Birmingham, qualified in postal duties in 1898, have not received the increments promised; and whether the Postmaster General will inquire if there has been a failure to carry out the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee in this respect.
    MR. HANBURY: The special increment for dual qualifications is allowed to those officers only who are not bound by the conditions of their appointment to qualify in both postal and telegraph duty, and there are twelve telegraphists at Birmingham who have claimed a special increment; but it has not yet been decided whether at the time each of them was appointed he was liable to qualify in both duties. This matter is under consideration, and it will very soon be settled.

    EDUCATION—GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO SHEFFIELD SCHOOLS.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that inconvenience has been experienced by the delay which has taken place in the payment of the Government grants to St. Paul's and other schools in Sheffield; and if he will endeavour to expedite the issue of the reports of the inspectors to those concerned, as well as to have the grant paid; within a few weeks as formerly.
    THE VICE - PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Board of Education much regrets the delay which has occurred in paying the grants to St. Paul's and other schools in Sheffield. They have already taken stops to expedite the issue of the Reports and the payments of grants in future.

    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Board of Education has yet taken any, and, if so, what steps to revive the former Instruction to Her Majesty's Inspectors whereby they were directed to require all cases of the infliction of corporal punishment in public elementary schools to be recorded in the school log-book, and whether, in view of occurrences which have been brought to the notice of the Department, the recording of such punishment will henceforth be made obligatory in all cases.
    SIR J. GORST: The Board of Education have in the instructions to inspectors directed that, in addition to the log book, a separate book must be kept in which every case of corporal punishment inflicted in the school should be entered.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: Is that universal?
    SIR J. GORST: Yes.

    MILITARY DRILL IN SCHOOLS.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will con-
    1376
    sider, in communication with the War Office, the advisability of making military drill and rifle practice a branch of education entitling schools giving facility for training therein to a higher grant from the State than could otherwise be earned.
    SIR J. GORST: In the opinion of the Board of Education it would be inconsistent with the principle of the Block Grant to make special payment to schools for teaching any particular subject, how-over desirable in itself.

    CROFTERS' COMMISSION—CULLODEN ESTATE, ROSS-SHIRE.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the Report of the Crofters' Commission recently issued shows that in 1899 the Commission visited the Culloden estate at Ferintosh, Ross-shire, and reduced the rental of a crofter residing at Bogbuie, Urquhart, from £16 10s. to £11 10s., and cancelled arrears of rent to the extent of £135 15s. out of £165 15s. And, seeing that an adjoining crofter leaseholder on the same estate holding a croft of similar extent is still rented at £16, and has arrears to the extent of £149 7s. 6d., and that there are similar cases in the crofting counties of Scotland, will he consider the expediency of extending the benefits of the Crofters Act to all small tenants holding under lease; and, if not, will he say what steps he proposes to take to give equal rights to all crofter tenants.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I am aware of the facts stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. The information in my possession does not enable me to accept either the analogy of the illustration or the assumption contained in the first portion of the second paragraph; they are not borne out by the inquiry, made through the Scottish Office, or the information supplied by the Crofters' Commission. The Secretary for Scotland does not propose to bring in legislation on the subject.
    MR. WEIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the accuracy of the Crofters' Commission Report 1
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: No, Sir; I have answered the question.

    BELFAST SORTING OFFICE.
    MR. STEADMAN: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in the structural and other alterations in progress in the Belfast sorting office, it is intended to replace the present old pattern sorting tallies with those of a modern shape and style, as in use in large English post offices; and, if not, whether he would consider the expedience and utility of so doing, in view of the great development. of the city of Belfast in recent years and consequent increase of postal work.
    MR. HANBURY: The answer to both questions is in the negative. The present pattern is thought to be well suited for the work of the office.

    IRISH MAIL CAR CONTRACTORS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: f beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can say how many mail car contractors are there in Ireland at present who were contractors before the parcels post was established, and whether, since the parcel post was established, they have got any extra pay or remuneration for carrying the parcels post, although they only contracted for the carriage of the mails, and whether it is the intention of the Postmaster General to inquire into the matter with the view to compensate the contractors who have received no extra pay since the parcels post was established.
    MR. HANBURY: No useful purpose would be served by ascertaining the number of these mail car contractors, as it is always open to a contractor who may consider himself underpaid to apply for increased payment, and to give notice to terminate his contract if his application is not granted. If the hon. Member will specify any particular case inquiry will be made into the matter.

    MONIGOLD (CO. SLIGO) POSTMAN.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state why John Brien, postman in Monigold district in the county Sligo, has been discontinued, and whether he will have him reinstated as postman.
    MR. HANBURY: Brien was employed as a rural auxiliary postman at Monigold
    1378
    with wages of 6s. a week, from August, 1898, till the 6th of January last, when, at his request, he was given employment in a similar capacity at Ederney, Omagh, with wages of 7s. a week. The inhabitants, however, raised strong objections to his employment at Ederney, and he was offered employment at Letterbreen, Enniskillen, with wages of 8s. a week. He refused this offer, and his services were dispensed with. It is not considered desirable to otter him further employment.
    MR. DALY: May I ask what was the objection to the man?
    MR. HANBURY: I think it is very much in his interest I should not state it?

    IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' ARREARS OF FEE GRANTS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that he has promised the representative of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation that he will pay them a certain defined portion of the arrears of fee grant due to them from 1892 to 1895, whether he can state what steps have been taken to secure that immediate payment of same he made to the teachers concerned.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol W.): There are not at present any funds available for these payments. My promise was to the effect that a Supplementary Estimate should be presented to the House soon after Easter, and this has been done.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the arrears of school grant, 1892 to 1895, due to Irish national teachers, will lie paid.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): A Supplementary Estimate for these payments has already been laid on the Table of the House, but the payments cannot be made until the Vote has been taken.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when will the result foes and customs and excise grant,

    1379
    due to teachers in Ireland for the year ending 31st March, 1900, be paid.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: In the case of nearly all the schools examined for results fees during the financial year ended 31st March, 1900, the results fees and customs and excise grant have already been paid. There is a small residue of schools that were examined during the last financial year in which the payments have not been quite completed, but every effort is being made to expedite the payments in these cases.

    ASSISTANT TEACHERS IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS—THE NEW EDUCATION SCHEME.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many assistant teachers of Irish National schools are at present under notice of withdrawal of salary, or have had their salary withdrawn during the last twelve months, owing to insufficient attendance of pupils, and how much is the annual decrease in the aggregate of assistant teachers' salaries for the whole of Ireland since the introduction of the new rule of the Commissioners, which requires inclusion, in calculation of average, of all days on which the number present is not less than one-third the monthly average instead of one-half as formerly.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The information desired in the first part of the question as to the number of assistant teachers whose salaries have been withdrawn, or are under notice of withdrawal, is being-prepared; but some time must elapse before it is ready, in view of the pressure of the Department in connection with the introduction of the new scheme of education. As to the second part of the question, there has been no decrease in the number of assistant teachers since the introduction of the now rule referred to, and there is, consequently, no diminution in the aggregate annual payments to them.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the scheme will be promulgated?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: A rough outline has been promulgated already, but I cannot say when the details and rules will be ready.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will it be before the Irish Estimates?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will there be any opportunity for discussing the new scheme on the Estimates?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I should think the question could be raised. I am quite willing to give a general account.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great anxiety in Ireland to discuss this new scheme, and we must know what it is before we can discuss it? Will the right hon. Gentleman make such a statement as will enable us to discuss it on the Education Vote?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: If it is the desire of hon. Members, I will make a fairly full statement.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— DISTRIBUTION OF FREE FORCE.
    MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the population of Londonderry, now estimated at nearly 40,000, and to the free force of Royal Irish Constabulary allotted to the cities of Cork, Waterford, and Limerick, Londonderry is now entitled to a free force of from ninety to ninety-six men; and, if such a force has been found sufficient for the preservation of order, on what ground do the Irish Government place a rate on the ratepayers of Londonderry which is not borne by the other cities.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have already pointed out that the assumption that population is the only factor in determining the distribution of the free force of constabulary is an erroneous one. With regard to the second paragraph, I am afraid I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous question of the 3rd instant on the same subject.

    AVAR OFFICE CONTRACTS COMMITTEE.
    MR. WEIR: I desire to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury when he proposes to fill up the vacancy on the War Office Contracts Committee?
    THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir WILLIAM WALROND, Devonshire, Tiverton): I propose to move to substitute another name for that of the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool on Monday.

    CUSTODY OF LOCAL RECORDS COMMITTEE.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House of the names of the members of the Departmental Committee appointed last session to report on the custody of local records, when the Committee is likely to report, and whether their Report and the information upon which it is based will be printed and presented to the House in a Blue-book.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I have to say that the following are the members of the Committee:—The Bishop of London, the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), Sir Francis Mowatt, Sir H. Maxwell-Lyte, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, and Mr. Spring Rice, of the Treasury. Since their appointment the Committee have been occupied in collecting from a large number of local bodies and persons interested in the question information in regard to the condition of local records. The answers are being tabulated, and will be appended to the Report which it is intended to present to Parliament. As, however, the information is still far from complete, it is impossible to say how soon the Committee will be able to report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take a morning sitting next Tuesday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My original intention was to take a morning sitting on Tuesday. That was in the expectation that we should obtain the Second Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill in the course of one night's debate. But as the House knows that was not possible, and therefore I shall be obliged to ask the House to give me facilities for that Bill on Tuesday next, and also for the Australian Commonwealth Bill, supposing the first stage of that Bill is not concluded on Monday. I should hope,
1382
however, it will be. When the House meets at three o'clock on Tuesday I shall ask leave if the Commonwealth Bill is not finished to give precedence to that measure, and I shall put down as the second Order the Housing of the Working Classes Bill. If, as I hope, one night is sufficient for the introductory stage of the Commonwealth Bill, T shall only ask for facilities for the Second Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, and when that stage is concluded I shall leave the remainder of the night to private Members.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The second Order on Monday was to have been the proposal to take Tuesday morning sittings. What will now he the second Order?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think Uganda Committee will be the second Order.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to intimate that he has given up his proposal to take morning sittings on Tuesdays?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I think I shall have to ask the House for the remaining Tuesdays before Whitsuntide in order to give additional facilities to Government business. I do not propose to move a general resolution on that subject, but my motion on Tuesday will be confined to the purposes I have indicated.

SUPPLY [8TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £488,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the salaries and expenses of the Customs Department."
  MR. STEADMAN: I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to a sot of men known as the customs watchers. Those men have susperseded in the Customs a body of men at one time known as the Custom House officers. The Custom House officers received a salary of £100 a year, permanent employment, uniform, sick leave on full pay, and a pension of two-thirds of their salary. The customs watchers do exactly the same duty as the Custom House officers performed, and their wages at the present time are only 21s. a week. They have to watch all dutiable goods in barges, ships, docks, and warehouses. When first appointed their wages were 19s. a week, and their hours were nine to four in winter, and eight to four in summer, so their pay amounted to something like 5d. an hour. This was previous to July 1896. After that date they were made permanent labourers at a wage of 21s. a week, but their hours were altered to fifty-four hours a week instead of forty-eight hours a week, and their wages work out at something like 4½d. an hour; so that when they wore only casual laborers at a wage of 19s. a week their wages worked out at more per hour than they do now when they are in the permanent service. They have to do nine hours in the day between six in the morning and six in the evening; they have to pay their own railway fares, and sometimes their duty extends from the Custom House down as far as Tilbury Dock, a distance of nine miles, taking them very often two hours to get to and from their duty. Overtime does not count in their wages until after six in the over ling or before six in the morning, and when they are paid overtime the Government only pay 6d. an hour, whereas the merchants are quite willing to pay 8d., which for some reason or other they are not allowed to pay. These men have no emoluments whatever as compared with the Custom House officers whoso place they have taken. It is quite true, I believe, that after ten years service they are entitled to a bonus of £1 a year; but many of them have been in the service, I am given to understand, over fifteen years, and there is no possibility of promotion. As a matter of fact the 21s. is a maximum wage and a minimum wage. And those men are unable to live near the docks and near their calling in consequence of their wages being so small and rents
  1384
  being so very high. Last night we were discussing the housing question and the way in which it affects the workers, and I think it will be argued on all sides that out of 21s. a week, it is impossible to pay 8s. or 9s. a week for two or three rooms. There are some 250 of those men employed in the port of London. I would remind the House here that the Royal Commission dealing with the matter of sweating laid it down that no man should receive a minimum wage of loss than 24s. a week; and these men are asking for a very moderate increase on their present wages, an increase from 21s. to 24s. a week. I do not propose to deal with this subject by a comparison with local authorities and municipalities and the wages they pay, but I consider that those men are entitled to a better wage than they are now receiving. I was reading a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, the Secretary to the Treasury, in which he advocated a principle by means of which in the Army promotion from the ranks should be made easier. He also said that the officers were entitled to better pay from the Government than they are receiving. The right hon. Gentleman has now an opportunity of putting his theory into operation in another direction, in regard to those customs watchers, if he is consistent in his views. I do not know whether he has one view for his constituency and another view for the House; but if he believes that the officer in the British Army is entitled to more consideration, surely that principle must apply to the customs watchers who have to work from six in the morning to six in the evening at the paltry wage of 21s. a week, with no prospect of their wages ever being increased. I know that some of these men are in receipt of a pension, but supposing they are; that fact only goes to show that they have been employed in some other Department of the Government.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): Is the hon. Gentleman alluding to boatmen or——
  MR. STEADMAN: Customs watchers. It has been argued over and over again that there are emoluments such as sick pay and pensions, but these men get no pension, and where the Government does

  1385
  give a pension it is generally taken out of the worker, because the pension given is deducted out of the wages week by week. It is no argument to say that because a man has a pension he should work for less than what has been recognised as the minimum wage, sixpence an hour. Unfortunately the majority of these men have no pension, and are never likely to get one; nevertheless their wages are only 21s. a week. I hope and trust that on this question the right hon. Gentleman will make some moderate concession. It is recognised—all over London at any rate—that sixpence an hour is the wage for unskilled labour, but these men are above unskilled work because of the responsible position they hold under the Government, and therefore I think they are entitled to a higher wage than 21s. a week. I beg to move the reduction of the vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (Post Establishments) be reduced by £100."—Mr. Steadman.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: I have some hesitation in speaking on this Vote to-night, when I consider that only yesterday my hon. friends the Members for Hull and Grimsby received a deputation of Custom House officers, when we recommended the men to go direct to the Chairman of Customs and lay their grievances before him. But having been asked to take up the case of these officers, I may be permitted to address the Committee. I believe that hon. Gentlemen representing the Tower Hamlets are going to speak on behalf of the boatmen, and therefore I will restrict myself to the case of the preventive officers. Last session I ventured to bring their principal grievances before this Committee, and I do not now propose to weary the Committee with the arguments I used on that occasion. I will content myself by saying they embrace promotion, salaries, and Sunday pay. With regard to salary it is not a question of whether it is a fair wage or not, but when they consider the duties they have to perform and compare those with the duties which the lower grade examining officers have to perform, they think it is unjust. As regards Sunday pay, I should like to mention a point which I think requires investigation; and that is, that where one man in the same grade
  1386
  may work six months on end one Sunday after another, another man may work one Sunday only in four or one Sunday in three. Then as to the question of promotion, I think it is admitted on all sides, including the Board of Customs, that the promotion among the preventive officers is practically nil, though it is said that, as compensation they get a high rate of pay. One of the grievances put forward by the preventive officers last year was the expense of having to provide a uniform. That has been got rid of by adding £5 a year to the man's initial salary, but this £5 only went after last July to those boatmen who were promoted to become preventive officers and not to the existing preventive officers who had got up this agitation. And now I come to the crux of the whole question, that there has been a breach of faith. At first I could hardly believe that there had been a breach of faith on the part of the Treasury, but I am afraid upon looking into the matter that there is no doubt about it. These preventative officers were originally boatmen who joined, say, in 1884. Nothing happened until 1891, when it was discovered that a certain number of additional men would be required as examining officers. These men entered the service on the understanding that if any vacancy occurred in the ranks of the examining officers they should be promoted. In March, 1891, that understanding was departed from, and I contend that that was a breach of faith on the part of the Treasury. A sop was given to the boatmen by creating a new class now called preventive officers, and these men are neglected, and have no chance of promotion. I do hope that the Financial Secretary will see the justice of, their complaints, and will see his way to give them the £5 a year in respect of the uniform. Secondly, I would ask him to meet the preventive officers himself, and see if he cannot remove the cause of friction which at present exists.
  MR. H. S. SAMUEL: I feel I must apologise for again addressing the Committee upon this Vote, but having looked again into the case of those men I am more impressed than ever by the fact that their grievance is a real one. These men who are employed in the Customs suffer from a want of that liberality which one would expect to see

  1387
  in the Government, which should be a model employer. Last year when I brought this subject forward I thought I did obtain some small promise from the right hon. Gentleman that he would endeavour to visit the port of London and see for himself the condition of these men. So far he has not apparently found time to do do so, and that has caused very great disappointment to the men. What I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that when it does take place this should be a surprise visit; if he would make a surprise visit he would, I venture to think, give very different replies to the stereotyped answers which he gave us last year. The question of salary is a very serious grievance. A man starts at a salary of £55 a year, and rises by yearly increments to £85 a year. There is an extra £5, which I will deal with presently. When boatmen first entered the service they had, in addition to their salary, "seizure money," and when smuggling was rife in the old days that seizure money amounted very often to very large sums, sometimes reaching as much as £70. In those days they had to stop cargoes being smuggled, and a certain percentage was given to them on the value of the cargo. Now, in order to reach the maximum salary they have to serve fifteen years, and I submit that after five or six years service these men are quite as capable as after fifteen. Although they are called Customs boatmen their duties are those of the examining officers. I know very well that I may be told, as I have been told before, that this question was gone into at the time of the Goschen inquiry. But the boatmen who came to give evidence before that inquiry were not the selection of the men themselves, but of the higher officials, and did not in any way bring out the grievances of the men. Now, in 1893, there was an increment of 10s., and in 1895 £1, and the maximum salary was increased by £5. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that that is an equivalent to what was earned previous to the Goschen inquiry, I fail to see it. Prior to that time, as I have said, these men received seizure money from time to time, and in that way earned as much as £70 per year. Previous to 1891 boatmen also acted as landing officers, and in this way a largo amount of extras were received. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the demand for these posi-
  1388
  tions is very great. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for 380 vacancies on the London and North Western Rail-way there were 3,300 applications, and that the wages given on that railway are in every capacity larger than those which are given by the Customs? If the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, as he said before, that if a man takes a job knowing what the wages are, he has no right to ask for more, then I would reply that in every industry in the country wages have risen, and that being so, the Government should take this case into consideration. I recollect a resolution being passed that the Government should be model employers. I take a model employer to be one who would not have to be dragged on by other employers or who would try to squeeze something more from the men, but rather one who would lead other employers in giving the men that which was absolutely due to them. The work of the Government would be done far better if there was harmony between the men who are employed and those who employ them, and if the men did not feel they had a grievance. Passing from the salaries, I wish to say a word with regard to Sunday pay. Some years ago the Customs officials petitioned for a day's pay for Sunday work, and they were met in this very curious manner: The Is. a day which they had before was taken off, and £5 a year was added to their income. I know perfectly well that these men are expected, if called upon, to do seven days work, but I think it has been recognised in practically all branches of the Government service that Sunday work should be well paid for, and we in the House of Commons have set our faces against it wherever it can be avoided. All people want their day's rest if they can possibly get it, and if the men are employed on Sunday it is only proper that they should be paid, if anything, something extra for giving up their Sunday rest. Then comes the question of the boatmen. The Customs boatmen have only had to change their stations since 1895, and in this case, when they went into the Customs service, they did not expect to change, nor were they changed from station to station. Customs boatmen are now required to be at one station for six months, and are then moved to another. I do not think it can for one moment be considered that the annual sum paid to these men is such

  1389
  that they can be expected to move their home, furniture, and belongings, and take other rooms, without any assistance being given by the Government. If the men do not adopt that course, they have to pay a considerably increased amount of travelling expenses. I understand that Fenchurch Street is taken as a starting point, and that the travelling expenses beyond that are credited to the boatmen, but that does not meet the necessities of the case. I submit that under these circumstances it would be a very great kindness on the part of the Customs to give these men something to help them in the extreme difficulty of their position, so as to make their lives somewhat easier for them to bear. I have fully inquired into these grievances, and I appeal with confidence to the right hon. Gentleman to do something for their removal.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not intend to touch in detail on any of the grievances which have already been mentioned, because, although it is well that those grievances should be discussed and ventilated in the House of Commons, they are so largely matters of detail, they vary so much as between class and class, and they are of such a numerous character, involving so many men, that I do not think the Committee are in a position to exercise a matured judgment in regard to the justice or injustice of those particular claims. It is easy to advocate increases of wages, but it seems to me there is only one person who can be really held responsible in the matter, and that is the member of the Government for the time being who represents the Treasury. What I and several others have always advocated, both privately to the right hon. Gentleman and in this House, is that the time has come when these claims, grievances, and alleged injustices should be personally inquired into by the Secretary to the Treasury. There are good reasons why that should be done. It is impossible for us sitting hero to decide the rights and wrongs of these detailed grievances, and it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to decide in his mind through the permanent officials in regard to these matters by correspondence with the representatives of the men. We have had masses of correspondence between the men on the one hand and the Department on the
  1390
  other, the men making allegations, the Department denying them; the men making re-allegations and the Department re-denying them. That method of settling the question is perfectly futile, and will never lead to a satisfactory conclusion. When I was at the Colonial Office on one occasion there had been considerable mismanagement in one of the Crown colonies, and we sent someone out to inquire into the matter. When he returned this official said—
  "I can tell you why there has been all this mismanagement. There is no single official on the island who is on speaking terms with another, and, therefore, everything is carried on by correspondence."
  In the case before the Committee there has been too much correspondence, and not enough personal inquiry. I should be very sorry if the right hon. Gentleman dealt with one particular class of these men—for instance, the boatmen— and not the watchers and so on. If he deals with one he must deal with all; and unless he can personally go into these cases it is impossible for him to deal fairly with the matter, as he may grant a privilege to one class which would give them an unjust advantage over another class. Then I believe if the men were able to see the right hon. Gentleman face to face they would be able to convince him—I will not say of the justice of all their claims, but at any rate of the substantial justice of many of them, and I believe if the men had the satisfaction of meeting the right hon. Gentleman they would be quite willing to abide by his decision, and the dissatisfaction which at present exists would very largely, if not entirely, disappear. There is one particular class who appear to me to have a special claim to consideration and inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I have no desire to charge the right hon. Gentleman with any breach of faith, and I hope he will not for one moment think I am endeavouring to do so. Last session the right hon. Gentleman was approached by my hon. friend the Member for Stepney, and myself, with a view to inducing him to do what I have been pressing this afternoon, namely, personally to see the representatives of these watchers, to go himself into their grievances, and to see how far they were justified. The right hon. Gentleman certainly agreed to see these men, and the matter got so far that I actually

  1391
  wrote asking the men the particular day and time that would suit them. That I could not have done unless I had at all events felt justified in thinking the right hon. Gentleman would receive them. However, for reasons sufficient for himself, and without, I am certain, intending to commit any breach of faith, the right hon. Gentleman thought on the whole he would decline to see these men. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, misunderstanding or no misunderstanding, I think these men have a special claim to the right hon. Gentleman's personal consideration in this matter, and I trust he will see his way to receive those men with the other classes concerned. As regards the particular motion before the House, my vote will largely depend on the attitude the right hon. Gentleman takes as to the suggestion I have ventured to make. If he is ready to see the men I have no more to say, for I feel confident he will do justice to the different classes of men and also justice as between the men and the Treasury. I admit I am asking him to undertake a very heavy job, and that is one of the reasons that many of us regret that the right hon. Gentleman's time is not altogether free for his work as Secretary to the Treasury. Unfortunately, he has to a large extent the work of the Post Office on his shoulders, and this will be an additional burden upon him. It is, however, a matter of such importance that I think we may fairly ask the right hon. Gentlemen to undertake the work. Last year, in regard to the Customs boatmen, the right hon. Gentleman used two arguments against their claim; in the first place, that there were hundreds of men whose names were down for places as boatmen, whereas the number of vacancies was not large; and, secondly, that their claims were inquired into a few years ago and the inquiry could not be re-opened. I must say I regretted very much to hear the right hon. Gentleman at this time of day use that first argument. I remember very well that that was the argument used at the time of the dock strike, that there were thousands of men who would hang about the dock gates to get threepence or fourpence per hour, and therefore it was not necessary to pay higher wages. I do not think that is an argument which ought to be used by anyone representing the Government. The Ridley Commission, on which the right hon. Gentle-
  1392
  man himself sat, repudiated this argument. In regard to the other matter, it is argued by him that, as it has been inquired into, there is no necessity to reopen the question now. But this inquiry was held nearly ten years ago, and it was carried out by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds. But that inquiry was held on the evidence of witnesses selected not by the men themselves but by the permanent officials. Then, again, during that inquiry the question of hours was gone into, but the question of wages was largely ignored. I agree with my hon. friend the Member for Lime-house that you ought not to decline to reopen the question because it was inquired into in 1891. I do not want to detain the Committee by going into the details raised by my hon. friend behind me. There is just one point, however, I should like to mention. It seems to me that the argument is so very clear that I should like to say a word upon the question of the travelling expenses of the Customs' boatmen. These men when they go from district to district have certain travelling allowances which assist them very considerably. Now that London is divided into twelve districts, these men are practically debarred from receiving the full travelling allowances which they had before London was so divided into districts. The expenses from Fenchurch Street to any particular place are still allowed, but they are not allowed expenses to and from Fenchurch Street. That arrangement might be all right when these men lived close to their work, and were able to start from Fenchurch Street without the expense of travelling there. Now the bulk of these men live further east or south, and they are some distance away, and this burden of travelling expenses not only involves a certain amount of time which they have to devote to travelling, but it is a very heavy item, and a burden upon the comparatively small wages which they earn. What I ask is that these expenses should be put on some proper and sensible footing, and if they do have travelling expenses they should include the whole journey which the men have actually to travel, In regard to the watchers, my hon. friend behind me touched on one point which I think requires a little elucidation. He stated the hours and wages of the watchers, and he said that many of these

  1393
  men received pensions as well, and he said that because they are in receipt of these pensions their wages were fixed at a low figure. I do not think that ought to be the case. These pensions are received for past services, and ought not to be taken into account in estimating present wages. I am obliged to the Committee for allowing me to make these general observations, and I will conclude by reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the whole question of the wages of Government employees has been, in principle, decided by the House. This House has decided on more than one occasion that Government employees ought to receive similar wages to those current for that particular class of work. We have laid it down in the first place that where Government work is put out to contract the men shall receive the same wages as are paid by the rest of the Government employers in the same trade, and it has been laid down by successive Ministries that the Government themselves should be generous employers of labour. In regard to the class of labour which we are now discussing, it does seem to me that we fall short of that standard and ideal. It is because I feel certain that if the right hon. Gentleman would only meet these men and discuss the matter with them, we should get justice in regard to this question, that I shall be bound to vote for the Amendment of my hon. friend, unless the right hon. Gentleman gives us some pledge that he will see these men.
  MR. DOUGHTYsaid he was perfectly certain that in the seaports around the coasts the preventive officers and boatmen were very much underpaid in comparison with the wages paid for similar work in other ports. The right hon. Gentleman said, when this matter was brought forward before, that there was an abundance of men applying for these various situations. Surely, that was no reason why they should be paid a very unfair and unreasonable salary. A boatman received £55 a year, rising in the course of fifteen years to a maximum of £85. That salary might have been all right many years ago, when living and rent were much cheaper than they were today. That was a miserable wage for the Government to pay for that class of labour, and the same criticisms which applied to the boatmen also applied
  1394
  to the preventive officers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to receive the men himself, and hear what they had to say for themselves. If they had no case, then they did not deserve to have a remedy found them. If the right hon. Gentleman found that they were underpaid, as there were only about 1,100 boatmen and 300 or 400 preventive officers, it was a very small matter for the Treasury to give satisfaction to these men, who were now doing their work in a highly satisfactory manner.
  MR. HANBURY: The Treasury has very great hesitation in interfering with the discretion of the heads of Departments except very good reasons are shown. Undoubtedly, there is at the head of the Customs a gentleman who has gone into this question most thoroughly, and who is by no means disposed to cut down the wages of the men, and who has the greatest anxiety to treat them fairly. I, therefore, think that, until some final decision is arrived at by the Board of Customs it is not right that the senior Department should interpose in the matter. It seems to me quite clear that there is still a general feeling of discontent in regard to these particular men, and I am perfectly willing not only to inquire personally into the matter, but I am also willing to admit that in order to settle the grievance it might be wise if I were now to receive these men. But what is of more importance is that I should actually see these men at their work. It is one thing to see them in a room and another to see them at work where you can see what that work actually is. I had intended to go and see these men at work at the port of London, but as the House knows, I have had a good deal to do, and I was not able to carry out my intention. With regard to the particular cases mentioned, I think two things ought to be remembered with regard to the present demand for a rise in wages. The first is that, so recently as 1896, when the present watchers were first appointed, every one of them signed a document agreeing to the present rate of wages. I am told that the complaints do not come from the class of men who have since come in as Navy, Army, and Police pensioners, but they come from an older class of men, who were getting before

  1395
  1896 wages a great deal lower than they are receiving now, and who were then getting much less regular employment. It is rather remarkable that the complaints should come only from the men who are distinctly benefited by the new arrangements made in 1896. I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman opposite said as regards men with pensions. I have always said, and I am perfectly prepared to abide by it, that the fact that a man is receiving a pension earned in a totally different service ought not to be taken into account in calculating his wages. It is said that 21s. a week is a too low rate of wages. No doubt these men are not entitled to pensions like boatmen and officers; but when we speak of 21s. I do not think it can be fairly said that a man receiving that wage is in the same position as a man not in the Government service, because, as I said last year, the various advantages which these men get really bring up their wages to a great deal over 24s. They are employed practically all the year round, and besides that they have other advantages. For instance, they have sick leave, a gratuity on leaving the service, and fourteen weekday holidays every year. I think if these advantages are added up, it will be found that they represent a great deal more than the 3s. difference between 21s. and 24s. As a matter of fact the new men who have come in have not petitioned. It is the older class who up to 1896 wore not so well treated as they are now who are complaining. There is one thing I should like to say with regard to these men. What strikes me is that the worst feature —the really bad feature—in their case, is the absence of promotion. They may go on year after year without practically getting any increase in their wages, and I will sec whether it may not be possible to reward the more deserving of these men by increasing their wages after a certain number of years service. That would be a reasonable way of dealing with this difficulty, and I venture to think that possibly the Treasury and the Board of Customs may agree among themselves to better the conditions of the men in that respect. Now I come to the case of the boatmen. I was rather surprised to hear my hon. friend talk of the grand old smuggling days, and to suggest that these men should be paid on a scale of compensation for the good things they were in the habit of getting in those
  1396
  days. After all, those days are more or less remote, and I think very few of the men engaged at present have the dimmest recollection of them, or had any association whatever with them. My hon. friend then raised another point. He said that I stated last year that the number of applications was enormous, and he supposed, because I said that, that I therefore assumed that the fact of this large number of applications ought to govern the rate of wages. What I said was that the mere fact that there was competition ought not to govern the wages of these men, and that they ought to receive a fair wage, regardless of the competition. I say precisely the same now. Looking at the pensions these men are entitled to, their chances of promotion, which are greater now than before, and to the other advantages given to persons on the establishment, I say that their pay is, after all, quite commensurate with the work they have to do. When you endeavour to compare them with examining officers, you are attempting an impossible task, because of the difference in their work, and anyone who knows the details would not think of comparing the work of one class with that of the other. Then my hon. friend said that I stated that the present First Lord of the Admiralty went into these cases in 1892, and fixed the salaries, and that the salaries having been fixed so recently we ought to abide by them. That argument cannot be used any longer, because in certain cases we have altered the Goschen scheme. Where it has been shown to us that the Goschen scheme was working unfairly we have modified it and we are willing to do so in the future. With regard to the question of Sunday pay, I think it is a little unwise of the men to raise this question, because it was distinctly understood when the scale of wages was fixed that the Sunday pay was to be pooled, as it were, in the weekday pay, and the Treasury having entered into that arrangement cannot fairly be expected to go back upon it now. With regard to travelling expenses I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman opposite say that we ought to pay the travelling expenses of all these men to the Custom House. That argument would apply to every Civil servant in the State.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: What I intended to convey was that a sum should be paid to those men in lieu of travelling expenses, and that it was rather an anomaly that they should have travelling expenses in some cases and not in others.
  MR. HANBURY: The men are supposed to pay their own expenses to the Custom House, but with regard to certain outlying stations, such as Mount Pleasant and the Victoria Docks, it has been arranged that they shall receive the difference between the fare to the Customs House and the fare to these stations. There are very considerable practical objections to making these allowances in all cases. As a matter of fact even when the men get these allowances they walk the greater part of the distance, and the allowance goes into their own pockets. A few hard cases are likely to arise, especially with regard to men working in distant clocks between midnight and five a.m. That case has not been mentioned. Really the worst cases are not always mentioned, though grievances are brought forward which are not so substantial as others that might be mentioned. With regard to the case I have referred to, I will consult with the Board of Customs as to whether something cannot be done in the case of these men. It appears to be a real grievance, which, so far as I understand it at present, I am quite willing to deal with. The only other point raised was in reference to the case of preventive officers. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord say that there had been a breach of faith in connection with them. If he can show me that there has been a breach of faith, I will take care that it is put an end to, because our first duty is to keep faith in matters of this kind, and I was not quite able to follow the noble Lord in what the breach of faith exactly consists. Perhaps he will be kind enough to state it to me personally, and I will promise him it will be looked into. With regard to uniforms, I think the noble Lord has forgotten that this very year the salaries of these men have been raised in order to meet the difficulty as regards uniforms, because we found that the difference between the maximum of the boatman's salary and the minimum of the preventive officer's salary was so small that it gave the preventive officer a very little increase, and we have endeavoured
  1398
  to meet the difficulty by increasing the minimum. In regard to Sunday pay, it was a little unwise of the men to raise this question, because, as in the case of the boatmen, it was agreed from the beginning that it should be included in the weekly wage. The system of paying separately for Sunday work was abandoned under the Goschen scheme four or five years ago; and in calculating the new salaries full consideration has been given to that fact.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Why should one class of officer work every Sunday for six months, and another only one in three months?
  MR. HANBURY: That is one of the details which I cannot have at my command at a moment's notice, but if my noble friend will consult with me I shall endeavour to do justice in the case.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not rise for the purpose of following the right hon. Gentleman through the detailed answer which he has just given, but only in order to express the satisfaction which, I believe, is generally felt on this side of the House and probably on the other also, with the initial promise which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I understand that he undertook to meet the representatives of the men affected by the questions raised in this debate—representatives selected by themselves to be seen by him, to whom the delegates will state and argue the case of their grievances. That is a most satisfactory result of this debate— so satisfactory that I, for one, believe that the House generally would gladly have relieved the right hon. Gentleman from any obligation to offer the detailed observations he has been good enough to make. I hope that the arguments he has advanced in the course of his detailed answer do not imply that his mind is so made up that he will not be able to give an unprejudiced consideration to the men's case. I understood him to say that he will see the men at work and then receive them in his own council chamber and talk matters over with them across the table. I congratulate him upon the policy he has announced. I am perfectly sure that it is a wise policy, and I venture to say so from my own experience in another Department, where the grievances were

  1399
  much larger than those with which he has to deal. I do so also from the conviction that the men in this Department, as well as in other Departments, will not be satisfied with merely seeing the permanent heads. It may be only a prejudice against them, but at any rate they have a prejudice in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, and would like rather to see the Parliamentary representative of the Department than the permanent officers of the Department, however distinguished they may be. I do not think they are wrong in that, and I think that their preference for the right hon. Gentleman is justified. That being so, there is no occasion for me to follow the right hon. Gentleman through his detailed argument; and I venture to appeal to my hon. friend the Member for Stepney, who initiated this debate—and I congratulate him on the skill and moderation with which he did so—to be satisfied with the important promises given by the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury, and to withdraw his motion.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am not quite so sure that the result of the right hon. Gentleman's promises is so satisfactory. The natural order in which these matters should be conducted should be by the men making representations to their immediate superiors. I understand that that is what has occurred, so far as I can gather from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and that no result followed. He himself consulted the Customs authorities and nothing was done. Now it is proposed that the right hon. Gentleman himself should enter into relations with the men. There are a great many practical objections to that course. The experience of this world is that a Department is not usually disinclined to raise the wages of its employees. The difficulty is not with the Department, but with the Treasury. I suspect that in this, as in many other cases, the Customs Department would have been ready to give a small additional sum to these hard-worked men had they not been prevented by the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman says he will see the men at work. Does he know what their work really is? Is he prepared to go out in the middle of the night in a small boat, in a gale of wind, to inspect the work of the boatmen and the preventive officers? I suspect that by the time that he gets to the
  1400
  vessel he will be no judge of their work. Of course it is easy enough to go to a dock and look on there; but the real hard work is when the boatmen and preventive officers go out in heavy weather, even in such sheltered anchorages as Plymouth Sound. Let me add a word or two as to the preventive officers. They are undoubtedly very ill paid. The Secretary to the Treasury dwelt lovingly on their sick leave. I do not believe they get any more sick leave than a private employer would give. Then he spoke of the amount of gratuity they got on retiring from the service, but he did not state what that amount was. He admits that they do not get adequate promotion. I have had a great deal of experience of these preventive officers. They have recently had all sorts of new duties placed upon them; they have even to go through the ship's papers to see if there are any dogs on board, to satisfy the Board of Agriculture. I imagine they must have a certain knowledge of foreign languages —having to go over ships' papers and converse with the captains of vessels of all sorts of nationalities. I have always been struck with the cultivation of those men and the ability with which they conduct their work. They seem to know where to find everything on board ship. I think both the boatmen and the preventive officers, but especially the latter, are very much entitled to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury; although I still think that the right method is for him not to go and see them, because he cannot understand their work, but rather to listen to the representations which the Commissioner of Customs will make to him and upon these representations to make up his mind. I really suspect that representations have been made in that sense to the Treasury, and that the difficulty has been not with the Customs officials but rather with the Department which the right hon. Gentleman represents. Therefore I would suggest that he should reconsider this intention of seeing the men at work, but should find out what increase of pay and other privileges these men are entitled to in the estimation of the Customs officials themselves, and frankly adopt the recommendations of the Department.
  MR. MONK: I am perfectly certain that the boatmen and Customs officers will be very much

  1401
  gratified when they hear of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to personally investigate their grievances. I believe that he will be able to do so without accompanying the boatmen on a stormy night, at a late hour, to witness them in the actual performance of their duty. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment and that he will accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, which, I feel sure, will be carried out, that he will see how far the grievances of these men exist, and that he will do his best to remedy them.
  MR. STEADMAN: The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress upon the fact that these men on coming into the service signed a paper that they were satisfied with the conditions that they received on entering the service. It is no argument that because a man enters the service on the condition of receiving 19s. or 20s. a week, he is to rest content with that wage, for the remainder of his natural life.
  MR. HANBURY: They signed that paper only three years ago.
  MR. STEADMAN: They may have done so. We have in our lunatic asylums men who have retired from the Army on pensions, and who enter our service. They are asked if they are satisfied with the conditions, and no working man, even if the wages are small, would, when he gets a chance of good constant employment, answer "No." But he has not been very long in the service when he finds that the wages are so low that he cannot live on them with a wife and family, and it is very natural for him to ask for an increase of wages. So it is in the Government service. Mechanics' wages are fixed by trades unions, but it does not follow that that is to be the everlasting wage paid to them. On the contrary, we are continually asking through our trade societies for an increase. It is only natural that all workmen should do the same. Therefore it is no argument that, because those boatmen signed a paper only three years back, they have no right to ask for consideration and for an increase of wages. The right hon. Gentleman tells the Committee that they get pay in sickness for eight weeks, and he put that and allowances for holidays at 3s. a week, and
  1402
  therefore he made out that their wages are as good as 24s. a week. But there is a difference of opinion on the Treasury Bench on this matter. When we were discussing the case of the men employed at the Victualling Yard at Deptford, it was said by the First Lord of the Admiralty that these allowances were only worth a shilling a week, and it is besides to be remembered that the men in the Victualling Yard get pensions, which the boatmen do not. Now as to the promise the right hon. Gentleman has made to see the men, I am, of course, delighted with it. I feel perfectly certain if these men only have an opportunity of facing the right hon. Gentleman and putting their grievances before him they will be able to convince him as they have been able to convince me. But I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to wait to see all these men at their employment before he sees them at his office.
  MR. HANBURY: The promise I make is to see them at the port of London.
  MR. STEADMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to visit every dock, warehouse, ship afloat, and barge, he will never be able to do it and perform his duties in this House. It will take him a few weeks to go round the port of London, let alone the coast, and he will find the same condition of things in the north, south, east, and west. If he is going to visit the port of London before he sees the men at his office, it is impossible for him to do anything in the present session of Parliament, because he will have to wait until the session is over before he will be able to find time to visit them, and then nothing will be done for them this year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will drop the idea of seeing the men at the port of London, and see them by deputation at the Treasury Office, and if he will do that, I am quite certain that they will convince him of the justice of their complaint. I beg leave to withdraw my motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £563,015, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the

  1403
  charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the expenses of the Post Office Packet Service."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Committee will remember when this case was under discussion last week* the hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised an important question as to the action of the Government in relation to the P. and O. Company. The P. and O. Company, as everybody knows, receives from the State an extremely large subsidy — £400,000—for carrying the mails, and it is well known that this large mail subsidy is one of the chief sources from which the company is able to pay its very satisfactory dividend to shareholders. The point raised was that this company had violated the law with regard to the accommodation which is supplied to the lascars employed in its service. The law allows or specifies that a certain amount of space shall be given to sailors on board vessels, and that law was put into force for the purpose of doing away with that disgraceful want of accommodation which was one of the many grievances from which the seafaring population laboured. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough has laboured at this subject for years, and having regard to what he has done and the manner in which his action has been taken up by the Board of Trade the seafaring population is under a deep debt of obligation to him. My hon. friend asked whether the lascars got the space on these boats which the law entitled them to demand. The answers were evasive. One question was, whether the lascars came under the Merchant Shipping Act, and as they were Indian subjects, whether they were not under Indian and not under Imperial law. That question took some time to answer. Then another question was raised. That was, admitting the lascars came Tinder our Shipping Law, whether the Government were entitled to get penalties from the P. and O. Company, if that company violated the law. That question also occupied a considerable length of time in determining. I believe I am correct in saying that from 1893 to 1899—for six years—this small question of law was hung up, and that it took all that time for the Law Officers of the Crown to decide a question which, if
  * See page 851 of this volume.
  1404
  they were competent to their work, as I am certain they are, would not have taken six hours. The attitude of the Government in regard to this matter is absolutely deplorable. It is now admitted that the Merchant Shipping Act does apply to lascars, and that they are entitled to the same amount of space as a sailor born in these islands; and secondly, that the Government, if they like, are entitled to recover from the P. and O. Company penalties for the violation of law in regard to these lascars, as they do in cases of other boats in which sailors born in the British Islands are employed. I desire to make it quite clear to this Committee that it is neither my intention nor that of my hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough to interfere in any way with the employment of lascars. We only desire that when they are employed they shall get the same protection from Imperial law as any other sailor. After six years struggling we have it admitted that the law has been violated by the P. and O. Company. I have in my hand a paper containing the names of twenty-one of their vessels in which this violation occurs, and after six years we have the President of the Board of Trade obliged to confess that in the case of those twenty-one vessels the law has been violated. I may be asked what right we have to raise this question on this particular Vote, and the Secretary of the Treasury may say his position is confined to the fact that there is a contract with the P. and O. Company for the carriage of mails, and if they carry those mails he has no right to interfere; but to such a contention my reply would be that this company would practically be unable to exist without the £400,000 subsidy it gets from the Government, or if it was able to exist it would certainly not be in its present profitable position. Now the House has already decided this question by a solemn vote still standing on the Statute Book and still unrepealed. It is decided that the question is a right one to raise, because of the fair wages resolution. The Government is compelled and does carry out the fair wages resolution in every case except that of the P. and O. Company. What right has the Government to make an exception in this particular case, when it compels the carrying out of the fair wages resolution in regard to every other company? Several defences have been offered on behalf of

  1405
  the Government, the first one being that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Torquay, who said that the real season for the employment of lascars instead of British born seamen was that lascars did not put themselves into the hands of paid agitators, and, therefore, were more easily dealt with. I quite agree. I hope the hon. Member for Sheffield will not leave the House for a moment as I have something to say to him. I accept the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay; he really gives the true reason, which is, that the lascar can be put off with small wages, bad food, and bad accommodation, and the British seaman cannot. The reason I asked the hon. Member for Sheffield to remain was this. Here is a case where a premium is put upon the employment of the lascars as against the British born seaman. Now I have heard the hon. Gentleman for many years advocate the manning of British ships by British men, and I daresay he is the author of the placard which appeared during the last general election when the electors were exhorted to vote for people of the same school as the hon. Member upon the ground that British ships should be manned by British men. Yet it would now seem that the company are to be allowed, by breaking the law, to employ as few Englishmen as they can and as many lascars as they can, because they put up with less food, wages, and accommodation. The second defence of the Government was that offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That I have already casually alluded to, namely, that the Government was not entitled to use any pressure on the P. and O. Company because they carried out the contract. The fair wages resolution, which, I think, was carried unanimously during a Conservative Administration, was a pledge by this House, and not only entitles us, but calls upon us, to see that anybody to whom the Government gives assistance and patronage in the way of contracts should be obliged to treat fairly the persons they employ. The third defence was by the President of the Board of Trade. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that somewhat surprising statement, my hon. friend the Member for Dundee got up and asked him— "Does the right hon. Gentleman lay down the doctrine that, even if a
  1406
  company break the law, the Government has no right to interfere with the company?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer rather evaded that point, but the President of the Board of Trade got up and his answer was more astonishing than the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His answer was that though it was undoubtedly true that the P. and O. Company had violated the law, yet they were not to be prosecuted. I would like to hear what a Conservative Minister or ex-Minister would say if that doctrine were applied by a Liberal Minister with regard to anything taking place in Ireland. The doctrine laid down by the President of the Board of Trade was that the company violated the law, but the Government refused to prosecute. On what ground? He laid down the doctrine of the extent to which discretion should wink at a violation of the law in a broader and wider manner than it has ever been laid down before by any Minister. First, he said that if the P. and O. Company gave less space to a lascar than to a British seaman they were breaking the law, but if they were prosecuted for breaches of the law it was competent for the Board of Trade to take into consideration all the facts of the case. This is a most extraordinary doctrine—that the Minister of a public Department is entitled, before he sees that the law is carried out, to take all the facts into consideration. We heard it said by the President of the Board of Trade that the P. and O. Company was penalised with regard to these steamers by disallowance. With regard to that I should explain to the Committee that when the tonnage of a vessel is considered there is always a certain amount of deduction made for crew space and other parts that are non-earning parts, and that disallowance is rather important to the shipping company, because certain dues are calculated accordingly. I understand that in a vessel like the average P. and O. vessel this may amount to a couple of hundred pounds a year. But it is not penalising the P. and O. Company. By saving space they are legally called upon to give the lascars they earn perhaps £2,000 a year, and it suits the P. and O. Company very well to be fined £200, if by submitting to the fine they make £2,000. This is not a campaign against the employment of lascars. They are British subjects, and they are entitled to the protection of the flag; but I want

  1407
  them to have all the protection of the flag, and that they shall not, because they happen to be Orientals, and are therefore less able to take care of themselves than Englishmen, be put off with worse food and accommodation. It is really an endeavour to apply to them the principles of British law and British protection which we are making, and not to deprive those unfortunate men of the employment to which they are entitled. I desire to put the case plainly and moderately, but there are important principles underlying this matter. First, there is the relation of the State with regard to contractors; second, the relation of the State with regard to subjects of different colours and races; and, third, there is a very important question, the momentous gravity of which will be appreciated by anyone who has watched recent events on the Continent, and especially in Germany. It is quite clear from recent events that this country will have to face before long another great naval Power, because undoubtedly the settled policy of the Emperor of Germany is—it is not my business to discuss whether it is wise or not, he knows his own affairs best—to establish a great navy. Well, does not that impose great obligations on the rulers of this country with regard to their own Navy? Those vessels which are employed in commerce in times of peace are vessels which in certain eventualities will have to be employed in the work of war in times of war. Where are you going to get your seamen from? From lascars? Lascars do very good work—no doubt about that; but they are not equal to emergencies which British-born sailors are equal to. British-born seamen have proved their bravery and skill in many times of stress and danger also. There are cases which everyone is familiar with in which vessels and many valuable lives have been lost because in the hour of emergency the Oriental was not equal to a strain which would be met calmly and bravely by the Western-born man. If you help this Government to drive English seamen out of these vessels you are striking a severe blow which may leave you in time of emergency without sailors. The question of seamen is one that will one day become a burning one in the country. They are one of the few classes in the community who have not yet succeeded entirely in reaching the sympathy, the knowledge, and the imagi-
  1408
  nation of the people of this country, so far as their real condition is concerned. My belief is that there is no class of men who are entitled to more protection than those men who "go down to the sea in ships," who are constantly risking their lives, and who are deprived of the ordinary comforts of home and family other men have. I believe it could be proved that those men are, as a rule, badly fed; badly lodged, and badly treated. Almost alone among the working men of this country they stand outside the benefits of the Compensation Act. It is because this is a branch of this great and important subject that I take the liberty of raising the question and moving a reduction of the Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E (Contracts for Asia and Australia) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I rise to support the motion which has been moved by my hon. friend. With regard to this lascar question, as my hon. friend has already stated, it is a good many years now since I endeavoured to enlist the sympathy of this House in the matter, and I was surprised on Friday! night, when the two right hon. Gentlemen, whom I am very pleased to see in their places, endeavoured to make the House believe that the one object I had in view in bringing this question forward was to drive lascars out of British ships. They said it would be a very serious matter if by any proceedings we were to drive British subjects out of British ships. It would be a very wrong thing indeed. I defy the right hon. Gentlemen to prove in any way that I have ever made any statement in this House expressing a desire that we should not employ lascar seamen on British ships. I have never asked for that. What I have asked, and what I intend to ask until I am satisfied on the point, is that wherever lascars are employed on British ships they shall receive the same treatment as any other British subject, and I further contend that it is not a right principle to drive British seamen out of British ships by employing lascars. If lascars have a right to be employed on these vessels, then I contend that British seamen have an equal right, and I say it would not be a just policy to drive British seamen

  1409
  out of these ships for the benefit of lascars. That is what has been happening for many years. Thirty years ago we had in the British merchant service about 5,000 lascars. At the present time we have close upon 40,000 lascars, and steadily year by year the number of lascars employed on British ships is increasing, whilst the number of Britishers is gradually diminishing. What is the reason of it? It is very apparent to me, in spite of all the statements made by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They say that the lascars cost the employers as much as British labour. I deny that, and I say it cannot be proved that lascar labour costs the same. It is perfectly true that they may employ two lascars for one British seaman, but the wages of two lascars are not equal to the wages of one British seaman. A British sailor will get £4 to £4 10s. per month, while lascars only get 16s. up to 24s., which is generally the highest wage paid. Then with regard to the food there is nothing like the same cost of living for a lascar as there is for a Britisher. The food for a lascar will cost about 5d. or 6d. in twenty-four hours, whereas the food of a Britisher will cost from l0d. to 1s., so that both in food and in wages there is a considerable saving indeed resulting from the employment of lascars as compared with white labour. Then the offence is all the worse when we find that companies are allowed to rob—I say rob and I do not think I am wrong in using that term—these lascars of the accommodation which the law says they shall have. Along with others I have been endeavouring for many years to get increased accommodation on board British ships for British sailors. We have been urging on respective Governments for years the necessity of increasing the accommodation, and the Royal Commission of 1891 in their report recommended that the accommodation on board ships for seamen should be increased to 120 cubic feet. There is one reason only why the Government have not moved in the matter. If they had legislated on that recommendation of the Royal Commission to give the seamen 120 cubic feet by law they would have been faced with the opposition of the P. and O. Company, because the P. and O. Company would have said at once, "We have given our men only anything from 30 cubic feet up to 60 or 65 cubic feet, and if this law is passed it will seriously affect the inte-
  1410
  rests of the P. and O. Company." And rather than be faced with the opposition of the P. and O. Company the Government have climbed down, and have absolutely refused to make any move whatever in that direction. I know that one of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is that the shipowners are gradually increasing the accommodation for the men on board their ships. They are in some cases increasing the accommodation for the men by reducing the number of hands that they carry. That is the only way in which they increase the accommodation. Where they used to carry ten or twelve men they now carry only six or seven, so that, of course, there is more room in the forecastle for the men who remain. But that is no advantage to the sailors as a whole. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has dealt very fairly with the matter at all. When I first commenced to agitate with regard to this matter I was put off with the amazing reply that the British law did not apply, that these men were engaged in India under the Indian law, and consequently the Imperial law did not apply. I knew better than that, and I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had read the Merchant Shipping Act himself he would have seen it also. As President of the Board of Trade he ought to be thoroughly well posted in regard to the Merchant Shipping Act; that is his business; that is what we keep the President of the Board of Trade for. Therefore I say that if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the different sections of the Merchant Shipping Act he would have discovered for himself that the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act applies to all vessels owned and registered within the United Kingdom; he would have seen it in black and white. And what makes his offence the worse to my mind is that the Board of Trade have solicitors, so that if the right hon. Gentleman was not absolutely certain himself as to the law, he could fall back on the solicitors of the Board of Trade, because we pay those solicitors to advise the President on all doubtful points. Then, further, if he was not satisfied with the advice of the solicitors of the Board of Trade, he had the Law Officers of the Crown to whom he could go. But it has taken him several years

  1411
  to arrive at that point, about which any lawyer would have been able to satisfy him in a day if he had not been able to satisfy himself. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make out on more than one occasion that I did not understand the law. I do not profess to be a lawyer, I am a layman, but when having read the Merchant Shipping Act with common sense, I saw it there in black and white that the Imperial Act was the Act which applied to lascars. I have been surprised for years now that the President of the Board of Trade could not make up his mind to do his duty. But at last we arrived at the point; that the law was clear, and then I thought we would at last got justice for lascars and for everyone else. But to my astonishment the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Taking all matters into consideration we are very much afraid we can do nothing. The lascars are engaged in India, where the Indian Act, under which only thirty-six cubic feet are required, applies, and we are afraid that under the circumstances it would not be just and right to enforce this penalty which is provided by the 210th Section of the Merchant Shipping Act."
  I want to point out to the Committee that in India, since 1891, there have been a number of agitations started by different reformers in that country to get the Indian Council to bring the India Merchant Shipping Act into conformity with the Imperial Act. This was due to the fact that in 1891 one of the officials of the Board of Trade in London made a report to the Board of Trade on the insanitary conditions of the forecastles of the P. and O. Company's steamers. I have read most of that report, which was sent to the Indian Government also, and the description given by this Board of Trade official of the filthy condition in which he found the forecastles of the P. and O. beats, and as a result of the report of the Board of Trade's own official to the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade sent representations to the Indian Government in 1893, asking the Indian Government to alter their law so that it should conform to the Imperial Act, because if they did not do so the Board of Trade would be bound to enforce the Imperial law. The opposition to the alteration of this law in India has been entirely duo to the influence of the P. and O. Company in India. They have used their great influence in India, as they have evidently used their great influence in this
  1412
  country, to oppose any alteration of the law, and I say it must be surprising to Members of this House to know that one of the wealthiest companies, the one of the companies that receives the largest subsidy from the Government, should be so niggardly in the matter of providing these poor unfortunate lascars with the accommodation to which they are entitled. I know that some hon. Gentlemen have brought forward arguments to this effect —that the lascars have never asked for better accommodation, that the lascars are perfectly satisfied, that the lascars like to huddle together in "their beloved Indian fashion." Those are the words used in a petition sup posed to have been sent by the lascars to the Secretary of State for India. I say "supposed" to have been sent, because I have read that petition and I do not believe that any lascar ever composed a single word that is contained in that petition. The petition begs that they will be left alone, and states that at sea they are not all down in the forecastle together, and consequently they have plenty of room, but that in ports they like to huddle together in "their beloved Indian fashion." I say that there are more people besides the lascars to be considered in the matter. Frequently we have cases of cholera happening on board the P. and O. and other boats, and, coming into a port like London, if they huddle together in "their beloved Indian fashion," I say it is calculated to create disease and thereby endanger the health and lives of the people of this country. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he was president of the Local Government Board, and it was brought under his notice that in a certain model lodging house these lascars were being huddled together in rooms where the necessary accommodation, according to the Local Government Acts was not provided, he would accept that plea, that the lascars liked to huddle together in "their beloved Indian fashion." The lascars would be told that when they were in this country they must obey the laws of this country, and the persons who kept the model lodging-house and allowed the lascars to huddle together in this manner would be summoned and severely punished for allowing this state of things to exist. I ask, then, if that would be so in the case of persons who kept model

  1413
  lodging-houses, why docs the right hon. Gentleman not enforce this law with regard to the lascar seamen? I know, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman does not think there is any necessity for this, but I cannot understand hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House upholding the doctrine and preaching the policy that the Indian subjects of Her Majesty should not have equal treatment to that given to Her Majesty's subjects in this country. We call ourselves Imperialists; we beast of our great Empire, and we tell the world at large that all subjects who are in this Empire of ours shall have equal laws and equal treatment. That is what we preach, and that is what we seek to justify before the world. I say it is altogether contrary to the doctrines of the Conservative party for the right hon. Gentleman to come hero and to tell this Committee—the right hon. Gentleman did use these words one night—that no one would think of giving the lascars the same accommodation as that which is provided for white men. Perhaps I have not used exactly the words of the right hon. Gentleman, but the meaning was in that direction, that these lascars did not require this amount of accommodation. I want to enlighten the two right hon. Gentlemen on this point. I said that there are somewhere approaching 40,000 lascars employed on British ships. The only offender against the law with regard to this accommodation for lascars is the P. and O. Company. That company employ only 5,000 lascars, and the remaining thirty odd thousand are employed by other shipping companies. There is not a single word of complaint against the other shipping companies in regard to the accommodation that they have provided for the lascars. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have not brought a single complaint against any of the other shipping companies who employ lascars about their robbing those lascars of their accommodation. I have never uttered one word of complaint against them at all. The whole of the complaints have been against this P. and O. Company, who are receiving this large sum of money from the Government every year, something like £400,000 of the taxpayers' money. Then, too, the fair wages resolution apparently applies to all others except the P. and O. Company; they have been
  1414
  able to sneak out of it somehow or other. I cannot toll how many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this House are interested in the P. and O. Company; I do not know, but I suppose there are some who are shareholders in the P. and O. Company. I would make an appeal to the shareholder Members of the House, those who have shares in the P. and O. Company and get their 10 per cent., I would appeal to those gentlemen in honesty to say, "We will urge this company to comply with the law," or "We will urge the right hon. Gentleman to enforce the law." The right hon. Gentleman has told me before to-day that I may myself start a prosecution against the P. and O. Company; that if I am not satisfied all I have to do is to apply for a summons against the P. and O. Company for breaking the law. But why should I do that? It is none of my business. I am not paid by the Government to be Public Prosecutor. That is not my duty; it is the duty of the gentlemen who hold office, and I say that if they feel that they are not capable of doing their duty for the money they receive from the taxpayers of this country, they ought to retire and give some other good men a chance. Certainly there arc plenty of good men in this House who would be only too pleased to take even the position of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not feel inclined to enforce the law, I say let him retire and give one of these other gentlemen a chance. As I have said before, it is a scandal, and I do hope we shall have some satisfaction this evening with regard to this question. Otherwise we will divide upon the motion, and then I shall expect to see Conservative gentlemen trooping into our lobby as a protest against the inaction of the right hon. Gentleman. You may depend upon it that even in the next General Election this question will have some prominence. Working men are beginning to understand how it affects their interests, and that British labour is being crushed by rich monopolist companies being allowed to bring British working men down by sweating their men; they are beginning to understand that by and by it will affect the ship-yards as well as other places. You will have lascars over in Belfast by and bye. Why not bring over to Belfast 2,000 or 3,000 lascars and employ them there on Government or other work? I am

  1415
  afraid the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for East Belfast, would very soon be making some noise about it. I do hope that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who, I am sure, have as much sympathy with labour as we have, will enter a protest to-night against this business with regard to the P. and O. Company, that before the division is taken they will ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some satisfactory statement, and that in the event of not receiving that satisfaction they will show their displeasure by going into the lobby against the Vote.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: There is a great deal in this question which deserves the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I have always understood that the lascars on board ships trading in the Indian Sea were employed entirely in the engine-room, out I believe in that I am mistaken, and that lately they have been employed much more on deck than formerly. There is no reason whatever why British sailors should not discharge all the duties on deck, but the engine-room is very different indeed, by reason of the tropical nature of the climate and the great difficulties which Europeans have at certain seasons in sustaining life in the engine-room in the Indian Seas. I find, according to the result of an inquiry instituted, I believe, by the President of the Board of Trade, that on one ship of about 2,500 tons there were twenty-seven Europeans and sixty-one lascars. There would not be so much to be said if the lascars were employed entirely in the engine-room and in difficult duties of that kind in those seas, but of those sixty-one lascars no less than twenty-four were employed on deck, twenty-nine in the engine-room, and the remainder as cooks. The Australian Government have taken a very serious view of this matter and have refused to give contracts to ships carrying lascars. I do not desire to do anything which will put lascars out of employment. They are British subjects and are entitled to employment just as much as the Queen's subjects in any part of the Empire. But considering the responsibility of the Board of Trade as regards the efficiency of the mercantile marine, another question arises in connection with the employment of lascars as deck hands, and that is
  1416
  that a great deal of danger is incurred in certain contingencies to the passengers on board the ships. There have been one or two cases recently. When the "City of Ardagh" was lost and the Court held an inquiry, it was held that the loss of life was entirely or mainly due to the panic caused by the lascars. I think something of the same sort occurred in connection with the loss of the P. and O. ship "China," and there have been other instances to the same effect. There can be no doubt in the mind of anybody who has been to sea that the liability to panic of lascars, Chinese and Japanese sailors in certain contingencies is a very serious factor as regards the saving of the lives of the passengers and the remainder of the crew. The matter has also a wider significance, and that is in regard to the manning of British ships. I cannot go into that question to-night, but it has already received in some degree the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, and I do earnestly hope we may have from him some clear declaration this evening of the attitude and the views of the Government upon this matter, and I trust they will be at any rate in the direction of limiting | the employment of lascars so far as possible to the engine-room, and to duties which cannot properly be discharged by British sailors in tropical seas.
  MR. DILLON: Nothing has been more surprising to me than the debates in this House with regard to the manning of the P. and O. boats with lascars. I have heard declarations from all sides, and especially from the benches opposite, that one of the greatest dangers now felt to the supremacy of this nation on the s the dreadful decline in the number of British seamen in the merchant service of this country. Yet here, in this particular case of one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, of the merchant shipping companies, you have for a long period of years gone out of your way to encourage this company, even to the extent of allowing them to break the law in order to banish British seamen from their ships and to substitute lascars. I believe I am right in saying that the Orient Company, which trades in the same seas as the P. and O. Company, and does not enjoy such an enormous subsidy, does not employ las-

  1417
  cars, but is yet able to compete with the P. and O. boats and beat them in point of speed. I shall have a word to say as to the reason the P. and O. Company do not do without the lascars presently. I wish to deal first of all with the question of our attitude towards the employment of lascars. On many occasions when this question has been debated Gentlemen opposite, adopting the new-fangled Imperialistic spirit, have charged us who have supported the view of my hon. friend who has championed this question from the outset, with the desire to drive; these lascars out of their employment; we have been told that they too were subjects of the Queen, and why should not they have an opportunity of employment throughout this great Empire? As I understand the position it is that we object to the employment of these men under such conditions as to under-cut British labour. That is the whole point. If a lascar, or a Chinaman, or anybody else goes on board these ships or engages in any other occupation in this country, and charges the same wages and gets the same food and accommodation as the English or Scotch or Irish workman, there is no objection to his employment. But there is a great principle involved in this question, quite apart from the employment of British seamen on British ships, and that is whether you are to be allowed, and, above all, whether a great company whose profits are mainly dependent upon the great subsidy of the taxpayers' money is to be allowed to undercut, to degrade, to try to sweat British labour by the employment of foreigners——
  SIR HOWARD VINCKNT: Not foreigners.
  MR. SWIFT MACNKILL: Imperialists.
  MR. DILLON: At any rate, they are not born in these islands, and are not of the same race. The question is whether they are to be allowed to drive out European labour by the employment of men who work for low wages, who are willing to accept a smaller amount of cubic space, and who arc fed at less than half the cost. Moreover, the clothing of these men is a disgrace. I recollect starting from this very city in a P. and O. boat, and these wretched creatures were hardly sufficiently
  1418
  clad to be decent, while in the Bay of Biscay they were shivering this way and shaking that, having just merely the clothing they would have in the tropics. I recollect one night in the Bay of Biscay it was very stormy; I never had such a fright in my life; I thought we were going straight to the bottom. I heard the most awful shrieks and yells resounding from one end of the ship to the other. It appeared that a little sail had broken loose and was lashing the side of the ship, whereupon the lascars were called up to put the matter right, and from the noise they made one would have supposed that a legion of demons from the lower regions had broken loose. I cannot believe, after that experience, that such a crew would be a very effective one in a case of real danger. Be that as it may, it is absurd to have all this declamation about the right of British subjects to employment in this country. Suppose lascars or similar individuals were brought into the mills and factories of this country. Does any Member of this House imagine that the Government could allow employers of labour to import by the thousand such men into the mills of this country, driving out British workmen? The principle would remain the same; they would be British subjects; and there would be less cause of complaint inasmuch as the mills and factories are not subsidised by the Government. If such a thing was done you would very quickly have such a condition of things set up that no Government could possibly tolerate. We have had an opportunity of judging what the effect would be. Go to Australia or Natal —where we hear so much about equal rights, and where all the subjects of the Queen are supposed to be treated alike— and you will find that because this very thing has arisen, and these very lascars and Indians have been imported largely to work on the plantations and in the mills, the Australians and the people of Natal have passed stringent and severe laws to deal with the question. The popular opinion of this country would sweep out of existence any Government which remained idly by if the labour of this country were threatened to be placed upon the same terms in competition with foreigners as British sailors now are placed on board English ships. It is really absurd, because this thing has been allowed to go on under circum stances unparalleled in the history of this

  1419
  House in regard to the delays and obstruction placed in the path of my hon. friend in pursuit of this question by the Ministers of the Crown, and this obstruction has to be accounted for by some extraordinary circumstances. The impression does exist outside this House that the P. and O. Company is too influential a company, and undoubtedly there is an enormous occult influence which makes it almost impossible to compel the P. and O. Company to be subject to the same law as any other shipping company. I think the whole course and history of this question is a striking illustration of the necessity for the motion made by the hon. Member for South Donegal a few days ago in regard to the question of Ministers of the Crown acting as directors of public companies. I make no charge in this matter, but I say that before the opinion of the country, it is unfortunate that this company—which has been allowed by the Government for nine years to break the law of the land, and which the Government refuse to prosecute—should be allowed to carry on as no other company has been allowed to, and that a director of that company should be a member of the Government itself. Admitting that Lord Selborne has no influence in this matter, to say the least of it his presence an the Government, having regard to the history of this company, is not decent. After what has happened, for the sake of the Government itself, and in deference to the general public opinion of the country, Lord Selborne ought to make his choice. If he chooses to remain a director of the P. and O. Company, he ought not to remain a member of a Government who are shielding that company while it is breaking the law. Moreover, I do not think any man ought to join the office of a director of a company with that of a member of the Government from whom that very company receives enormous subsidies. I will conclude by saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who intervened in this debate two or three times when this Vote was under discussion before, set up the doctrine that the contract having been made the Government had no power, and all they could do was to enforce the terms of the contract. But that contract was made long after my hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough raised this question, and it was made in spite of the
  1420
  repeated questions of my hon. friend. The Government ought to have cleared their minds as to the law before making this contract. Admitting that they are bound by the contract, does the President of the Board of Trade desire us to conclude or imagine for a moment that if he had addressed a strong remonstrance to the P. and O. Company they would have dared to go on breaking the law? If he had done so it would have been impossible for the P. and O. Company to carry on these operations. The demand of my hon. friend is too moderate. It is confined to this—that the lascars should get equal accommodation to the British sailors. If my hon. friend had taken my advice he would have gone much further. The British sailor ought to got more protection, and he ought not to be subject to the unrestricted and free competition of men who will work for less than half his wages and live on half his food. If the employment of these lascar seamen is to go on unrestricted; if the Government of this country, while talking about the urgent necessity of increasing the number of British seamen in the mercantile marine, are going to allow thousands and tens of thousands of these inferior people, who are not under the evil influence of the paid agitator, and are therefore content to be fed on a little rice, to be employed on British ships; if the Government and this House are going to allow the British sailor to be subject to competition of labour of that class, then I say it is hypocrisy and humbug to get up and talk about your desire to have a fleet and mercantile marine composed of British sailors.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): On the last occasion when this matter came before the Committee I stated exactly what the position of the Government was upon this question. I stated then that we had, for some time past, been in doubt as to what the law was. To-night this question has been again raised in two aspects. Firstly, there is the general question as to the employment of lascars, and secondly there is the breach of the law. So far as the general question of the employment of lascars is concerned, I imagine that a general discussion would not be in order upon this motion, and I do not propose now to discuss that part of the question, because this is not the

  1421
  proper occasion to deal with the subject I will only say this, that it would be extremely unwise for the Government to take any steps by which the lascar sailors would be prevented from following this employment. It must be remembered that these lascars are just as much British subjects as the hon. Gentleman himself, and it would have a most unfortunate effect if it were to get abroad among the natives of India that when the British Government make contracts with the owners of steamers plying between India and this country we should make it a condition that lascar seamen should, not be employed, or should only be employed in the engine-room. That is a very important matter, and the Government would not be justified in taking any such step. The lascar seamen are sober, quiet, and industrious people, and although they are not as capable as the British sailors —I may mention that I believe at least two lascars are employed in place of one British seaman—and although they are not as strong, they are very capable of performing the work they are called upon to do in these steamers plying between India and this country. Much as I desire to see the employment of British sailors on British ships, I do not think it would be a justifiable act for the Government to make any condition demanding that the P. and O. Company should not employ lascars. No doubt the Committee are perfectly justified in calling attention to the fact that the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company are not acting in accordance with what we are now advised is the law. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said he did not make any charge, but he insinuated that the inaction of the Government was due to the fact that a colleague of mine was a director of the P. and O. Company. I do not propose to discuss the question as to whether that is right or wrong, but as the hon. Gentleman has made this insinuation I can say this conscientiously, that I had utterly forgotten that my colleague was a director of that company, and during the whole of these negotiations with the P. and O. Company it has been utterly absent from my mind that there was any such connection. Until it was brought to my attention the other night the fact had never before passed in my mind. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has also said that if the Govern-
  1422
  ment were to address a strong remonstrance to the company he is satisfied that it would have the desired effect. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the law has not been complied with it is not for the want of strong remonstrances. Until quite recently the Board of Trade were unable to say distinctly to the P. and O. Company that they were breaking the law, because it had not been established until recently to our satisfaction that the company had been breaking the law. We have on many occasions called the attention of the P. and O. Company to the fact that the space allowed in some of their steamers to lascar seamen was not the space allowed to British seamen, and that they were not acting in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act, although we were not then able to say that the company was actually committing a breach of the law. We have been in communication for some considerable time with the India Office and with the Indian Government upon the question of the advisability of taking in hand an amendment of their Shipping Act. The Merchant Shipping Act of India, as hon. Gentlemen probably know, does not allow the same amount of space for seamen as the British Act, and it is here that the difficulty arises. These lascars are shipped in India, and the difficulty arises whether or not the company are bound by the one Act or the other. The Law Officers of the Crown advise the Government that the English Merchant Shipping Act does apply, but they say that it is not incumbent upon the Board of Trade to prosecute, having regard to the Indian Act, and they are entitled to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. Nor is it true that the Board of Trade are the proper body to prosecute in a large number of cases where they have jurisdiction. The Board of Trade is not a properly constituted Board to prosecute. I do not say that there are not cases where we ought to prosecute, but we are under no obligation to prosecute even where the law has not been complied with. Anyone who is interested in this matter can take the P. and O. Company before a magistrate in the police court. It is an extremely simple thing to take out a summons, and if any- one would do that it would certainly settle the law on the question. The P. and O. Company deny that they are

  1423
  breaking the law, and they have denied it all along. Therefore anyone who will summon the P. and O. Company before a magistrate can have the question settled as to whether the law has been broken or not. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, has, upon many occasions, brought this matter before the House on more than one Vote, although I do not know that he has ever brought it forward before on this particular Vote. I do not know that I can add anything upon this question to the statement which I have already made. There are two ways in which an offending steamship company can be fined if they do not comply with the Merchant Shipping Act in regard to crew space. One way is taking them before the magistrate, and the other alternative course is, one would imagine, a strong and very effective course. There never was any doubt in our mind as to the taking of this alternative course of refusing to allow the usual deduction of the crew space from the tonnage of the vessel. In all these cases the P. and O. Company have already been heavily fined, and where they have not allowed the proper space for the seamen they have been penalised by not having the deduction for crew space allowed from the tonnage of the vessel, which, of course, involves the payment of heavier tonnage dues. It seems to be assumed in the discussion which has taken place that the P. and O. Company are offenders with regard to all their steamers, but that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough has again and again called my attention by means of questions; to the crew space of one steamer after another belonging to this particular company, and in nine cases out of ten brought forward by him the hon. Member has been wrong. In the tenth case the hon. Member has been right, but even there the difference between the space which the Merchant Shipping Act lays down and the space given by the P. and O. Company is extremely small. Of course, it is a reasonable argument that the P. and O. Company ought to give that little more space and get rid of this question.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind my correcting him on this point? Although the P. and O. Company have provided a certain number of cubic feet space, the
  1424
  right hon. Gentleman has admitted that they were only giving nine superficial feet instead of twelve feet.
  MR. RITCHIE: I had that in my mind while I was making my statement. There were a large number of cases to which the hon. Gentleman directed my attention where the proper cubic space was given, but there were others where it was not so. I agree with the statement which has been made that a company like the P. and O. Company ought to be beyond reproach, and I have made it known to them more than once, and in strong terms, that, in my opinion, they ought to give to their lascar sailors the space which the Merchant Shipping Act allows to British seamen. But I have gone further than this. I have informed the P. and O. Company some time ago, that, although the Board of Trade have been unwilling to prosecute, in the hope that our negotiations and the remonstrances which we were making would have the effect of inducing them to comply with the English law, there will come a time when I should consider it my duty to order a prosecution if the law is not complied with. The attention drawn to this matter to-night may perhaps bring the importance of this question to the notice of the company, and I hope that, in the end, we shall not have an annual recurrence of these complaints.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The admissions which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in this debate are of a very serious character. The right hon. Gentleman has told the House for the first time authoritatively that this company has been violating the law.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, no. Perhaps the hon. Member was not present during the whole of my statement. I have made that admission several times.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I was going on to say that the right hon. Gentleman had made this admission for the first time in this debate.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have stated it again and again in answer to questions, and the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that this is the first time I have mentioned it in this debate, for I mentioned it upon the last occasion when this matter was discussed.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am sorry I did not hear that statement, and it came as a great surprise to me that the right hon. Gentleman should make such an admission in regard to that company. The right hon. Gentleman says he has been addressing strong remonstrances to the company; he also says that the Government are in communication with the Indian Government to secure an extension of the Indian Act; and he has told us that, although hitherto it was not possible to institute a prosecution, nevertheless he has made up his mind that the time will probably come, and come soon, when he will be obliged to order a prosecution. All those admissions are a complete justification of the course taken by the hon. Members who on this occasion have raised this debate. So far as it goes, it is sufficient explanation of the position of the Board of Trade. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that things have come to such a pass that he must order a prosecution unless the company obey the law, and that is as much as can be expected of the Board of Trade, although, perhaps, that might have been done sooner. But this by no means exhausts the public questions involved in this debate. This is not a question merely for the Board of Trade. We are now dealing with a Post Office Vote, and we have yet to learn what is the position of the Post Office with reference to this question. It involves the question of what is to be the attitude of the State towards a company with whom the Government makes a contract, when that company breaks the law which the State has laid down for the government of that contract. That is a question upon which we ought to have some authoritative reply. It is not with me a mere question of prosecution, for that is a comparatively small matter in the history of this question. I want to know what the Government think they have a right to do in all cases where a contractor violates the law. I put that question the other night, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was here, and he gave me an answer which it was too late to reply to, but which seemed to me to be in the highest degree unsatisfactory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said practically, "What business is it of ours, if this company performs its service, and who can say that we ought not to pay the company for the service which it performs according to the contract?" That
  1426
  is not the question which was put and raised in this debate. This is not a mere matter of payment for services rendered under this continuous contract. I ask the House to consider what is the position of the Government with a continuous contract such as this, in the execution of which the other contracting party persistently violates the law which the House and the country have laid down. Pay them, if you like, for services rendered, but what about continuing the contract? Is it not one of the conditions of the contract that the other contracting party shall obey the law of the State with which he contracts?
  MR. HANBURY: No.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Secretary of the Treasury says it is not one of the conditions of the contract that you are entitled to insist upon the law being obeyed. If that is not a condition of the contract, then I say it ought to be made a condition. I am far from accepting the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, unless he says that he has been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown to the effect that a person who makes a contract with the State is entitled to insist upon a continuance of such contract if he refuses to obey the law of the State. If this is the state of the law, then it should be made a condition in all Government contracts that the other contracting party shall obey the law laid down by the State. That is a question affecting the Post Office, to which the interesting and candid speech of the President of the Board of Trade gives no answer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury will be able to give us a considered answer to this question, which I put this day week to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which I venture to put again now, for the question is one which I think is worthy of the consideration of the House.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: While I am in sympathy with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, I think he missed the important point that ought to be pressed on the Board of Trade and the Post Office. I have always felt strongly in this matter, and it was raised several times—I raised it myself—before the hon.

  1427
  Member came into this House. This is a great Imperial question. I am not so much concerned myself as to whether the law is broken or not as far as the lascars are concerned. I have been aboard a P. and O. steamer, and I am well aware that the accommodation provided for lascars is somewhat restricted, but I am equally well aware that the lascars are content with the accommodation given to them, and that it is in conformity with Indian law. That, I believe, is not contradicted. But, passing from that, I now come to deal with a more important question. I have always held that, while we realise that shipowners carry on their business in an honourable and straightforward manner, they should be allowed to man their ships as they like. When Parliament abolished the Navigation Laws it set shipowners free, and therefore we have no legal right, though we have a moral right, to complain. Shipowners in this age of competition run their ships in the cheapest possible manner, but, as a naval man, I think the Government have a duty to the State in this matter, and that when they are in a position to grant these enormous subsidies, they have a right, in the interests of the public, and of the maintenance of our sea power, to impose conditions such as have been alluded to. We know that those lascars have often cowered at danger, though on other occasions they have behaved uncommonly well. But I say it is bordering on a crime for a great sea Power like England to shut its eyes to the way these ships are manned. On Imperial grounds the Government should insist that every ship enjoying a subsidy from the Government should carry a certain proportion of British seamen. Foreign countries pay large subsidies and bounties, but they compel the shipping companies to carry a certain proportion of national seamen. We have allowed the whole thing to go by the board, and there I am dissatisfied with the President of the Board of Trade, because he knew the evidence given before the Manning Committee, which disclosed the evils and the dangers of the position. He is more responsible than any other member of the Government by not enforcing his power and using his influence with the Treasury. I am sure that the Secretary to the Treasury will not deny that he sympathises with my view in this matter.
  1428
  A distinguished officer, Sir Alfred Wright, urged me years ago to press this matter, as one of national importance, on the Government. I have, however, long felt that I can do nothing in pressing matters of this kind on the Board of Trade, but I have some hope yet that the Treasury may realise its responsibilities and refuse to pay these subsidies except on the condition that the company carries in its ships a certain proportion of British seamen. We want to maintain our sea power. Our mercantile marine is fast decaying, apprentices are becoming fewer, and 40,000 or 50,000 foreigners have displaced British born seamen in the mercantile service. Foreign seamen and lascars will not tight England's naval battles, and seamen cannot be made on shore. They must have sea experience. Therefore I say that this is a great Imperial question, and that it has not been handled as it deserves from my point of view. I feel very strongly upon it, and I hope that this discussion, although it has not dealt with the larger aspects of the question, will not be without some benefit. I shall not support the motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite. [Mr. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: Oh, oh!] You do not think I am going to vote against my own Government— but I will walk out and not vote, for I hold that the Government have neglected their duty in neglecting to make the employment of British seamen a condition of a mail contract.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman deplores that he has not been able to get the Government to do anything he suggests in connection with this matter—and other matters. He is surprised that the Government will not listen to him. I will tell him why. Let him not walk out when a division is called, but vote against the Government. Governments do not care about attacks from hon. Gentlemen who never vote against them. We on this side of the House, when we differ from a Government, even if it is our own Government vote against it. When we disapprove of the action of our own Government we are not like sheep led to the slaughter; we do not follow the example of the hon. and gallant admiral and run away. The advice I would give to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to hon. Gentlemen opposite is: If you want your Govern-

  1429
  ment to go on well, keep your eye on them, attack them when you think they are wrong, and if they will not yield join us in voting against them. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was one of the most remarkable I have ever heard in this House, certainly from any member of a Government whose business it is to see that the law is complied with. According to his view the Government may enter into a contract with some firm to provide any article of manufacture, and if the firm steals that article and hands it over to the Government all the Government would say would be, "We know the article is stolen, but we do not protest against it, and we will continue the contract."
  MR. RITCHIE: I said nothing approaching that.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am generalising from the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and, if he will excuse me saying so, I am not doing him any injustice in this generalisation. The Government have a contract with the P. and O. Company, and yet the right hon. Gentleman gets up and says that the company is violating the law. Why there is a general obligation on the part of all citizens to obey the law, and it is the duty of the Government to sec, particularly in transactions in which they are concerned, that the law is carried out. The P. and O. Company are violating the law in the most atrocious way, in an infinitely worse way than if they were robbers. They are committing practically murder. The law lays down that seamen shall have a certain number of cubic feet of air as an essential necessity, but this company, because it can get these lascars at 24s. a month instead of £4 10s., deprives them of the amount of air which the law says is absolutely necessary. That produces disease and shortens the lives of these unfortunate men, and yet the right hon. Gentleman says that is no business of ours. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the further remonstrances of the Board of Trade were not complied with, the time would come when the P. and O. Company would be prosecuted. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on having at last realised the situation. He has taken several years about it. I hope, when he says the
  1430
  time would come, that he remembers the remonstrances have already been made, and that we may expect within a very few months that either the company will yield the point or will be prosecuted. One other point I may mention. One of the members of the Government is a director of this particular company. I perfectly agree that Lord Selborne is quite an honourable man. I believe the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the Government were not influenced in their action by the fact that Lord Selborne is a director of the company. But the right hon. Gentleman now says that this company will be taken before a magistrate if it does not yield. Who will be taken before the magistrates? I presume the directors, and the right hon. Gentleman will find himself in the terrible position of having by his action put one of his brother members of the Government in the criminal dock. Is not that a reason why members of the Government should not be directors of companies, particularly where the interest of the companies are not always identical with the interests of the Government? It seems to me, after the debate and the expression of opinion we have had to-night, and especially in view of the terrible position in which the right hon. Gentleman may be placed by having to put a brother member of the Government in the dock, that it would be a graceful thing—and I am sure I am expressing the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite —if the member of the Government who is a director of the P. & O. Company would at once resign his directorship.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I expected that the Government must have committed some offence, owing to the very vigorous attack made on them. But what do we see? The President of the Board of Trade has abandoned position after position, until now he is in full flight with the whole of his commando with the exception of the hon. and gallant Admiral. That is really remarkable, because the position which the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned is the position of the Treasury. The diminution of the Vote in effect says this: "You, the Treasury, are paying a subsidy to the P. and O. Company, which is breaking the law. You must stop that subsidy; if not, we will stop it for you." I think it

  1431
  is a little unfortunate that the Postmaster General should not be in this House to answer for himself on an occasion like the present. I believe him to be a very capable Postmaster General. He has repented and joined the Government, though others who have not repented have also joined the Government. It does not seem to me to be quite reasonable that because the President of the Board of Trade has not enforced the law, the Treasury should, therefore, stop the subsidy to the P. and O. Hon. Members have assumed that the law has been broken. That has not yet been shown. What has been shown is that that is the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, or rather of the one Law Officer now left. I was told myself by the First Lord of the Treasury that the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown were not infallible. Neither are they. You cannot and must not assume that the law has been broken until a decision has been given by the courts.
  MR. DILLON: Why has it not been given before?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is not my business. I am not a member of Her Majesty's Government, and I cannot explain their inner secrets, but at any rate we cannot assume that the law has been broken until a decision has been given. It is the opinion of the surviving Law Officer of the Crown that the law has been broken, but really that has not yet been established. I myself am very much surprised at that opinion. As I read the Merchant Shipping Act it seems to me the law is not broken by employing lascars in an Oriental trade under Oriental shipping articles, and under Oriental conditions. But the Attorney General thinks the law is broken, and the advice I would give to the President of the Board of Trade would be to lose no time in bringing the matter to a proper test. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman opposite that his motion implies a vote of censure on the Postmaster General and the Secretary to the Treasury. Suppose it is proved that the law officer is mistaken, and that his view is incorrect. I do not know what the opinion of the P. and O. is.
  MR. RITCHIE: The P. and O. deny that they are breaking the law.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Quite two great legal authorities — the Attorney General on the one hand, and Lord Selborne on the other! Who is to decide between them? Nothing less than a court of law can decide between the actual and the hereditary lawyer. Meantime I would point out to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen that they are premature in assuming that what the P. and O. is doing is illegal. As to the merits of the question, I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that we should not do anything to prevent our Indian fellow subjects getting employment. They are British subjects, very poor and very much hindered in their work, and if they are satisfied with the conditions under which they are carried on board these ships I think it is very hard that they should be turned out. It is not a case of one lascar being replaced by one British sailor—it is a case of five or six lascars to one British sailor. I am always sorry to see lascars with their poor little arms and legs like pipe-stems taking the place of brawny British sailors. One of my reasons is that if you get into trouble you can place more reliance on one British sailor than on four or five or six lascars put together, though there have been occasions on which the lascars have behaved well. Hon. Gentlemen must feel the force of the argument I address to them, that we do not at present know with absolute certainty what the law on the matter is. But even if the law is as the right hon. Gentleman states, he is at present imposing a penalty which the law does not provide. What he says to the P. and O. is this: "I am not going to prosecute you for an offence, but I will penalise you in another way by not deducting the crew's space from the tonnage, thereby causing you to pay increased dues." Suppose this Vote is passed, the Secretary to the Treasury will have to go to his subordinate officer the Postmaster General and say: "You have got to withdraw £100 from the P. and O." Then the Postmaster General will say to the P. and O., "I have got to take £100 off the sum due to you, the reason being that the President of the Board of Trade has not done his duty in prosecuting you for offending against the law." It is quite clear that the Opposition have given the Government a great shake and that they are in full retreat. I have never heard of such a surrender as that

  1433
  made by the President of the Board of Trade, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will show mercy after their triumph. If this motion be carried—I will not say whether I will take refuge with the hon. and gallant Admiral, or be shot at in the open by voting against the Government —it will be a very extraordinary and illogical proceeding. On the other hand, if it is withdrawn I think the President of the Board of Trade has had such a lesson as will induce him to bring this matter to a legal decision in the shortest possible time, and also that the Secretary to the Treasury will exercise such pressure as will result in the improvement which is desired.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is mistaken in supposing that there is any desire on this side of the House to deprive lascar seamen of any fair opportunity of employment, but what we desire to enforce is that they should seek employment under the same conditions as British seamen. At present, I maintain, they are obtaining an unfair advantage, from the fact that the Government have allowed the P. and O. Company to infringe the law, at any rate in this country. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Admiral is much more serious than the country seems to realise. I do not know whether any figures have been given as regards the seamen employed on British vessels.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That subject would be quite beyond the discussion. The hon. Gentleman must limit himself to the P. and O. ships, because the reduction has been moved on that particular item.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I fully realise that, Sir. I am simply about to state the general figures and contrast them with figures relating to the P. and O. On the American liners and on the Union and Castle lines there are 90 per cent. of British seamen and on tramps 30 per cent., whereas on the P. and O. ships there are only 25 per cent. That is really a very serious matter, and when we have to depend on our seamen for the safety of this country, I think it ought to be taken more seriously into consideration. At the last general election I remember perfectly well Conservative and Unionist candidates raised the cry of British seamen for British vessels, but
  1434
  the Government have done nothing during the five years they have been in office in order to put that cry into effective operation. Here is an opportunity. It is not a question at all of prosecuting the P. and O. Company. The President of the Board of Trade admits that he has addressed remonstrances to the directors of the P. and O., and that he is advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that what the company is doing is illegal. It is not a question of prosecuting, but of whether the subsidy is to be continued. The practice may not be illegal in Indian waters, but surely it must be illegal in British waters. I do not think it will be contended that that is not the case. I ask the President of the Board of Trade how is it that no steps have been taken to prosecute these ships in British waters? We ought to have some answer also from the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Post Office as to what action he proposes to take in regard to these subsidies and the conditions of the law.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: The substantial question is whether the lascars ought to have the same allowance of air space as British seamen. That does not at all affect the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne. I should have thought that the arguments of the hon. Members for the Scotland Division in regard to the necessity of giving the same amount of air space to lascars as to British seamen were unanswerable. I agree with my hon. friend below me on the Imperial importance of the question of the supply of seamen, but I attach more importance to the question of justice between the lascars and the company. In the event of this country being engaged in war I very much doubt whether we should find any considerable flow of seamen to the Royal Navy from the great lines of steamers. Be that us it may, I quite agree that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in the efforts he has made for a good many years in urging the provision of adequate air space for lascar seamen has raised a question of real importance and of real justice, which my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Postmaster General ought to take into consideration before new contracts are entered into. I think my right hon. friend the Secretary

  1435
  to the Treasury ought to give some reply to that definite question since the Post Office is concerned in the contracts.
  MR. WEIR: This is a question of much wider importance than the employment of lascars by the P. and O. Company; although I do not consider that lascars should not have justice. This company, which is largely subsidised by the money of the British taxpayer, should engage English, Scotch, and Irish sailors for all deck work, and let the lascars go below and be engaged in the stoke-room. I should like to know whether there are no labour conditions in these contracts. If there are none, there ought to be. Who was the Minister who drew up the contracts? I should think he is not worth his salt if he drew up a contract of this kind without inserting labour conditions. We have the British flag now flying from Cape Town to the Zambesi, and in that great stretch of continent we have hundreds of thousands of Matabeles, Bechuanas, Swazis, Mashonas, and Zulus. These men work for 4d. per day; they are big, strong, powerful fellows, who will do double the work of the lascars, and what will the President of the Board of Trade do with the lascars when the P. and O. Company engage two or three thousand of these South African natives? Are there any provisions in the contracts against sweating? It appears to me there are none; and that the P. and O. Company may, if they like, carry on sweating of the most severe order. The right hon. Gentleman says that he sends in strong remonstrances to the company. Can he not go further than remonstrances? Are there no money penalties? I cannot find any, if there are, in the Appropriation Accounts. I think it is altogether wrong that a Minister of the Crown should do this act of injustice. I make no charge against Lord Selborne, but a Minister of the Crown should not be a director of a company which is doing wrong. He might influence his colleagues to be merciful to the wrong-doing company. It is said that there are no complaints from the lascars. Of course there are no complaints; there is no organisation amongst them. If there was a powerful organisation the P. and O. Company would not dare to take such liberties with them, paying them half the money they give to British
  1436
  seamen, and feeding them on the commonest food. I would advise my hon. friend to accept the pledges of the President of the Board of Trade, and not go to a division. I quite agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne said as to the decay of the mercantile marine. In the fishing industry in Scotland the number of men engaged has during the past few years diminished 45 per cent. It is no use saying that British seamen cannot be had, when by your laws and administration you are driving them into the towns.
  MR. HANBURY: I shall confine myself in the observations I have to make to the direct interest the Post Office has in the matter. The contract with the P. and O. Company runs up to the year 1905, and therefore we have really to consider what we have to do during that very considerable period. The discussion has embraced two rather different subjects. One was raised by my hon. and gallant friend below the gangway, who objects to any considerable number of lascars being employed at all.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I have no objection whatever to the employment of lascars,. within limits. I only say there should be a definite proportion of British seamen.
  MR. HANBURY: My hon. and gallant friend knows, of course, that there is a certain proportion of British seamen engaged on all these boats; but we must recollect the fact that, after all, these lascars are British subjects, and that they may fairly claim some right, at any rate, to a place on British ships. However, that question cannot arise during the existence of the present contract; but it is a subject I am quite prepared to take into consideration when a new contract is signed. As to the other point, namely, the legality of the conditions under which the lascars serve, I do not know that I have anything whatever to add to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening, when he said that so long as the P. and 0. Company carry out the conditions of the contract we have no right whatever to withhold payment of the subsidy.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the fair wage clause one of these conditions?
  MR. HANBURY: The point that is raised is the area of air space, and the fair wage clause does not cover that point. The fair wage clause, as far as I understand, only applies to payment, and the question now raised is the amount of cubic air space allowed to these men.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I understand that in all contracts the contractor must give a guarantee that he will give fair conditions of labour, and therefore that ought to apply to the question of wages.
  MR. HANBURY: I believe that the Indian law applies to these lascars, and so I take it that the rate of wages current in India will be the proper rate of wages to pay them.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Are the contracts made in India?
  MR. HANBURY: The whole point is whether the Indian or the English law, and the Indian or the English rate of wages, should apply to these men coming as they do from India. I think there can be no doubt that the rate of wages for these men is the rate current in India. We come now to the legal point as to the cubic air space allowed. As I have said, so long as this company carry out the terms of the contract, we are bound to carry out our side of the contract. The public inconvenience that would result from putting an end to the contract would be enormous, and no one suggests that we should take any step of that kind. Our position is this, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, we are bound to carry out our portion of the contract so long as the P. and O. Company carry out theirs. It is said that there ought to be a general clause put in the contract, which would be most unusual, that the company should obey the law in all respects. Well, that is assumed; but, as my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn stated, the law is not yet settled. The Department has only obtained the opinion of the law officers; but until a case has been taken into court and decided by a judicial judgment we have no right to take any step in this matter. If we did before such a decision is given we should be placing ourselves in an absurd position.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am rather sorry at the speech which the right hon.
  1438
  Gentleman has just made, because it takes away from the effect of the speech of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade. However, I will be satisfied with what the latter right hon. Gentleman has said, because, as was remarked by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, it practically surrenders the point made in my motion. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question put, and agreed to.
  3. £2,220,330, to complete the sum for Post Office Telegraphs.
  MR. CALDWELL: I wish to draw attention to the question of underground telegraph wires in the north of England and south of Scotland. In times of storms the north of England and south of Scotland are frequently without any telegraphic communication whatever. Of course that is a very serious matter, because a great many business transactions depend upon telegraphic communication from day to day and hour to hour, and great loss is thereby incurred by the business community. Now, what is the remedy? Overhead wires are liable to interruption during storms, and underground wires should be laid to be used in cases of emergency, so that certain communication could be kept up during storms. I believe that an underground system of wires has been adopted very extensively abroad, and has been found to work well. No doubt underground wires are not so profitable nor so efficient, in working as overhead wires in ordinary weather, but an underground wire would be better than no wire at all.
  MR. HANBURY: As the hon. Member knows, the only underground wires laid at the present moment run between London and Birmingham. They were so laid because that is the course which the principal storms follow, and why we chose that line first for making the experiment. It is an experiment, because both telephone and telegraph wires are laid in the same tube, and there was some doubt as to whether the telephone service could be carried on effectually with such long underground wires. If the experiment is successful, the Post Office would probably extend the underground service in other directions, and probably up to the North. The

  1439
  facilities for insulating wires are now greater than they used to be, and more economical. Brown paper, it has been found, is as good as indiarubber, and cheaper, and also lasts much longer; and therefore it is probable that the underground system will be used in the future.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: The first question to which I wish to call attention is purely local. It has been dealt with in correspondence over and over again, and nothing has been done, so that I venture to call the attention of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to it. All round the coast of Devonshire the telephonic communication goes well as a rule, but in several places there are serious defects. At one most important point whore there are two lifeboats the wire goes through the post office, and consequently during the time the post office is shut there may be serious interruption to communication. Then on the other side of the Bay the line passes more than a mile away from the coastguard outlook. In both these cases great delay may take place, when every half hour is of importance in a question of saving life. I ask for a communication to be made to the coastguard outlook, because in this particular district we have special dangers to contend with, seeing the vast amount of traffic which passes up and down the Bristol Channel. The lifeboat is on one side of the estuary, the crew on the other side, and the horses necessary for launching the boat are two or three miles inland. Now, when you have the coastguard outlook more than a mile from the point of communication there is considerable loss of time in giving warning and turning out the lifeboat.
  MR. WEIR: I rise to a point of order. The hon. Member is speaking on coastal telephonic communication. I desire to make some observations on No. 1 Vote, and if the hon. Member moves the reduction of which he has given notice I will not be able to go on.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Barnstaple has given notice to move a reduction on the Vote, and he is now in possession of the House. If the hon. Member for Barnstaple does not move that reduction it will be open to the hon.
  1440
  Member for Ross and Cromarty to raise any point he pleases.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I will not move the reduction. It is a matter of great urgency to make this additional communication which we have been promised for more than a year. There is another point as to the service of the telephone. The telephone wires, in most eases, are run into the houses of the coastguard, and as long as they are on duty the service is admirably performed. But a considerable number of the coastguard have been mobilised, and the result is that the telephone might be at any moment without attendance, and in the event of a storm practically useless. I asked a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty on this subject, and he said that, so far as regards war, the service of the telephones was arranged for. But these telephones were put up mainly for times of peace, and we might from oversight find them entirely useless at a moment of great emergency. I understand that communications have been made between the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, and the Post Office, but I have not heard of any determination being come to. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure me that proper arrangements will be made for the service of the telephones when the coastguard are mobilised. Another question is as to the use of the telephones for thy purpose of surprise practices of the lifeboats. I have no doubt that in most parts of the country there is no necessity for the use of telephones, because the crews are not widely scattered, and can be called together by means of rockets. But I would again remark that we have a lifeboat on one side of the estuary, the crew on the other side, and the horses inland, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that all these men cannot be communicated with quickly so long as there is this defect in the whole telephonic arrangements. It is for that reason that I have pressed the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Lifeboat Committee to use telephonic communication. I think this question has been pressed upon him also by the National Lifeboat Institution. It is no use arranging a surprise practice a long time before, because everybody knows it is to be and everything is ready. The great object is that it shall be a surprise,

  1441
  and that cannot be unless the Committee is allowed to have once or twice a year the use of the telephones. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some satisfactory reply to these three points.
  MR. WEIRdesired to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would consider the desirability of providing some further facilities for telegraphic communication in the remote parts of Scotland. He pointed out that at the present time district councillors and parish councillors in these remote districts had to provide guarantees, otherwise the postal authorities refused to put up the telegraph. He thought that the Post Office might do something to aid the district and parish councillors of these congested districts, and not leave the whole burden of instituting and guaranteeing an income from these lines upon them. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give some attention to this matter. Referring to the question of rates on telegraphs, he suggested that the accounts in future should show that item apart from telegraph stores depot. He thought the present mode of keeping accounts was unsatisfactory, and that it would be more satisfactory to separate the items. He also called attention to the fact that £90,000 was paid to the railways in connection with the wires which run down the line, and expressed a doubt as to whether the public got full value for that money, and asked whether it would not be wise for the Post Office to take the management of those wires into their own hands. He was glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give his attention to the subject of, as far as possible, having telegraph and telephone wires underground instead of overhead. He complained of the priority given to railway messages over those of the public on those lines which run down the railways, where the telegraph office was in the railway station instead of in the post office in the village. It frequently happened that public messages were considerably delayed owing to railway messages and those of the clerks employed by the railway who frequently used the telegraph for the purpose of making appointments with their friends for the evening—taking precedence of public messages. He thought that the public messages ought to have precedence. In
  1442
  his opinion the railway companies had too many privileges, and that particular one ought to be taken away. He urged the importance of checking the number of messages sent by the employees or the companies themselves on their own business. A very large sum of money was expended on the wires of the railway companies, and it was only proper that the public should be attended to first. Another reason for the delay of messages sent over the companies' wives was the fact that where the telegraph office was at the railway station the porter delivered them. He did not deliver them at once, but only when he was free, and when the message arrived he might be engaged in shunting operations or might have to wait in order to attend the train which was coming in, and in that way great delay was caused. He thought that if the telegraph office was removed to the post office in the neighbourhood it would be a very great improvement. With regard to the sum paid to the railway companies as remuneration for the management of public business over their lines, £74,000, he noticed that there was an increase of £2,500. He did not think they managed the public business in a satisfactory manner, and in many cases considerable delay took place, which the Post Office ought not to permit. £74,000 was a very largo amount, and he would like to know under the circumstances what the nature of the contracts between the Government and the railway companies was. Were they terminable contracts? If they were, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would terminate them at once. With regard to the staff at the Central Telegraph Office in London, he pointed out that there were hundreds of young men and young women engaged at that office day and night, and that the facilities allowed them for getting their mid-day meal were extremely unsatisfactory. The rooms were overcrowded and the ventilation defective, and in his opinion the whole place required the inspection of a sanitary officer. He did not expect the Government to provide such accommodation for telegraphists as was provided in the House of Commons for the Members, but he did ask the right hon. Gentleman to take such means as to provide that the rooms which these young people had should be sufficiently large and well ventilated for their requirements, and that the sanitary

  1443
  arrangements should be made as perfect as possible. He had no intention of moving a reduction of the Vote, but at the same time he considered it was only right to call attention to these matters, and he did so in the hope that some measures would be taken in the directions which he suggested.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that there was one fact with regard to the account to which he desired to draw attention, and that was the omission of a sum of £400,000 which was paid to the cable companies, and which one would have imagined ought to have appeared in the accounts now before the House. It appeared in the finance account, under the head of Telegraphs, at page 23. It was not an appropriation-in-aid, and he wished to know whether he was right in assuming that it was the share of the cable company of the receipts of the telegrams which passed over their cables; if that was so, it should appear somewhere in the accounts then before the House.
  MR. HANBURY: I am not quite sure that it ought to appear in the finance account, but I am quite sure that it ought to appear in that of the Post Office, because it represents payments for telegrams sent by submarine cable, and those amounts are received at the Post Office, but in that case the Post Office is a mere receiver for the companies. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member opposite, I gathered that the first subject discussed was the extension of telegraphic facilities in the Highlands of Scotland, and an appeal for a telegraphic system without a guarantee. I sympathise a great deal with the hon. Gentleman, but at the same time I think it only right to remind him that in the last two or three years we have done a great deal in that direction, not only with regard to telegraphic but also with regard to postal facilities, and even on the question of guarantees the hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the guarantee is much less now than it used to be. Three years ago the whole of the deficiency had to be made good by the guarantors so long as that deficiency existed. That is now all altered, and the guarantee has only to be given for seven years and for only half the deficiency, the Government bearing the loss of the re-
  1444
  mainder. In addition to that there is the further fact that the area over which the delivery of telegrams is free has been greatly extended, and that relieves some of the grievance. But of all the counties, the district to which most facilities have been given, the Highlands have been most favoured. As the hon. Member knows, we have treated the highlands exceptionally, and have given more facilities there than we have given to any other part of the country.
  MR. WEIRsaid he fully appreciated what had been done, but so much neglect had been experienced in the past that he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to do something further.
  MR. HANBURY: I fully appreciate the appeal ad misericordiam, but at the same time I think the Highlands have had their full share of our benevolence up to the present moment. The hon. Gentleman then complained of the amount paid for the wires running along the railroad. That may be due to two causes. It may be that the railway companies do their work more expensively, but in any case it is quite clear that we could not undertake the maintenance of the wires running over their lines. I do not think the proportion we pay for maintenance is at all too large. He also asked me whether at the telegraph offices at the railway stations the railway companies gave proper facilities to the public. I have not received any complaints that they do not give proper facilities, or that they give undue preference to their own messages, but if the hon. Member will give me a case where that has occurred I shall be glad to look into it. But, as at present advised, I think his remarks are only the outcome of a general suspicion on his part, which has no firm basis in fact. He also raised the question of the delivery of telegrams from these offices, and I quite agree that it would be better, as a rule, to have a postal telegraph office, instead of a railway office; but the companies are under exactly the same conditions as the postmasters, and if they are within reach of messengers whom they can employ, they are expected to deliver with the same rapidity as the postmaster, but the railway station is sometimes remote, and it is difficult to find a messenger, porters not always being able to be spared. Coming to

  1445
  the points of the Member for Barn-staple, two of the questions he raised are questions which concern the Board of Trade or Admiralty rather than the Post-office. The first point he raised was telegraphic communication with the coast- guard, in regard to which I understood him to say the Board of Trade had given a distinct promise that his wishes should be carried out.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: The Postmaster General also promised as soon as funds were available he would deal with this matter. It is quite true that I extracted a promise from the Board of Trade, but the Postmaster General promised as well.
  MR. HANBURY: The promises made by the Postmaster General and by the President of the Board of Trade shall be carried out. With regard to telephonic communication between the coastguard stations in connection with lifeboat surprise practice. I quite see the point of my right hon. friend, and I will consult the Admiralty upon the subject, and see if this matter can be remedied. The difficulty of the Post Office in the matter is that there is a fear if it is used for this purpose there may be a danger of crying "wolf" too often, with the result that the men would not respond in the way that they should; but if my hon. friend has gone into the whole question and understands the matter of the lifeboat service, I shall be glad to discuss it with him. At the same time that is the fear of the Post Office.
  SIR CAMERON GULLsaid he happened to be the president of the Lifeboat Committee in North Devonshire, and he could only say that there was urgent need for the permission that he asked for in order that they might be able to communicate over a considerable distance with the crews.
  MR. CALDWELLthought the answer about the underground telegraph wires altogether unsatisfactory. It might take two or three years to provide the service.
  MR. HANBURY: Oh, no, no. It will only take two or three months to find out whether the system works properly.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid there would be improvements suggested by the actual
  1446
  working, and the Post Office might go on postponing the extension of the system indefinitely. It was only in time of crisis that the underground system was of very much practical value. It would be of very great advantage to the people, and the cost would not be great. He hoped the Post Office would begin to extend the system to the North of England and also to Scotland. The loss was very great to the people of Scotland through the interruption of telegraphic communication on account of storms. They had been as long as seven days without telegraphic communication. Therefore the extension of the underground system should not be delayed.
  Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,036, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England arid Wales."
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. TANNER, Cork Co., Mid). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I understand that a right hon. Member on the Front Opposition bench desires to offer some remarks upon this Vote, but he is engaged in public business elsewhere at the present moment. I therefore beg to move that the motion be withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  4. £25,774 to complete the sum for Civil Service Commission.
  MR. CALDWELL: I have a motion on the paper for a reduction of this Vote, but probably it will not be necessary to move it. It is a rule of the Civil Service that none of its members should engage in anything of a political character, and it so happens that the greatest offender against that rule is the head of the Civil Service Commission himself. I have brought the matter under the notice of

  1447
  the First Lord of the Treasury* in reference to certain letters of a highly controversial political character which have appeared in The Times, and the answer I obtained was a reference to the rule of the Civil Service that such things should be avoided, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that Civil servants would observe that rule both in the spirit and in the letter. There was nothing wanting in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as concerned the rule and the spirit in which that rule should be observed. My only reason for referring to the matter on the present occasion is that we are now face to face with the salary of the official in question, and I wish to know whether the matter has been brought under his individual notice, and whether there has been any undertaking on his part that for the future he will observe the rule, as the First Lord of the Treasury said, both in the spirit and in the letter. We on this side of the House do not attribute the slightest importance to this gentleman's criticisms as criticisms; I do not wish him to suppose that his criticisms were of such a character as to be in any way felt on this side of the House. The feeling is nothing of that kind; it is that when there is a rule of this kind which is being enforced on those in inferior positions in the Civil Service we ought to take care that it is enforced on the man at the head. I hope therefore we will have an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that the matter has been brought under this gentleman's notice, that he is prepared to act in the manner described by the First Lord of the Treasury, and that the rule in future, so far as he individually is concerned, will be observed both in the spirit and in the letter.
  MR. HANBURY: So far from having read these letters, not only have I not read them, but until I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech I did not know that any such letters had been written. But I quite agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member, and it seems that the First Lord of the Treasury was also generally in accord with his views. No doubt it is very important that a Civil Service which works in co-operation with whatever party is in office, and docs its work so
  * See page 425 of this volume.
  1448
  admirably as our Civil Service does, should keep itself as far as possible—and that is altogether—apart from party strife and party discussions. I do not in the least know what was in these letters, but the First Lord of the Treasury seems to have read them, and to have considered that the rule of the service ought to be-carried out both in the letter and in the spirit, and apparently these letters transgressed that rule. I think the rule is one which ought to be maintained, so that both parties should feel thoroughly in sympathy with the Civil Service. The hon. Member is entirely mistaken in saying Mr. Court-hope is at the head of the Civil Service, but still, whether he be at the head or at the bottom, whatever his position, the rule ought to be observed.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Having had the advantage of reading some of the letters to which reference has been made, I am bound to say the hon. Member was perfectly justified in calling the attention of the House, both now and on a previous occasion, by question to the matter. It is true the writer of the letters is not the head of the Civil Service, but he is the head of the Civil Service Commission, and performs a very important function in regard to the regulation of the rest of the Civil Service, at any rate at the early portions of that service. If any member of the Civil Service more than another was bound by the rules I should say it was the head of the Civil Service Commission. I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as being in itself entirely and perfectly satisfactory as to what the rule is and as to his intention, at all events, as far as he is concerned, of causing the rule to be obeyed. Possibly the reason why his attention was not called to the matter was that the communications appeared not as the letters of the head of the Civil Service Commission, but, by a kind of subterfuge not very creditable to the organ in which they appeared, the letters were put forward as the contributions made to that paper by the Professor of Poetry at Oxford. With the Professor of Poetry at Oxford this Committee has nothing whatever to do, nor do I believe it would be very much interested in the personal aspect of the question, but that it so happens that the Professor of Poetry at

  1449
  Oxford is at the same time the head of the Civil Service Commission. I gather from the most recent letter from this gentleman that it is to be his last. That letter followed the question which my hon. friend addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury. Whether or not the intention of the writer to conclude the series of letters was caused by that question I do not know, but at all events the gentleman has ceased his endeavours to enlighten the public on the question to which these letters were devoted, and the matter may very well rest there. I am one of those who believe that the permanent Civil Service of this country is the best in the world. I believe, also, that the worst Civil Service in the world is that of the United States, where all the men are partisans, where from the moment of their entrance into office until the time they leave it they are party men. The result is that the Civil Service changes with each Administration to an extent which is simply scandalous, and which is destructive of all efficient administration. If we have been saved from that calamity, it is because our Civil servants have been faithful and loyal, that they are the servants of both parties or of no party, and that they are not allowed to take any opportunity of expressing their views upon matters of party or political controversy. The only thing I would add is that now the rule has been obviously broken it ought to be made publicly known. I asked the First Lord of the Treasury the other day where the rule laid down by the Treasury was to be found, and he gave me a reference to a Treasury minute, dated 1884, which he said appeared as a Parliamentary Paper. My object was that if this minute had not appeared as a Parliamentary Paper it should be laid upon the Table of the House at once. I have had the assistance of the officials in the Library, but neither they nor I can discover any Parliamentary Paper containing any such minute. The matter is of such importance for the purity and efficiency of the service, of which hitherto we have all been proud, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will promise that the minute or minutes shall de novo be laid upon the Table as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The attack with regard to these letters of Professor
  1450
  Courthope is a desperate and last attempt to prove what is not a fact, namely, that there exists an Opposition. That miserable assembly on the other side of the House may be excused for catching at any straw and trying to make out to the House that it still exists. It is not aware that it is dead, but goes on jabbering in ghostly fashion as though it was alive. But certainly it would require something more than an attack on Professor Courthope to persuade the public that it really is still in existence. What is the cause of complaint? I understand the Professor wrote to a newspaper. This House exists, but newspapers exist merely in the minds of those who read them. It is notorious that everybody listens to the speeches in this House; those speeches are always fully reported and always fully read by the public. But when a Professor writes to the newspapers the case is entirely different. Nobody reads his letters; or if they do, they remember that he is neither an actor, nor a politician, nor a man of business, but a Professor, whose business it is to profess. But he is absolutely incapable of acting, or of pursuing any policy, or of carrying out any plan. Consequently, these letters of a Professor are nothing except so many lines of print, which nobody will read or pay any attention to, and I am surprised that a member of the Front Bench opposite should be so foolish as to seize on a case like this in order to engage in an entirely hopeless attempt to prove that he and the Opposition still exist.
  MR. CALDWELL: I quite accept the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury, and also the general reply of the Secretary to the Treasury, but I think they ought to go a little further. The matter should be brought under the personal notice of the writer of the letters, and I hope before the Report stage of this Vote that will be done, so that he may know that his conduct has been under consideration, and that, owing to the pledge practically given in this House, we abstained from moving, at this stage, at any rate, a reduction.
  MR. WEIRcalled attention to the position of boy copyists. These lads were engaged at sixteen years of age, and at twenty they were dismissed. They had to pay an entrance examination fee of

  1451
  10s., and a medical examination fee of a similar amount. These were very large sums for boys receiving salaries of 12s. per week to have to pay. But the hardest part of all was that at twenty years of age they should be thrown out on the world to earn a living as best they could. He suggested that a smaller number should be employed, the entrance examination fee abolished, and the medical examination fee reduced to, say, 2s. 6d.
  MR. HANBURY: If the suggestion of the hon. Member were carried out we should have a very much greater difficulty than that which is complained of now, because the alternative to boy copyists is men copyists, and one of the greatest difficulties the Commission had to deal with was the question of men copyists. If you have men doing this class of work— which, of course, is material work, but inferior to anything done by the lower grades of the second division—it leads to work being given to the men of a higher class than that corresponding to the pay they receive. It was found when we had men copyists that they were undoubtedly set to do work which ought to be remunerated by the wages of certain of the higher grades, and the creation of boy copyists and the abolition of men copyists was entirely due to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. No doubt it is in some respects a hardship that these boys should retire at the age of twenty, but it is a much better system than that they should grow up into the old class of men copyists. After all, it must be remembered that these toys have a chance of competing for the second division of the Civil Service, and many of them do compete and enter the service, and this is a very good training for them. There are a great many advantages in this system, although there certainly are hard cases when boys retire at twenty and do not go in for the permanent service, but as a rule I believe the boys do enter the competition and join the permanent Civil Service. As to the question of fees, I am not quite certain whether the medical fee has to be paid a second time when they enter for the second division; I think not, but I will look into the question.
  DR. TANNERcould not understand why there should be any
  1452
  objection to the medical fee, as it was in the interest of the State and all concerned that these servants should be in good health and proper condition.
  Resolution agreed to.
  5. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £38,691, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 81st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General."
  MR. CALDWELLthought there should be a better equalisation of the conditions of employment in the Civil Service. The only other matter he desired to refer to was the salary of the chief clerk, who was in receipt of £1,000 a year for acting as chief clerk to that Department. He did not say that the salary was too much for the work that had to be performed, for that was not his point. In addition to this £1,000 per annum this official also got £450 a year as auditor for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In both those offices he had to perform most important duties. He thought the chief clerk should devote his whole time to that office, and. he should not have any other interest outside that work so far as the Civil Service was concerned. He did not think that one man could discharge the duties of both those positions satisfactorily, and: two such important posts should not be combined in one man. Unless he was given some assurance that some other arrangement would be made, it would be necessary for him to propose a reduction of the Vote in order to protest against these two important offices being, held by one man.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the officer alluded to by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, and all his staff, were really servants of the House, and he-thought they ought to be especially tender towards that official. With regard to the plurality complained of, if £450 was a proper remuneration for the extra work done by this clerk, he did not think there was any incompatibility in it. This was not a ease which he should properly call an instance of plurality of offices. He thought it was quite proper that this clerk should do both duties, for he

  1453
  did not believe anybody else would do the work as well. This clerk had to pay for his own clerical assistance, and therefore he did not think he was paid too much, and he hoped his hon. friend would not move a reduction. He wished to have some explanation in regard to an item of £10 for auditing the accounts of the Crown agents abroad. They had had considerable difficulty in finding out what the salaries of Crown agents amounted to. They had a permanent fund which had been allowed to accumulate, and last year it amounted to over £33,000. What it amounted to this year he did not know, but he desired to be informed if the audit to which he had alluded extended to this accumulated fund. There was also £3,000 a year paid for premiums on life insurance, and he wished to know if the audit of that fund was included in the £10, and did it also include the whole of the expenditure over which the Crown agents had control. If it did in the case of the Uganda railway it would amount to £1,500,000. He believed there was a separate audit provided for in the Uganda Railway Act, and that that money came within the ordinary business of the Exchequer and Audit Department. The sum charged was so extremely small that they might assume that the work was also small. He should like to see the whole matter investigated in reference to the grants to Crown agents, especially with regard to the Uganda Railway. It seemed to him, in regard to this item of £10, that either the audit was a very inadequate one or else it extended only to some very small expenditure of the Crown agents.
  MR. WEIRsaid the Committee must not lose sight of the fact that the chief clerk received £450 a year over and above his £1.000 for the duties of chief clerk. He did not complain about the amount, but the hon. member for King's Lynn had stated that out of this £450 this clerk had to find the necessary clerical assistance. That was the very thing he objected to, for it opened the door to sweating. How much did the clerk he employed receive? Perhaps about £50 a year was paid for clerical assistance, and then the £400 would go to this gentleman. He strongly objected to the dual system, and the gentleman who was paid £1,000 a year should attend
  1454
  to the duties of one office alone. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had stated that this official was the most competent to do the job, but on the same principle he might audit the accounts of a dozen different departments. He was very pleased to hear that his hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark was going to move a reduction.
  MR. HANBURY: I am not surprised at the hon. Member for King's Lynn wishing to pursue his investigations into the case of the Crown agents. I only wish I was able to assist him to-night by more knowledge on this point, but I do not quite know how far this audit extends.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the year 1860 it was decided that the audit of the accounts of the Crown agents should cease.
  MR. HANBURY: I shall be very glad to look into this matter, and if the hon. Member will raise it again upon the Report stage perhaps I shall then be able to give him a satisfactory answer. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member opposite, in principle I confess, that I agree with him, for I do not like to see these dual offices. But I think there is a great deal in what has been said by my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, that there is less objection to dual offices when the work done is exactly of the same character. We have instances of this in the Treasury itself, and an auditor is an exception to the general rule. I do not know how it comes about that this chief clerk receives his £450 direct, instead of it being treated as an appropriation in aid, as happens in the case of the other officers mentioned on the Vote. The reason may be that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is not so essentially a Government office as the other offices mentioned, the payments to which are treated as appropriations in aid. At any rate, it is impossible for us to do anything during the life of the existing chief clerk. I should think that in view of the fact that the chief clerk holds this additional office, we are paying him a smaller salary, so far as the duties of the chief clerk are concerned. I quite admit that a good case ought to be made out before it is decided

  1455
  to keep up an office of this kind, and although we cannot very well move in the matter during the life of the present holder of the office, in case of a vacancy the objection raised by the hon. Member opposite might very well be considered.
  MR. CALDWELL: I quite recognise the spirit of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, and so far as the present holder of the office is concerned that difficulty will continue to crop up. I do not, however, agree that because the work is of the same character you should combine the two offices. It really makes no difference whether the work is of the same nature or not. It is simply a question of a man devoting himself entirely to the service of the State in one position without any conflicting interest. When a vacancy occurs in this post I hope the matter will be considered.
  MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman has not given us any information as to what the chief clerk pays for his clerical assistance. I object to the system of letting out work, for it opens the door to sweating. We ought to know exactly what amount of clerical assistance he gets, and how it is paid for. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance on this point, and that he will in future state in the Estimates what
  is paid for this assistance. If I do not get this information I shall be under the painful necessity of moving a reduction of this Vote.
  MR. HANBURY: This £450 is not charged on the Vote. It is paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it does not come out of the Vote at all. Therefore the hon. Member is somewhat unreasonable in demanding full details of the way in which it is expended. I cannot undertake to do anything at all in the matter.
  MR. WEIR: This is a Government servant who is allowed to go and do outside work. We know he has to provide his own clerical assistance, and what I want to get at is whether or not he is a sweater, and whether he pays a fair wage. It is no answer to tell us that it is outside this Vote, and that the taxpayer does not provide the money. This gentleman is a Government servant, and he ought to be kept for the purpose of doing Government work. As a protest I beg to move a reduction of this Vote by £250.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £250, in respect of the salary of the Chief Clerk."—(Mr. Weir.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 33; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 120.)

  AYES.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Holland, William Henry

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Souttar, Robinson

  Caldwell, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Strachey, Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Crae, George

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Duckworth, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woods, Samuel

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Goddard. Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Weir and Mr. Stead-man.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Hogan, James Francis

  Reckitt, Harold James

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Fry, Lewis

  Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Curzon, Viscount

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

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

  Doughty, George

  Graham Henry Robert

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bethell, Commander

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Win, Hart

  Gull. Sir Cameron

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Faber, George Denison

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Finch, George H.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Hozier, H on James Henry Cecil

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J.H.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn Horace Curzon

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham, George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sandon, Viscount

  M'Killop, James

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  6. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,197, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."
  MR. WOODS: I rise for the purpose of moving the reduction of this Vote by £100. I regret that it should have fallen to my lot to be the first to make complaint in this House as to administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. That Act gave to the Registrar of Friendly Societies certain powers to certify schemes whereby workmen could be made to contract out of the Act. For my own part, I never could see the philosophy of making an Act of Parliament with one hand and then giving power to contract out with the other, or the necessity for the contracting out clause in this Act. Certainly the two years experience we have had of the Act has justified to a great extent the expectations which many hon. Members had regarding the effect of that clause. The Return of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, issued twelve months ago, shows that of the hundreds of thousands of workmen affected by this Act not more than sixty collieries, factories, and other works have taken advantage of the contracting-out clause. I am not going to say that some of the schemes which were certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies were not mutual schemes, and that in some cases the advantages under the schemes did not exceed the advantages under the Act itself. It is, however, my intention to-night to raise the question of
  1458
  the schemes which were certified by the Registrar General in connection with Messrs. Andrew Knowles's Pendlebury Colliery, near Manchester, and five collieries in the Cannock Chase district, because I consider these schemes have been certified in contravention of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Of course if the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Registrar General, and who is always courteous in meeting the objections of hon. Members, will answer the points I will put before the Committee, I will be satisfied. I plead for no less than 7,000 or 8,000 workmen whose pecuniary interests are affected by the schemes. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act certain power is given to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to certify schemes whereby workmen contract out of the Act. Of the seven points on which power is given to the Registrar General I will only refer to two which affect my proposition. The first is that power was given to the Registrar General to ascertain whether a scheme is on the whole not less favourable to the workmen and their dependents than the provisions of the Act, and the second is that no scheme must contain a condition of hiring. As far as I am able to understand, both these provisions have been violated in the cases to which I will refer. It is, of course, very difficult to prove that a man is compelled to join a scheme under a condition of hiring, but the greatest objection to contracting out is that it leads to the exercise of undue influence, if not to a condition of hiring. I have evidence that in the cases with which I will deal considerable influence was brought to bear on the workmen to force them to accept the schemes. I have official correspondence which shows that, in the case of Messrs. Andrew Knowles's scheme, the colliery manager,

  1459
  when the men were coming out of the pit, actually went to the pit bank and almost forced them to go to the colliery office to sign the contracting-out form. I have similar evidence of an official character in the case of the Cannock Chase Collieries. I am not going to assert anything I cannot prove —I should be sorry to do so—but I do assert, because the correspondence proves it to be true, that in these cases undue influence was used to get the workmen to contract out. Messrs. Andrew Knowles's scheme was certified on 11th November, 1803. Under this scheme the workmen pay 3d. per week full members, 1½d. per week half members, and the employers pay the same amount as the workmen. A ballot was conducted when the scheme was first brought forward, and at it both employers and workmen were represented. The result of the ballot was 1,714 against the scheme and in favour of remaining under the Act, and 721 in favour of the scheme and against the Act. The Registrar General, according to his own statement to a deputation which I attended, has power under the Act to certify a scheme if one man in a colliery or factory or on a railway is in favour of it as against all the other men employed. I think that makes the Act ridiculous. In this case 1,714 men out of 1,950 were against the scheme; yet in face of that it was certified by the Registrar General, and the result has been that there has been nothing but friction and irritation and bad feeling at that colliery since the scheme came into operation. Now, I desire to prove to the Committee as conclusively and as clearly as I can—and I am sure I will have the sympathy of the Committee—that under these schemes the men receive from 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. less monetary advantage than they would obtain under the Act. I will quote three cases. During last summer a man was killed at Clifton Hall Colliery who had contracted out of the Act. He was a married man without a family, and a good workman, and if he had been under the Act his dependents, would have received almost the maximum amount—£300. What did his widow receive under the scheme, for which he himself paid half of the contribution? His widow received 5s. a week for seven years, or £91, and a funeral allowance of £10, making a total of £101. The men had contributed one half, leaving the employer
  1460
  to pay as compensation £50 10s. Under the Act the average obtained in Lancashire has been considerably over £200 — nearly £220. Of course it may be stated, and I agree, that this is an extreme case, but I will quote two other cases, and the three will, I think, form a fair average of what happens under this scheme. Take a man who is killed, leaving a widow and three children. The children would receive 2s. 6d. a week each for seven years, making £136 10s., the widow would receive 5s. a week for seven years, making £91, and the funeral allowance would be £10, making a total of £237 10s., of which the men's contributions amount to one half, leaving the contribution of the employer at £118 15s., whereas under the Act it would be considerably over £200 at a minimum. Take another case. Suppose a man meets with a fatal accident and leaves a widow and six children. Each child receives 2s. 6d. a week for seven years, or £273, the widow receives 5s. a week for seven years, or £91, and the funeral allowance is £10, or a total of £374, of which the men again contribute one half, leaving the employer to pay in compensation £187. Accordingly it will be seen that the benefits under this scheme are nothing like what would be received under the Act. Then with reference to the Cannock Chase scheme there are five collieries—Cannock and Readyclay, West Cannock, Brereton, Cannock Chase, and Leacroft—employing, I should think, between 2,000 and 3,000 men, and all are under one scheme, which was registered on August 17th, 1899. I have very strong evidence from the workmen that undue influence was brought to bear on them in order to get them to sign the contracting-out form. The details of the scheme are as follows:—over sixteen years 2d. per week; under sixteen years 1d. per week, employers paying an equal amount. In case of disablement a workman gets 12s. a week for the first twelve months, and 8s. a week afterwards, and for boys under sixteen half these amounts are paid. In case of a fatal accident the dependents get £150 only, the minimum under the Act, and if there are no dependents only £20 is paid. I have inquired into the matter, and I find that the committee who have charge of the distribution of the money mete it out as if it were Poor

  1461
  Law relief. I could quote eases in which, under the Act, compensation was paid under the Act as follows: £225, £165, £190, £300, £280, £210, £215, and £250, and only in March of this year, in the John Haydock Park Lane Collieries, £225 was given. It will be seen that the general average is about £230, without any payment at all from the workmen. I could, of course, quote schemes which give greater benefits than the Act, and to which no reasonable man can take exception, but in the cases which I have brought before the Committee, what I object to is that the men have been practically forced to accept the schemes if they wished to remain comfortable and at peace with the management, and to avoid irritation and friction all round. There is no mutuality at all in these two schemes. It is an open secret that when the Bill which is now the Compensation Act was before the House of Commons, 1897, there was much objection taken to such gigantic power being placed in the hands of a public official as is placed in the hands of the Registrar General. I am not finding fault at all with the impartiality and fairness of the Registrar General. In fact, from my knowledge of him, I believe him to be a very trustworthy and efficient public servant, but at the same time I believe, from information that I have received, that in these two cases he has certainly been misled, and that he signed the contracting - out certificates without full knowledge of all the circumstances. When the Bill was under discussion three years ago, strong objection was taken to this power being placed in the hands of the Registrar General. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife stated—
  "He must express his surprise that the Government had thought it worth its while to introduce this clause. They were going to put on the shoulders of the Registrar of Friendly Societies a task of enormous perplexity, for the performance of which, however skilled he might he in determining actuarial questions, neither he nor any other Government Department possessed either the necessary knowledge, the necessary experience, or the necessary judgment."
  Then I may quote also the words of a large colliery owner, the hon. Member for Preston. He said—
  "As an employer he would have nothing to do with any alternative scheme unless he
  1462
  was satisfied that the workmen of their own motion desired it."
  The hon. Member for Mid Durham realised the tremendous power which was proposed to be placed in the hands of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and its effect on the workmen. His words were as follows—
  "He asked if it were desirable that one half of the workmen should overrule the other half. Could not some arrangement be come to whereby the question could be put to the whole of the men to accept or reject the scheme."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies was one of the Gentlemen in charge of the measure during its passage through the House, and he said, in reply to the hon. Member for Mid Durham—
  "He would try to find out words, after consulting with hon. Members, which would meet the difficulty that they apprehended."
  I regret to state that the words were not found, and the difficulty was not solved. Then the Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill, said—
  "The Registrar General, a most capable and able officer, would, when a mutual scheme was brought before him, estimate the whole of the benefits under the scheme, and see that, if the workmen contributed to the scheme, there should be a quid pro quo for their subscription over and above what the employers were bound to give under the Bill."
  Now I venture to assert that when the Bill was under consideration in the House it was never dreamt that any scheme would be certified by the Registrar General that gave less benefits than the Act of Parliament. Such schemes are unfair to other employers who are bound to give compensation according to the provisions of the Act. It is for these reasons that I venture to move a reduction of this Vote. The two points I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman are, firstly, if he will give me a promise that there shall be a fair test taken at Messrs. Andrew Knowles's colliery. The Registrar General has power to order an investigation into the circumstances under which the scheme has been submitted, and I ask that a fair and impartial ballot of the men shall be taken. Secondly, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to cause an inquiry

  1463
  to be made as to whether the schemes I hare detailed are less favourable to the workmen than the provisions of the Act. These are two fair propositions, and if the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy me in them I will be quite willing to withdraw my motion. But unless I obtain reason- able satisfaction I shall, in the interests of the workmen, be bound to proceed to a Division.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Chief Registrar."—(Mr. Woods)
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot, of course, follow the hon. Member into a great deal of his speech, which, so far as I understood it, consisted of objections to some clauses in the Act. He objects, for instance, altogether to the principle of contracting-out, and also to public officials having the large powers he describes in connection with these schemes. We must take the Act as it stands, and all we can do tonight is to see whether a public official has properly carried out his duties under the Act. With regard to Mr. Brabrook, I was glad to hear the testimony of the hon. Member that he was not only a thoroughly competent, but a most fair official, and I am bound to say that is entirely my own experience. Mr. Bra-brook is thoroughly well fitted for the work imposed on him, and no man could undertake that work with a greater desire to deal fairly between employers and their workmen. It is also satisfactory to have it admitted by the hon. Gentleman that in the great majority of cases there is no cause for complaint whatever, and that what the Registrar General has done has given the workmen great satisfaction, because, as I understand, the majority of the schemes approved by him are actually better for the workmen than if they had remained under the Act itself. Then the hon. Member referred to the case of Messrs. Andrew Knowles's colliery and to the joint scheme effected in connection with the Cannock Chase collieries. The main allegation of the hon. Gentleman is that in the case of Messrs. Knowles's collieries and the Cannock Chase Collieries the schemes were forced on the men, and that great pressure was used to induce them to come in. I think,
  1464
  however, that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Mr. Brabrook could have been no party to any such pressure. Although I do not myself know anything about Messrs. Knowles's collieries, I do know something about the Cannock Chase Collieries, and I think the Cannock Chase colliers are the last men in the world to yield to pressure of that sort. I should be extremely surprised if this alleged pressure, for it amounts to very little more than hearsay report, really has existed, and after all, these things must be judged by results. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Registrar-General would exercise certain powers which he had under the Act to make sure that no such pressure was applied. Well, this is hardly the time for him to exercise those powers. I am quite sure that a man of such businesslike capacities as Mr. Brabrook would not favour any scheme in which he had the slightest suspicion that any such pressure was being brought to bear. I am quite willing to meet the hon. Gentleman on the ground of results. The hon. Gentleman spoke of many cases where, under the operation of the Act men, or their widows or representatives, had received large sums of money in cases of accident or death. It is perfectly true that in individual cases it is quite possible, under any scheme, to bring to the front particular cases of that kind.
  MR. WOODS: It is the average case in Lancashire that I spoke of.
  MR. HANBURY: Well, if the hon. Gentleman appeals to averages I am perfectly willing to meet him on that ground. I have not got the particulars with regard to Cannock Chase, but it so happens that I have them with regard to the Messrs. Knowles's collieries. In Mr. Brabrook's report I find an allusion, in a footnote in his own handwriting, to the scheme of the accident society at these collieries, to the effect that under the existing scheme the men had received £558 in compensation, that only £378 would have been payable under the Act, and that the scheme practically amounts to this—that, so far as the periods in respect of which payment was to be made under the Act went, the men had received a little over the amount they would have received if the Act had been enforced. But the advantage which

  1465
  Messrs. Knowles's workmen had under the scheme was that they had received a large amount of money for injuries which kept them from work for periods of two weeks and under. There are sometimes cases of hardship under the Act, and it is these cases that have been provided for under this scheme. On the whole, Mr. Brabrook assures me that in this very case which is put in the forefront of the argument by the hon. Gentleman the men benefited to the extent of 50 per cent. more than if they had been under the Act. I think if the hon. Member breaks down in this, his chosen instance, he must have been somewhat misled in regard to others.
  MR. WOODS: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the men's contributions?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Mr. Brabrook tells me that the men's contributions have been taken into account, and yet they have received the benefits he speaks of. I am sorry that I have not the figures as to the Cannock Chase Collieries, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me any information on the subject I shall be glad to communicate with Mr. Brabrook, and shall look into the matter. I hope the hon. Member will do Mr. Brabrook the justice to admit that if the results of this case are satisfactory it is only right that that should be acknowledged. I am sure the Registrar has brought the greatest ability and fairness of mind to bear in dealing with these schemes, and it is hardly likely that a scheme which has produced such good results to the men as has that of Messrs. Knowles could have been the outcome of any pressure whatever. It is no good trusting to rumour in these matters. After all, the best test is the results, and I have shown that this scheme has produced good results.
  MR. WOODS: I may state that when the scheme was first suggested to the men, I was asked to fully investigate the benefits which would come to the men under it and under the Act. At the men's request I accompanied them in an interview with the Registrar General, and I think we satisfied him that the benefits under the scheme were not fit to be
  1466
  put in comparison with those under the Act.
  MR. HANBURY: Well, the results have proved exactly the opposite; and that is the opinion of the Registrar General at the present moment. But I shall be happy indeed, if the hon. Member will give me further facts, to look into the case. However, I do think that on the case he has brought forward, he is hardly justified in saying that Mr. Brabrook is doing anything unfair or very wicked.
  MR. PICKAKD: Our chief complaint is not so much about the schemes, but that the Registrar General takes no trouble whatever to send anyone into the localities to make any inquiry. We say that the arbitrary power which, he uses is not at all for the good of the men, and we conclude, after two years experience, that the Government should intervene. We suggest that there should be a joint committee of employers and workmen in every mining district, and that that committee should arrange a scheme of compensation for the district. If that is not done, there are some collieries where great trouble will arise, followed, perhaps, by strikes. I am a man of peace myself, and I can only hope that the Government will try to make the schemes mutual, and put in a word for the workmen to the Registrar General. If they do not know, I know that when a scheme is once formed it is bound to go on for five years; and I trust that before any more five-years schemes are fixed some better information will be placed before the workmen. The Registrar General should not, without consulting the men, say that he approves of a scheme, and that it must be adopted. I do not consider that that is fair. When the Workmen's Compensation Act was passing through the Committee in this House the Colonial Secretary made wonderful promises. We wanted a two-thirds ballot for any scheme, but now there arc schemes in existence where the men were not consulted at all. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda Valley is not present, as it was in reply to him that the Colonial Secretary made the promises in regard to the

  1467
  schemes. None of these schemes, however, provide compensation equal to that granted under the Act. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to try and allow the men to have some little more influence with the Registrar General.
  SIR DILLWYN LLEWELYN: I know something about these schemes in South Wales, and I am equally sorry with the hon. Member for Normanton that the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division is not present to-night. In Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire the men have equal representation on the schemes with the employers, and there are a large number of men in the permanent society even though the Workmen's Compensation Act was passed, I must say that the Registrar General's schemes have been accepted by a very large number of the men, and there are now
  29,000 out of 70,000 workmen under these schemes. So well have they worked that only a fortnight ago the society was able to announce that, in accordance with the promises foreshadowed, there was a sufficient surplus to pay one hundred old-age pensions to the oldest members of 5s. per week so long as the scheme existed. But that is not the chief point. In my judgment that which principally induces the men to continue to remain in the miners' benefit societies is the compensation which is given to them dining the first fortnight after injury. I must say it is very hard to say that the men remain in these societies from any pressure whatever. They, have the full right to remain in them or go out of them if they choose, and the members of the societies are constantly increasing.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 39; Noes, 96. (Division List No. 12].)

  AYES.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Rickardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Holland, William Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbigsh.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

  Brigg John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Burt, Thomas

  Stratchey, Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Caldwell, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tanner Charles Kearns

  Crilly, Daniel

  Ure, Alexander

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Dillon, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Crae, George

  Warner, T Courtenay T.

  Doogan, P.C

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duckworth, James

  Morton E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Williams, J. carvel (Notts.)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Woods and Mr. Pickard.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flower, Ernest

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

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Foster Colonel (Lancaster)

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Curzon, Viscount

  Gedge, Sydney

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Doughty, George

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Bethell, Commander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Faber, George Denison

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Finch, George H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hardy, Laurence

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Stanley, E. James (Somerset)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Hutton, Joon (Yorks, N. R.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Strauss, Arthur

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Herton

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morgan, Hn. Fred(Monm'thsh.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.

  Murray, Charles, I. (Coventry)

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

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn Horace Curzon

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Wyndham, George

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Younger, William

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Sandon, Viscount

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100. I want to know what action the right hon. Gentleman has taken lately in regard to shop clubs. I take exception to the way in which these quasi-benefit societies arc established, and it is very necessary that some action should be taken, because lately great companies have been coming to this House, and putting in their private Bills a short clause establishing these shop clubs. There is great objection to introducing these shop clubs, and interfering in many ways with legitimate friendly societies.
  MR. HANBURY: I am not quite sure what action the Registrar General is taking with regard to this matter, and I -should like to consult him more fully.
  MR. STRACHEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman like me to raise the question on Report?
  MR. HANBURY: It would be more convenient to ask a question; but I will make full inquiry.
  MR. STRACHEY: On that understanding I will not make any motion.
  MR. WEIR: I beg leave to move to reduce the Vote by £50. I find that the Registrar General receives a salary of £800 a year and allowances. In Scotland the Registrar receives £300 a year, and he has an
  1470
  allowance for clerical assistance of £200. The Registrar in Ireland has a salary of £300 a year, and an allowance for clerical assistance of £100. I find, further, that the assistant registrars in Scotland do not give their whole time. I should like to know what other work they are engaged in, and what other offices they hold. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance that if the assistant, registrars require assistance the amount paid will be inserted in the Votes, so that we may know how the money is expended. For aught we know, the present system is simply one for sweating the juniors.
  MR. HANBURY: On the contrary, I think the system of officers employing clerks who are not in the Civil Service is a better system. We pay these officers a certain sum, and allow them to find their own assistants. That is a practice which has been growing in the Civil Service, and has been found convenient. No doubt, after all, the system of putting all these men on the Votes is a good one where the staff is large, like, for instance, the staff of the Ordnance Survey; but where yon have to deal with a totally different kind of clerk, and where the means of dealing with those clerks are not so easy as the means for dealing with the head who engages them, it is much better to trust to his discretion and let him find his own assistants. I cannot agree with the hon. Member's suggestion to revive a retrograde practice which was deliberately abandoned some years ago.
  MR. WEIR: Then with regard to what other offices the assistant registrars hold.
  MR. HANBURY: I apologise to the hon. Member. The assistant registrars both in Scotland and Ireland are practising solicitors who do not profess to give their whole time to the public service.
  MR. WEIR: Both these gentlemen are practising solicitors.
  MR. HANBURY: Yes. I think so.
  MR. CALDWELL: I think it is very much to be deprecated in the case of the assistant registrars of Scotland and Ireland that these positions should be in the hands of a lawyer. When you are dealing with what is an increasing and enlarging business, and have regard to the influence which these gentlemen have in sanctioning certain claims which are brought before them, I think the office ought to be held independently by a person who, above all, has no interest whatever, such as a practising lawyer or solicitor is bound to have who has a private business of his own. If the salary is not sufficient, make it a little larger. Instead of £300 a year, make it £400 or even £500, because after all it is not a question of money. What you want to do is to get an efficient man and one who will command confidence in the country, and I contend that that could be done without more expense. The present practice is to give a salary of £300 a year and £200 a year for clerical assistance and offices. Now, a man does not keep a clerk all the year through, and such clerical assistance as he requires he can perform himself. He has his office already for his other business, and he will not have any other room for his registrarship, so that you are practically paying £500 a year for the assistant registrar. Now, I do not know why for that same salary you could not get an assistant registrar in Scotland who would
  perform the whole work, and who would be a man without any bias and without any business of his own. Supposing a scheme comes up for approval by a. registrar, and he is a practising solicitor, the people who bring up the scheme to be sanctioned by him may be his own clients or connected with them, and how can you expect the registrar, in a case of that kind, to exercise an impartial judgment, where he may have a special interest either on one side or the other? I think it is exceedingly objectionable, and that in the future the registrars for Scotland and for Ireland should be men without any business of their own, and, above all, should not be lawyers. If a reduction is moved I shall certainly support that reduction.
  MR. WEIRexpressed his conviction that there were in Edinburgh many thoroughly competent men who could be found to perform these duties for a salary of £450 a year and, say, an allowance of £30 or £40 or £50 for an office. He could not quite see the objection which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had to the employment of solicitors, always providing; they did not practise; he knew many good lawyers who would give the whole of their time to such duties as these, and, so far as he could see, there was no objection to employing such men. It was a very bad plan to allow a man to carry on a private business as well as perform the functions of assistant registrar, and, seeing that there was a sufficient sum to provide a competent man, he was compelled, as a protest against the present system of employing such people when competent men could be obtained, to move the reduction of the vote by £50.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Item B (Salaries and Allowances, Scotland) be reduced by £50, in respect of the Salary of the Assistant Registrar in Scotland."—(Mr. Weir.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 30; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 122.)

  AYES.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Dillon, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Kilbride, Denis

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

  Williams John Carvall (Notts.)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Woods, Samuel

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Strachey, Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Weir and Mr. Caldwell.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Sandon, Viscount

  Bethell, Commander

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornw'l)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Curzon, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ure, Alexander

  Doughty, George

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Faber, George Denison

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

  Finch, George H.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wyndham, George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Flower, Ernest

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Younger, William

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'tsh.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Gedge, Sydney

  Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

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

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace C.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace C.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,778, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England."
  MR. CALDWELL: I am surprised at the Government asking for this Vote when the Report of the Commissioners for the present year has not been presented. From the last Report of the Commissioners it appears that at the present moment, owing to the want of accommodation of Broadmoor Criminal Asylum, a number of criminal lunatics have to be boarded out with the County Lunatic Asylum.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Broadmoor is not under the Lunacy Commissioners.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Lunacy Commissioners have charge of the inspection of all these different asylums, and they present a Report every year to the House of the whole of the proceedings of these asylums, and it is in their Report in connection with this that this occurs. It is part of the administration, and the foundation for this Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the want of accommodation at Broadmoor. This Vote has nothing to do with that. That is the subject of another Vote.
  MR. CALDWELLproceeded to point out that the Vote included the charge for criminal lunatics boarded in the asylums. He held that the charge ought to be in another Vote altogether. The Lunacy Commissioners had pointed out that the practice of boarding criminal lunatics in the ordinary county and burgh asylums was detrimental to the interests of the ordinary patients, and also to the discipline in the institutions. They thought, therefore, that other provision for them ought to be made. Another matter referred to by the commissioners was the question of post-mortem examinations. The Com- missioners pointed out that the percentages of post-mortem examinations were lower than they ought to be, and they referred to the circumstance that it was only by such examinations that they were able to detect whether in the case of lunatics they had not been ill-treated, The percentage for 1899 was 78, as against 79–3 in the previous year. Apart from that, there was a great discrepancy in regard to the number of post-mortem examinations. In some cases they were 95 per cent., and in other cases they were as low as 40 per cent. He asked the Attorney General whether any steps had been taken with the view of calling the attention of those concerned to the cases where the percentage was so low, in order that they might be brought up more in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners. Another point was that the percentage of the recoveries was a great deal less. It would be important to find out the cause why this had taken place. The hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities, speaking on the subject lately, had attributed a good deal of it to the want
  1476
  of care in the preliminary stages before the patients were received into the asylums at all. It was amongst the pauper lunatics that there was a certain falling off in regard to the recoveries. The boarded-out lunatics in England were very considerable in number, being; between 6,000 and 7,000. There again there was a very considerable discrepancy in the administration in different parts of the country. In Wales the number boarded out with relatives and friends was sometimes as high as 30 per cent. He thought that greater care ought to be taken with regard to this method of boarding out.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Gentleman how he connects that with this Vote.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Lunacy Commissioners have power to authorise any one to be boarded out, or to withhold their consent. There is no question about the law in the matter. They have the whole control, and they have the fixing of the rules and regulations, and it is under these rules and regulations that boarding out takes place. The hon. Member said the system of hoarding out was fraught with very considerable danger, because there was a temptation to cheapness on the side of the local authority boarding out patients. They probably got a patient boarded out at 6s. a week, 4s. of which they got from the County Government grant, so that they had practically only to make up 2s. On the other hand, with respect to the interest of the patient, it would be much better, and would tend more to his recovery, if he were retained in a proper asylum under proper supervision. How was it possible in the case-of England to have proper supervision of the 105,000 patients, of whom 6,000 were boarded out? It seemed to him that the staff was overworked. They had only six Commissioners in England to do six times, he amount of work that was done in Scotland by two Commissioners and two Deputy Commissioners. It would be a great advantage if they followed, as regards lunatic asylums, the course followed in connection with factories and workshops, lamely, that an abstract of that part of he law which relates to the powers and methods by which a patient might communicate with the superior authority

  1477
  should he tabulated in such a way that every patient might be able to see it for himself. There was a feeling that there was a want of careful inquiry when any complaint was made. There should be more inquiry, and men ought to be appointed for the purpose. They could get very good medical men in England as Deputy Commissioners for £600 a year each. A few men of that kind would cost a mere bagatelle compared with the enormous expense lunacy created. The Commissioners in their Report pointed out that there was a lack of asylum accommodation all over, and that being so, there was a great temptation on the part of the authorities to board out patients. The question of asylum accommodation should receive more attention than had yet been given to it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The first point raised was with regard to the allowance for travelling expenses. The Commissioners have a very great deal of travelling to do, and the scale of payment is only 30s. a night for expenses. If the hon. Member has regard to the amount of travelling they have to do, I think he will see that it does not come to anything at all excessive. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to a number of points. I think he has ranged over the whole subject of the treatment of lunatics, whether it directly related to the duties of the Commissioners or not. He complained that Broadmoor is too small. If it is too small, that is not the fault of the Commissioners. Another thing he complained of was that the number of post mortem examinations was too small. That is determined by the circumstances of the particular cases. I do not think any fixed standard could be adopted. He complained that the percentage of the recoveries of lunatics was getting small. I do not think the hon. Member at all established that. He supplied the Committee with no statistics whatever, but if it be the case I cannot think he has found the true explanation. He suggests that the want of an adequate percentage in the cases of recovery is due, to there being not enough care before the patient is admitted to the asylum. If that is so, it is not the fault of the Commissioners, and I do not think there is
  1478
  anything whatever to show that the percentage of cases treated for any lengthened time at home before admission to an asylum is increasing. I think it is very much the other way. If it be the case that the percentage of recoveries is decreasing it must be due to other causes, and may be accounted for by the strain of modern life, which we all know is ever increasing. The hon. Gentleman was very severe on the system of boarding out. I would remind him that there are really two sides to this. It depends very much on the nature of the ease, and I can quite understand that it may be very much better for a person. afflicted with insanity to be boarded with friends if he would be very kindly and judiciously treated. The hon. Member said the number of Commissioners was too-small, and he endeavoured to establish that by reference to Scotland, where there are two Commissioners and two Sub-commissioners. The conditions of inspections in Scotland are very different from those in England. An inspection in the Highlands and Islands necessarily takes a very much greater amount of time, and there must be a great deal of travelling to the cases inspected. One can understand how a larger staff in proportion to the population is required there than in England, where the facilities for travelling are necessarily greater. The hon. Gentleman complained that inquiries are not adequately con-ducted, and suggested the appointment of additional staff-assistant Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiries. The Commissioners exercise their discretion in this matter. They make such inquiry as they think fit, and I really do not think, with all respect to the hon. Member, that he has brought before the Committee any substantial evidence that these inquiries are inadequately done. The only other matter he suggested was that lunatics should be invited to study the law of lunacy, and that an abstract should be hung up in every room. If anything could be calculated to make slight cases serious and serious cases absolutely incurable, it would be a study of the law of lunacy.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid lunatics had certain rights by Act of Parliament, and surely there was nothing unreasonable in suggesting that notices should be put up

  1479
  to let them know what these rights were. If the answer given by the Attorney General was what they were to get, there was no use discussing the matter at all. As regards post mortem examinations, he simply called attention to what the Commissioners stated in their Report, and the Attorney General in his reply had argued against his own Commissioners. In dealing with the question of recoveries, he referred to what the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities had said, but the Attorney General had, in reply, acted on the footing that he had come forward with certain statements of his own motion. If the Commissioners gave them a Report it ought to receive the attention of the Government, but here they found the Attorney General got up and argued
  1480
  that the Commissioners were actually wrong in every particular. He ventured to think that the hon. Gentleman could not have furnished a better argument for a reduction of the salaries of these men than he had done by traversing their report on every point.
  It being midnight the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.

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 Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
North-Eastern Railway [H.L.]—(Petition for additional Provision).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON AND SAN FRANCISCO BANK BILL [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given on Monday last); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.] (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION).
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    WIRRALL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Reported with Amendments.
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
    Reported without amendment.
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bills the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on Table. The Orders made on the 2nd of March and 6th of April last discharged; and Bill committed.
    SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Leave given to Select Committee not to sit on Monday until half-past One o'clock.
ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]

    COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
    NEATH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

    GRANTHAM GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    NORTH METROPOLITAN RAILWAY AND CANAL BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

    RAILWAYS (IRELAND) AMALGAMATION BILLS.
    A message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room B on Friday next, at Two o'clock.
    Moved, That in the case of the following Bills:—
    Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [H.L.],
    Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill [H.L.],
    Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [H.L.],
    the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against the said Bills be extended to Friday the 18th instant (The Chairman of Committees); agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.

    CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection proposing that the Lords following be

    1355
    named of the Select Committee to join with the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the said Bills, viz.:—

    V. Llandaff,

    L. Welby,

    L. Wenlock,

    L. Pirbright;

    considered (according to Order), and agreed to. Ordered that such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a chairman. Then a message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons, in answer to their message of the 6th April last, to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House, and to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Thursday next, at Two o'clock.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.]

    MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    WORKINGTON RAILWAYS AND DOCKS BILL [H.L.].
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD 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, viz.:—

    E. Strange (D.Atholl),

    L. Lawrence,

    L. Aberdare,

    L. Crawshaw,

    L. Newton (chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with
    1356
    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.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
    Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland; with appendix, 1899–1900. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    INDIA (ESTIMATES).
    1. Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India for the year 1899–1900 compared with the results of 1898–99.

    2. Home Accounts of the Government of India.

    3. Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for the year 1898–99.

    GAS COMPANIES (METROPOLIS).
    Accounts of the Metropolitan Gas Companies for the year 1899.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    MUNICIPAL TRADING.
    A message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room on Thursday next, at Three o'clock.
NEW BILLS.
  MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Marriage Act, 1822—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 71.)

  UNION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1860, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to extend the operation of the Union of Benefices Act, 1860—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 72.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.